That's interesting. It's hard to tell what the actual reason is, which is bad. I'm skeptical of UN treaties in general, but I think if the US doesn't sign it should say why, clearly and proudly. It's tricky, though, because I imagine Bush and Clinton have different reasons for reaching the same conclusion of not signing.
As noted in GP: the US did sign in 1995 -- it is therefore impossible to give a reason for not signing it. It hasn't been submitted for ratification, likely because there have always been more than a 1/3 of the Senate that could be counted on to vote against it making it unratifiable.
