Australian Defence Minister says no to Pakistan

[karan.1970]

Of course you don't see the duplicity because the beneficiary on the other hand is India. So i don't expect you to see. India like Pakistan is not a signatory of anything which makes it no better then Pakistan for any waiver yet there India is with one. So by all standards its duplicity on the part of these nations not India because India is doing whats in its interests and getting the best out of it. Hope you get my point.

India does not have AQ Khan.. Neither does it have international terror groups operating at will in its boundaries.. These 2 factors contribute to 90% of the reason why Pakistan is denied the waiver. No duplicity there. At the end of the day, treaties etc are also made to ensure a certain behavior from the signatory nations. In case of India, the other members of NSG are sure that India will exhibit that behavior even without the implementation of treaty. In case of Pakistan they are not.. Pretty simple actually... And I can understand that being on the receiving end, it would seem unfair to you.. However, you should not link it up with the waiver for India but try and get that waiver on Pakistan's own merits. That way it wont look like a case of entitlement mentality..

India and Pakistan have been dehyphenated long back in the eyes of the west.

 

[Mav3rick]

Slaves will be denied request...friend's request will be accepted. If you cant get this right into your long brain then compare it with your facebook account.

Does that mean that you are slaves and we are friends of Russia as they did not heed your request to stop selling us RD-93 Engines, you braindead moron!

 

[karan.1970]

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.

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.

Looks like conjecture to me.. And coming from a country which has leased out its military bases to USA and allows USA to drone attack its territory at will is what I really call duplicity.. No ??

---------- Post added at 03:41 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:40 PM ----------

We should not follow Indian trait- specially of whining and complaining-

Angoor Khatte hain >???

 

[Mav3rick]

India does not have AQ Khan.. Neither does it have international terror groups operating at will in its boundaries.. These 2 factors contribute to 90% of the reason why Pakistan is denied the waiver. No duplicity there. At the end of the day, treaties etc are also made to ensure a certain behavior from the signatory nations. In case of India, the other members of NSG are sure that India will exhibit that behavior even without the implementation of treaty. In case of Pakistan they are not.. Pretty simple actually... And I can understand that being on the receiving end, it would seem unfair to you.. However, you should not link it up with the waiver for India but try and get that waiver on Pakistan's own merits. That way it wont look like a case of entitlement mentality..

India and Pakistan have been dehyphenated long back in the eyes of the west.

Today's so called terrorists are yesterday's heroes and may well be tomorrow's heroes again, time changes for everyone.

 

[karan.1970]

Well following "neighbors" once in a while isn't something bad.

What was that about a Kaovva and a Hanss ??

 

[Developereo]

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.

Well, clearly then, you weren't one of those singing the Asian century tune before. My point was that there was a false image of "hindi chini bhai bhai" being promoted by a lot of Indians here which has changed drastically of late.

 

[POPS]

Does that mean that you are slaves and we are friends of Russia as they did not heed your request to stop selling us RD-93 Engines, you braindead moron!

Hey mavrick its not owr policy as to what are you saying but anyhow you will denay it & i might get an infaraction if i answer you in your language so freind enjoy the goodies till they are there

 

[karan.1970]

Today's so called terrorists are yesterday's heroes and may well be tomorrow's heroes again, time changes for everyone.

Sure.. But the decision to not sell Uranium to Pakistan is a decision of today, and the reasons to that is what we were discussing. The ideological thought process of Good terrorist and bad terrorist is kind of off topic here

 

[Bang Galore]

Well, clearly then, you weren't one of those singing the Asian century tune before. My point was that there was a false image of "hindi chini bhai bhai" being promoted by a lot of Indians here which has changed drastically of late.

I don't doubt there were many such, both in the forum & outside but mindsets change with the facts. The Indo-U.S. relationship is not being directed against China in a vacuum. The Chinese have for the last few years taken some sharp positions on the border dispute & in our view, attempted to browbeat us. Even recently, when the U.S. wanted a trilateral, the Chinese dismissed it by calling us a lesser power. Why then, is anyone surprised by the change in the Indian position? It is not like Indians are creating problems where none exist, problems exist & India has decided to hold her own & for that purpose the American stand suits us perfectly.

 

[Developereo]

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.

I think you will find that Pakistanis make a distinction between American administration policies and ordinary people. If you are talking only about American administration then, of course, Indians would have a favorable opinion precisely because of the reasons you gave.

As for being a peaceful power, that is what all rising powers say. No one claims they want to be a hegemon. Everyone only claims to protect their interests but the problem is precisely that these interests are often disputed. India is no different than any other country in that respect, past, present or future.

 

[Areesh]

What was that about a Kaovva and a Hanss ??

It's about "diplomacy" which some Indians try to teach us about.

 

[Bobshouse]

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.

Thats one way to look at it and there is probably an element of true to it. Legal matters and points of law can always be debated but in the end the decision was made based on what India has done and what it has set in motion to do. India will sign up to the protocols so its a preemptive move. Not everybody agrees with the export and it was a passionate debate but India signing up the the NPT is pending



Did anyone bring race or religion into this?
Some dude named Omar1984
he says
"If india was an Islamic nation with a Muslim majority, they would never allow you to have these uranium"
and
"Australia is nothing more than another zionist-supporting country made up of white european invaders"

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.

Yep it was, its called the ALP annual convention. It happens as the name suggests every years. The exportation of uranium was years in the making with ground work done by the previous government. This was not even the most prominent topic of the debate, that went to gay marriage as you might have read in other posts

 

[Areesh]

Yeah, specially when trying to get more Aid and money . The region is not safe without that world being generous on its pockets seemingly.

Well that's what you think. As I said your upbringing in your native country seems to be the only reason for me.

 

[Fracker]

BUT Pakistan don't need any uranium import, and even if they required (which i don't think so), pakistan has better and close fellows who will happily export uranium to Pakistan. That's looks pretty stupid from Aus side to say the NO for something which haven't been asked from them.

 

[Bang Galore]

As for being a peaceful power, that is what all rising powers say. No one claims they want to be a hegemon. Everyone only claims to protect their interests but the problem is precisely that these interests are often disputed. India is no different than any other country in that respect, past, present or future.

Can't disagree but what I said was that India is a status quo power, does not seek what others have physically. China, on the other hand has had issues where it has tried to muscle its way to a solution or threaten others with that muscle. Even with Pakistan, the refrain from you guys is that the staus quo is unacceptable & needs changing, not that India wants anything physical from you. Same with the Chinese claim on Arunachal Pradesh. India has made no attempts to physically alter the border & looks for an overall settlement on presently held lines. Which is the reason that few others fear a status quo power regardless of whether they have any particular fondness for it.

I think you will find that Pakistanis make a distinction between American administration policies and ordinary people.

Not really true. If that were the case, the American people would never be attacked for the policies followed by the government & I have been here enough to realise that many Pakistanis make no such distinction with either Indians, Americans or even the Israelis. Difficult to make that distinction anyways unless they know people personally.