What's new

Australian Defence Minister says no to Pakistan

Trust me when I say that Australia would love to sell uranium to Pakistan. Its not about religion, ethnicity or any other factor. Australia is all about making money, we would prefer the whole world to buy our uranium if the conditions were right. No India is not a signatory of the NPT but it has set off down that path and has done enough currently to adhere to international safeguards. Another condition is that no country is to use Australian uranium as part of their weapons programs. The safeguards in place demand export partners account for every amount of radioactive material at all stages throughout the nuclear fuel cycle.
India and all export partners agree with this and have sufficient transparent checks in place.
As far as race is concerned thats just plain wrong. Australia also sells to China and Russia, if Australia was such a lapdog of the US dont you think the "mighty slave master" might have something to say about this?
With the timing Developereo there is no conspiracy there. The current ruling party holds an annual event where they debate of policies moving forward. This was just one agenda item.
On the question of not selling to Pakistan it really is a practical decision. Practical in that question marks hover over the security of its current stockpile and the transparency of current processes. Also Pakistan is guilty of nuclear proliferation and it doesnt help when your ex foreign minister tells the world Pakistan's weapons are not safe.
So its not a conspiracy, its not based on religion, its just the state of play in today's Pakistan.
 
If the US was chasing partners based on their "economic potential", they would dump India in a microsecond and embrace China instead, since the latter has much higher per-capita GDP and is far better positioned to consume American products.

LoL, you got it all wrong. China may have a higher GDP but it is necessarily not a good trading partner for US or Europe. Primarily because China is scanvenging the economy in these countries by IP disregards on the technology side (money stolen is also money earned. Is it not :) ) and also because of the naturally lower cost of manufacturing clubbed with the currency manipulation and subsidizing. So US is a net loser in embracing China as a business partner because they will just be increasing their current account deficit for times to come.

India on the other hand has respected IPs so technology transfer is safe + also due to the free market currency adjustment the levels reflect the real competency of the economy and hence removes the chances of unfair play. So in short, US has as much a chance of being a competitive supplier of goods and services to India as India is to US. All that is left to create is efficient cost of manufacturing. This stands for other European economies too. China will just contine to sell semi or incremental value added goods to you till the cows come home. Pakistan is anyway finding that out. So India is a better potential business partner.

The timing of the Australian decision speaks volumes. It happened right after a series of close meeting between Obama and Australia's Gillard. It happened one day before Obama's visit to Australia to formalize a much larger US military presence in Australia aimed at China.

Timing = Of course it speaks a lot. It actually gives away the whole plot. It is US cajoling that has worked to make Australia budge and accomodate Indian interests. But that says nothing about economic interests in the nuclear deal not being paramounts. As I submitted to your wisdom earlier, geo-political interests will follow. Everyone wants to enusre that the critical supplier or critical customer stays healthy.


India's economy didn't just jump volumes in that one day; the decision had everything to do with American power-play against China.

Of course, India's economy did not jump in one day. There were fundamentals to be prepared and then there had to be proper encashment of the opportunity. What do you think was India doing for all the past 60 + years of Independence? Perseverance has clearly paid. US which was itching to deliver a blow to an un-cooperative :) India is now longing to make it a partner. Ahh... so much has changed.

The US and others are supporting India precisely because no one takes India's rise seriously enough to consider it a worthy challenger. Hence the US is propping it up as a deputy sheriff to keep China busy and, Indian ego being what it is, India is doing exactly what the US wants it to do in Asia Pacific.

Taking India seriously is individual perspective and subjective of past experiences. We are indeed cunning and lala and deceptive and poor and weak and one blow at the right place could "set us right". Not much India can do there. I mean to be taken seriously. Right?

And it is funny that you would talk about proxies here. :) Proxies of the type = Your enemy is my enemy, your friend is my friend.... Well, what can one say..all that honey is too sweet for me1
 
And in case of India several sales of military equipment to Pakistan you did the same and in many cases the result was positive for Pakistan. So... :lol:

so now you diverting!!!..eh..
you said once but i proved thrice;)
 
Well following "neighbors" once in a while isn't something bad. :D

Yeah, specially when trying to get more Aid and money :) . The region is not safe without that world being generous on its pockets seemingly.
 
That line is always good for a laugh.

