Gillard's push for uranium sales to India

[Hafizzz]

Complete ignorance on your part !!
india tested prototype nuclear device way back in 1974. At that time, INDIA had other grave things like green revolution etc in mind to feed the masses. SO, the plans for furthur development was shelved. It was primarily due to INdia's test that NPT was developed in first place !!

The West PROLIFERATED Nuke technology to India :

Candu: The Canadian Nuclear Reactor | CBC Archives


An uninvited guest has joined the nuclear club, and fingers are
pointing at Canada. On May 18th 1974, India detonates a 12-kiloton
nuclear explosive in the Rajasthan desert. It was built using
plutonium from a research reactor donated by Canada in 1956. The
explosion prompts fierce criticism of Canada's nuclear exports, and a
wall of excuses from officials in both Canada and India. Canadian
officials say they couldn't stop it. India denies it was even a bomb.

The nuclear device was built using plutonium obtained from the
40-megawatt Cirus research reactor, a gift from Canada. It was donated
under the Commonweath "Colombo Plan" aid program, which sought to
promote economic and social development in South and Southeast Asia.
The gift helped pave the way for future reactor sales: Canada sold
India two Candu reactors (in 1963 and 1966), and they now have a
number of Candu clones.

The Cirus reactor (which was not a Candu) was modeled on the Chalk
River NRX reactor. It was donated on the condition that it only be
used for peaceful purposes – so India claimed their 1974 explosion was
"peaceful" and would help them in industries such as mining.
India referred to the device as the "Peaceful Nuclear Explosive" or
PNE. It was also called "Smiling Buddha."

 

[ramu]

Wanting others to recognise India as a Rising Power doesn't not mean India is one. India has to work towards it and not beg or nag other to recognise her as one.

If you dont wish to be someone, you will never be that someone. And just wishing is not the end to itself, the proof of the pudding is in eating.

India was always bracketed with Pakistan all through 6 decades since independence. India did not like that one bit just like how Pakistan does not like the term Af- Pak today. Things have changed for India now. Pakistan is not treated in the same plane as India and that my friend is international acknowledgment that we are in a different plane. It is not chest thumping but it is simple vindication of ground realities.

 

[janon]

The West PROLIFERATED Nuke technology to India :

Now you have shifted goalposts. You said "Uncle Sam" proliferated nuclear tech to India. Then found a link that says Canada did it, and then changed your words from uncle sam to "the west". Can you tell me when USA proliferated nuclear tech to india? And I hope you knwo what proliferate means.

 

[IndoCarib]

Since 1990, however, as Indian productivity improved through an emphasis on education and more consistent pro-market policies, and its leading corporations became globally competitive, that country's GDP rose to a level that is now 50 per cent greater than ours.

In simple terms, we are still in the same weight class and our trade arrangements reflect this. Of course, should the Indian economy continue to grow at about 8 per cent annually, or five percentage points higher than the average forecast for Australia into the decades ahead, then in 2050 India will be 10 times our economic size and with a population still 50 times greater.

That India is on its way to being a top-three economy, alongside the US and China, during the first half of this century seems broadly accepted.

GDP growth requires access to affordable ubiquitous energy, a topic of headline relevance in both countries. As the former president of India wrote recently in an opinion piece: "Energy is the most fundamental requirement of every society or nation as it progresses through the ladder of development. Of course, once it reaches a relative degree of development, the energy demand becomes more stable. There is a distinct and categorical correlation between the energy consumption and income of a nation, each reinforcing the other. Look around you: every step into progress comes with an addition of demand for energy: cars, ships and aircraft to move, hospitals to give quality healthcare, education, as it follows the model of e-connectivity, production of more and better goods, irrigation for better farming. In fact, every element of our lives is increasingly going to become energy intensive; that is a necessary prerequisite for development."

Today the average Australian consumes 15 times the energy consumed by an average Indian. At mid-century, this ratio will reduce to about three as Indian society approaches Western levels of affluence but without our energy profligacy.

So energy strategy matters, to meet the demand of households and to power businesses in a strongly growing economy. It is no surprise to learn the sidebar conversations at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting recently focused on the fuels of coal, liquefied natural gas and uranium (and, yes, copper and iron ore).

India's approach to electricity generation reflects a sensibly diverse range of platforms: coal, gas, hydro, nuclear and substantial investments in solar and wind energy. But it may be in the area of nuclear power that its ambitions are greatest.

