With all due respect
(not that there's a lot to be had, you understand) this reminds me of something I dredged up in Reely Trooly Ancient History, about something called The Paris Declaration Respecting Maritime Law of 16 April 1856, between the United Kingdom and France, and a group of other naval powers, when these naval powers agreed to ban privateering, that is granting private individuals with ships "Letters of Marque" during wartime permitting them to undertake commerce raiding. And the United States refused to sign, claiming that it would unduly prejudice them in times of war because their navy was so small.
Come the US Civil War, and President Lincoln sent an emissary hot-foot to London to accede to it, claiming it was necessary because the Confederates were eating the Union's lunch with their privateering commerce raiders ... I don't think the Foreign Office - the depositary of ratifications and accessions - was too impressed, and the last I read, the US still wasn't a signatory but had decided to treat it as read, and bind itself by the Paris Declaration.
In short, Uncle Sam will always insist that signing anything will unduly prejudice its own freedom of action, right up to the point when some rival starts eating its lunch because it too refuses to give up its freedom of action, at which point, Uncle Sam gives an award-winning impression of a spoilt child throwing a tantrum because it's not getting its own way - But you promised!!!!
Perhaps someone should give Uncle Sam such an award .... :)
Biting the hand that feeds IT