For the longest time, the Indians here were high and mighty about "hindi chini bhai bhai" and a joint Asian century against the evil West. Problems with China were minor irritants which would be worked out in due time.

I don't know that they were but anyone can be blinded by naivety. I can tell you that a lot of Indians including myself have admired China for its meteoric rise & many wish that India & China can be friends in a shared Asian century. However it has been made abundantly clear by the Chinese that they are not interested in any shared asian century but are focused on making it a solely Chinese century. While there is nothing particularly wrong with that desire, it has resulted in actions that seem designed to show India her place through some aggressive moves (something that was commented upon by our PM a couple of years back). The choice for India is stark, either accept Chinese dominance & choose a position of subservience (not even sure that would work, the Chinese might still see us as a threat that needs to be nipped in the bud) or take the steps necessary to protect our interests. We have come to the conclusion that the Chinese see the Indian growth story & India's rise as somehow interloping on the great Chinese story(& it is great). Since we have no desire to remain mired in economic gloom & want to rise irregardless of how the Chinese might look askance at it, we take our steps accordingly. It is not new, our defence minister of 10 years ago, George Fernandes made this point at that time. It takes time for a lot of ordinary people to catch up to the twist in the story, as it were.

Now that the Indian government and media has come out swinging against China -- just after Hillary asked them to "look east" and be more assertive -- we see Indians beating their chests about confronting China and justifying the confrontation as being in India's interests.

Yup & yeah it is in our interests to hold our position.
 
India on the other hand has respected IPs so technology transfer is safe + also due to the free market currency adjustment the levels reflect the real competency of the economy

The argument about IP is not valid; most people in the West see all of Asia (except Japan) as a piracy problem. India does not have any kind of special reputation for honesty.

As for 'real competency', that again is not a valid argument. Except for some sensationalist analysts looking to sell books and articles about China's imminent collapse, most Westerners are perfectly comfortable with China's finances. Companies would not relocate their business processes to a country they felt was going to 'collapse' soon.

What do you think was India doing for all the past 60 + years of Independence? Perseverance has clearly paid.

Australia reversed a previous administration's decision to sell uranium to India in 2007. The economic equation didn't change that drastically in four years. Especially since Australia is doing extremely well and the economy is not under pressure.

Taking India seriously is individual perspective and subjective of past experiences.

What I meant is that if the situation was reversed and India was in a decisive lead much ahead of China, then the West would be helping China to contain India. All this talk of democracies is meaningless.

Proxies of the type = Your enemy is my enemy, your friend is my friend....

I know this is the Indian narrative about Pak-China but, as we keep pointing out and you guys keep ignoring, that relationship has many legs. Not everything in the region revolves around India.
 
I heard that auztralia is secretly developing nuclear weapons for antartica because the yanks are on freindly terms with dem dang dum pengans becuz da penguins will fight da muslims and dat penguins are da white like the auztralian govnors.

Thats what de developer orea dang told me and he came from pakstralia.

Penguins

penguinwhite.jpg


John Howard

Darktimesbegin.jpg


Developeroreo

images
 
Pakistanis are putting argument that US is using India. But well we haven't fought any war for them. we haven't lost our men, women and sovergeinity to anyone. India conducts are consistent with her stated policies.
 
I know this is the Indian narrative about Pak-China but, as we keep pointing out and you guys keep ignoring, that relationship has many legs. Not everything in the region revolves around India.

True, as does the Indian relationship with the U.S. China & Pakistan are just two factors in a relationship with many facets primarlily economic & cultural. As the India middle class has grown & as the memory of British colonialism starts to fade into history, the bulk of the Indian opinion has slowly moved in favour of the U.S. It might be difficult thing for you to swallow but Indians generally like the United states & its people as evinced in numerous surveys. It is not like Pakistan, where it is only the government that wants to be close to the U.S. while the masses harbour intense dislike for it. The U.S. is not seen as a threat, in any case not as sharp a threat as the Chinese & these feelings will only grow deeper. Take George Bush for example. Whatever the world thinks of him & his faults, we in India will always have a high opinion of him simply because he went out on a limb for us. The world's problems are their own, what concerns is our interests which are primarily economic. The military part of India's rise is primarily to protect India's economic position & not necessarily to impose military will over others . We are a status quo power, we want nothing from any other country, not from China & not from Pakistan. The fact is that much of Asia sees us as a benign power which they regard as being non-threatening to their own interests. It is why Australia in the end did a volte face on the nuclear issue. It is why other countries of Asia, including Japan, Vietnam, south Korea, Singapore & now even Myanmar invite India into their own backyards.
 