Today, India has 20 reactors producing less than 3 per cent of its electricity needs. The national goal is to deliver 25 per cent nuclear electricity by 2050. If achieved by the third biggest economy at mid-century, this implies hundreds of gigawatt scale reactors, each comparable to the largest of our coal-fired power stations: an outcome perhaps more dramatic even than contemplated by China.

The drivers of such a plan include capacity building to support a surging economy, providing affordable energy to all Indian people including the 40 per cent who do not have ready access to electricity at present, ensuring a balanced portfolio of technologies matched to local circumstances, achieving better energy security and independence, and moving progressively towards a cleaner energy mix. Greenhouse gas emissions reduction is a consideration but hardly the main objective, a position typical of all developing economies.

The implications for uranium suppliers seem clear. Today India is a small consumer of uranium, perhaps 3 per cent of global demand amounting to 2500 tonnes of yellowcake costing less than $150 million at today's uranium prices. It is a market that Australia rejects with no economic penalty and with our high ideals preserved. Not being a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, India cannot be an export market for our uranium according to policy introduced by the Rudd government in 2008.

That this policy is riddled with inconsistencies continues unchallenged by our leaders. So the decision by the Prime Minister to add it to the ALP national conference agenda is welcome.

Interestingly, India no longer has any difficulty in accessing global uranium supply. Australia was important in ensuring endorsement by the Nuclear Suppliers Group in 2008 authorising international exports to India yet insisted none would come from our mines. As a result, India has signed contracts with Kazakhstan, Russia, Namibia and Mongolia, and the queue of countries wishing to do business with India grows longer.

We may have nearly 40 per cent of global uranium reserves but uranium is abundant and easily stockpiled so we are not indispensable. Still, nuclear utilities across the world value us as a quality partner and want us in their nuclear supply chain.

In parallel, India has ambitious plans to reduce its uranium requirements. The research for commercial breeder reactors, which will reuse spent fuel as well as burn the more abundant uranium isotope -- U238 -- is led by Indian laboratories with heavy government support. India also insists thorium fuel offers many advantages to uranium and is widely available. This may mean the uranium era is not as long as some have assumed.

Yet fundamental commercial and geopolitical considerations emphasise that India and Australia will be increasingly important to each other. The government understands this, the opposition does, Foreign Affairs officials do, as do relevant union leaders. So what's stopping us acting in the national interest? Maybe it's just a matter of time.

Cookies must be enabled | The Australian

 

[NirmalKrish]

All this has to be seen in the context of recent lobbying by the US to create an US-India-Australia alliance against China.

Gillard just met with Obama at the G20 summit and Obama is due to visit Australia soon.

Obama is landing today @ Canberra first and foremost regional security is on top of the priority lists to discuss, along with plans for America to possibly operate a possible base in Darwin or expand on the existing joint operated facilities. Whether this will brew up tactics to keep CHINA in check I don’t know. There will be more joint exercises that will be done between both the defence forces in northern territory. Obama will also be there to lend a supporting hand for Gillard to lobby for sales of uranium to India with the help of the president of USA in accordance to civil nuclear agreement between India, Which was fathered from the bush administration. Fits in perfectly I should say, MMS’s lack of attendance at CHOGM also sent shockwaves in the forum and embarrassment to the host nation which was snubbed vividly when India expressed dissatisfaction with Australia’s refusal to sell uranium. So the tides are changing and a shift in policy is most welcomed.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

You misunderstood my post. There will be strict conditions on the sale in other words India will need to guarantee thet the uranium will not be used for weapons.

The concern over foreign Uranium sales to India is not so much over the Uranium being diverted into India's Nuclear Weapons Program, but that foreign sales would allow India to substitute its locally mined Uranium, and divert local Uranium into its weapons program, thereby, theoretically, acquiring the ability to increase its nuclear weapons production manifold.

No matter how many 'controls/restrictions' are placed by the nations exporting Uranium to India, those restrictions will be solely on the exported fuel - they do not govern how India uses its locally mined Uranium.

 

[true_indian]

The concern over foreign Uranium sales to India is not so much over the Uranium being diverted into India's Nuclear Weapons Program, but that foreign sales would allow India to substitute its locally mined Uranium, and divert local Uranium into its weapons program, thereby, theoretically, acquiring the ability to increase its nuclear weapons production manifold.

No matter how many 'controls/restrictions' are placed by the nations exporting Uranium to India, those restrictions will be solely on the exported fuel - they do not govern how India uses its locally mined Uranium.

