For the past three weeks the Nuclear Non Proliferation treaty (NPT) review conference has been held at the UN HQ in New York.

It is the most important conference of the year so far but has received minimal media coverage.

Let us hope the British media can at last give attention to this conference and the political nuclear fallout that will arise from the belligerently bigoted determination of the nuclear weapons powers to retain their self-appointed right to proliferate these weapons through so-called “modernisation,” while simultaneously berating and bullying all other states to refrain from seeking their own nuclear weapons.

South Africa was arguably the most robust in excoriating the self-appointed nuclear weapons bullies — Britain, US, Russia, France and China — for their arrogant, insane and myopic determination to retain their vainglorious status.

South Africa’s disarmament ambassador Abdul Minty, told the NPT meeting on May 13: “What does this then mean for the commitments made by many leaders to eliminate nuclear weapons? We should instead be saying that despite these calls, we have failed in our supreme responsibility to all of humanity, which all of us hold.

“If we seek to remove ‘under any circumstances,’ then the question is why do those that have them still want to assert their right to use them under some circumstances?

“We therefore ask, under what circumstances do they still want to use them? What kind of threats do they want to counter? We are all part of the same world and so we have a right to ask these questions.

“The wider question then becomes, who gives the nuclear weapons States (NWS) the right to use these weapons to annihilate all of us — simply because their perceptions may be wrong, or they may be reacting to perceived threats, which do not exist to the magnitude that they assess?”

He added later: “Why is it that only the security of the five requires nuclear weapons, whilst no-one else needs nuclear weapons for their security? If the truth is that no-one’s security needs nuclear weapons, then all of our security is enhanced by getting rid of nuclear weapons.”

Here are the words of US Secretary of State John Kerry in his address to the 190-member state NPT Review Conference when it opened at the UN on April 27.

“For over 45 years, the NPT has embodied our shared vision of a world without nuclear weapons ... it is only by seeking common ground and reinforcing shared interests that we will succeed in realising a world free of nuclear dangers. When I was a young man, fresh out of college and newly minted in the navy, I was sent to train at the nuclear chemical biological warfare school. And I learned in graphic detail about what nuclear war would look like, about the damage that weapons of mass destruction can inflict. I learned about throw weights and circles of probable damage. And I learned about radiation — not just the immediate harm but the long-term trauma that it can cause. And when I considered the huge number of nuclear weapons that we were living with back then — late 1960s — I was left with only one conclusion. This defies all reason.”

On the next day, the US government released new information about the size of its nuclear weapons stockpile.

Kerry updated the Department of Defence (DoD) nuclear stockpile history by declaring that the stockpile as of September 2014 included 4,717 nuclear warheads — a reduction by 87 since September 2013. This comprises a reduction by about 500 warheads retired since President Obama took office in January 2009.

Kerry also revealed for the first time the official number of retired nuclear warheads in line for dismantlement as 2,500, which are still relatively intact and deployable.

Moreover, he also assured that the Obama administration “will seek to accelerate the dismantlement of retired nuclear warheads by 20 per cent” adding: “Over the last 20 years alone we have dismantled 10,251 warheads.”

All of this adds up to an important unilateral diplomatic gesture by Britain’s closest political ally, which also provides Britain with its nuclear missiles, warhead designs and calibrations, and nuclear safety research and development support for Trident.

It is a very important piece of international news but not for the British print or broadcast media.

Only Twitter has done this diplomatic development justice.

What does that say about the news values of the media in Britain, which instead has swamped viewers, listeners and readers with hours and pages of political trivia and tittle-tattle for weeks?

The issue of Trident has only been discussed in the media as part of the mischief-making over whether the Scottish National Party (SNP), which opposes Trident and wants it dismantled, would cosy up to Labour in a post-election political pact.

Publicly, the main political parties have given the impression they all want to replace Trident with a vastly expensive — 100 billion pounds over its operational lifetime — Successor programme.

Labour’s departed leader Ed Miliband asserted in the BBC Question Time TV leaders’ debate with the audience in Leeds: “I’m not going to give in to SNP demands around Trident.”

Later that night, former Conservative defence secretary Michael Portillo slammed the notion of Trident replacement, when appearing on BBC This Week by asserting: “A former defence secretary and some generals [this week] wrote a letter demanding the renewal of the Trident nuclear weapons programme. You’re probably familiar with these men who are worried about their own virility and buy large sports cars, and this I think is a case in point. Our independent nuclear deterrent is not independent and doesn’t constitute a deterrent against anybody that we regard as an enemy. It is a waste of money and it is a diversion of funds that might otherwise be spent on perfectly useful and useable weapons and troops. But some people have not caught up with this reality.”

Moreover, in a parliamentary debate on January 20 on the Trident programme the current Tory defence secretary Michael Fallon told MPs: “We also share the vision of a world that is without nuclear weapons, achieved through multilateral disarmament.”

Why have these issues been ignored by the mainstream media? In whose interests is this smooth run to making huge profits from the taxpayer by arms sales company BAE Systems, which would build the replacement submarines for Trident?

True to form the day after the Tory the victory BAE share value soared. For the City, immoral nuclear weapons are massive profit makers. But who cares?

• Dr David Lowry is former director of European Proliferation Information Centre (EPIC)