The argument about IP is not valid; most people in the West see all of Asia (except Japan) as a piracy problem. India does not have any kind of special reputation for honesty.

As for 'real competency', that again is not a valid argument. Except for some sensationalist analysts looking to sell books and articles about China's imminent collapse, most Westerners are perfectly comfortable with China's finances. Companies would not relocate their business processes to a country they felt was going to 'collapse' soon.

LoL, you got to take my word on this. I do a few million Euros annual in China. Gonna be in Beijing over this weekend. You could ask someone to check if you want. It is a serious situation with the IP. Case in point, just read up on it a little bit but I will give you a lead = The party wanted innovative automobile manufacturing technology to come to China. So some local guys = Geely etc. were advised to tie up with European car manufacturers to work on the project. Based on the past experience, what did the Europeans do? They did not bring any new platform to the project but actually used an existing platform to develop a cheaper version of a car. End result = Geely and co. are crying hoarse because now with the new car purchase subsidy gone and the steam out of the new automobile purchases, these new variants will now compete with the copied versions of Japanese cars produced by Geely. It is really complicated out there bro. The western businesses have learnt from their TOT agreements with the Ministry of Light Industries in the 1980s. The money on the table on the first day is all they got for their knowledge transfer. Not a penny more. :)

Australia reversed a previous administration's decision to sell uranium to India in 2007. The economic equation didn't change that drastically in four years. Especially since Australia is doing extremely well and the economy is not under pressure.

Again, Aussies are a primary economy. They are exporting raw materials and value addition within the economy is not competitive so value added goods are imported. This anyway is leading to a services led economy being developed and that is not the safest thing to bank up on. The focus in Australia is to develop technology so that a competency can be derived in the otherwise - rapidly turning - generic market. So there are things to read between the lines there too.

What I meant is that if the situation was reversed and India was in a decisive lead much ahead of China, then the West would be helping China to contain India. All this talk of democracies is meaningless.

Of course the world will always try to ensure that there is no polarization of wealth. If India was ahead, there would be attempts to ensure that the wealth is shared with the nations that India is doing business with. But that does not in any way means that the "containment" of the type that you are talking about would have been executed. It is conjecture and nothing factual points in that direction.

I know this is the Indian narrative about Pak-China but, as we keep pointing out and you guys keep ignoring, that relationship has many legs. Not everything in the region revolves around India.

LoL, can you name just one. I mean just one leg of the relationship where it is prudent for Pakistan to accept China's brotherly love which could yield higher ROI than any other viable alternative available in the long term?

I mean non-Indian centric :)
 
Isnt it obvious? Pakistan is going to raise the issue because thats plain duplicity on part of these nations including the US.
We are very well aware of the fact that Australia isnt going to sale anything yet alone Uranium to Pakistan, and that is exactly our point and the reason why we continue to block any progress on FMCT.

How come deciding who to do trade with and who NOT to do trade with is duplicity ?
 
The safeguards in place demand export partners account for every amount of radioactive material at all stages throughout the nuclear fuel cycle.
India and all export partners agree with this and have sufficient transparent checks in place.

http://zeenews.**********/news/world/sale-of-uranium-to-india-will-violate-treaty_744422.html

"Australia would be in breach of the so-called Rarotonga Treaty, if India does not change its stand," Donald Rothwell of Australian National University said in a written legal opinion.

The Rarotonga Treaty bans uranium sales to most countries unless they agree to "full-scope safeguards" defined by the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.
[...]
Australia's nuclear agreements with Russia and China do not require the same level of safeguards as these countries were recognised as "nuclear weapon states" by the NPT.


So Australia has replaced formal treaty clauses with vague, subjective, self-serving hand-waving. We have substituted a principled stance based on formal treaty obligations with a subjective process.

So its not a conspiracy, its not based on religion, its just the state of play in today's Pakistan.

Did anyone bring race or religion into this?

As for America, the timing cannot be shrugged away. Only the wilfully blind will continue to believe an important event like Obama extending the military base and highly influential think tanks in US, Aus and India suggesting trilateral partnership -- both aimed explicitly at China -- are not related to the uranium decision.
 
Back
Top Bottom