In the next 5-10 years, India would join as a default nuclear weapon state in NSG. US support for us to join treaties like Warsaw pact, MTCR, NSG would be a game changer for us. India is playing a different ball game all together. I must say MMS did well in foreign relations front.

 

[KS]

The concern over foreign Uranium sales to India is not so much over the Uranium being diverted into India's Nuclear Weapons Program, but that foreign sales would allow India to substitute its locally mined Uranium, and divert local Uranium into its weapons program, thereby, theoretically, acquiring the ability to increase its nuclear weapons production manifold.

No matter how many 'controls/restrictions' are placed by the nations exporting Uranium to India, those restrictions will be solely on the exported fuel - they do not govern how India uses its locally mined Uranium.

Exactly and that is what we will do or logically any nation will do. You don't need to 'spell' out that theory to anyone as if it was any secret.

That is a reality understood by any one and everyone who were involved in granting us the 'special' exemption and engaging in nuclear trade with us - both technology and yellow cake. And they seem fine with it.

 

[5ever]

In the next 5-10 years, India would join as a default nuclear weapon state in NSG. US support for us to join treaties like Warsaw pact, MTCR, NSG would be a game changer for us. India is playing a different ball game all together. I must say MMS did well in foreign relations front.

You're embarrassing all the other Indians here.

The Warsaw Pact?
MTCR?

Do you even know what those words mean?

 

[Roybot]

Selling uranium to India is a mature act that banishes hypocrisy

No one likes uranium, but this volatile substance may turn into a political, economic and security trump card for Julia Gillard. By declaring she will fight to overturn Labor's outdated policy of banning uranium sales to India, the Prime Minister is doing the right thing for Australia, and for her party.

Australia's relationship with the world's largest democracy has for years been held to ransom by the ludicrous proposition that selling uranium to China is OK, but selling it to India would be dangerous and wrong. It's this idea itself that is dangerous and wrong. China is a known nuclear proliferator to rogue states via Pakistan; India guards its nuclear knowledge like a mastiff, and is on the side of the angels in the fight against terrorism.

For the benefit of the Greens, let's be clear. This is not about whether Australia sells uranium. It's about whom we sell it to. China proliferates despite having signed the non-proliferation treaty. India abides by the treaty but is not a signatory. Australia rewards a duplicitous one-party state and punishes a democracy that plays by the rules.

Why can't India sign the treaty? Because doing so would require it to abandon its nuclear weapons. Why won't it abandon them? Because with more than a billion people to defend, and unresolved border disputes with China and Pakistan - both nuclear-armed - any Indian government that did so would be rejected by its people.

India's first nuclear test was in 1974. It made no secret of the fact. Delhi then waited a quarter of a century for the five declared nuclear powers - the same five who control the United Nations Security Council - to make good on their promises to get rid of nuclear weapons. They didn't.Meanwhile, Pakistan, North Korea, Libya, Iran and Israel kept busily working on their undeclared nuclear weapons programs. India's decision to declare itself a nuclear weapons state in 1998 was the logical outcome of unsustainable moral posturing by hypocritical Western powers.

Which brings us to the morality of banning uranium sales to India. As the Resources Minister, Martin Ferguson, has noted in his inimitable style, India needs electricity if it is to bring 400 million people out of poverty. If the Greens have a plan for how it can do this, I'm happy to put them in touch with the relevant ministers in Delhi. As things stand, there is only one alternative energy source India can use. Sad but true, it's coal. If we deny India uranium, it will simply buy more of the black, climate-changing stuff.

In the absence of a moral leg to stand on, opponents of Gillard's plan - who may yet include elements of the Labor Left - will point out that India can buy its uranium elsewhere. True. It's also true that for as long as Australia refuses to face the economic and moral realities of this issue, our political relationship with India - the world's largest democracy, one of its largest economies and an important security player in our region - will remain stalled.To what end? The economic, moral and environmental case for lifting the ineffectual and discriminatory ban is overwhelming. Politically, too, there is good reason for Labor to take a stand. More than any other issue, it exposes the hypocrisy and moral confusion of Bob Brown's politics.

It's not good enough for the Greens to pretend they know what's best for India. Despite facing challenges on an unimaginable scale, India has managed to make many difficult decisions in the past. They can live without our self-deluded posturing. Moreover, Labor doesn't need Greens support to get this through Parliament. Dropping the ban is Coalition policy. Even Tony Abbott cannot afford to say no.Some on the Labor Left will argue privately that dropping the ban will cause more Labor voters to defect to the Greens. But Gillard has bigger fish to fry. If she is to win a second term, it will only be by building a reputation as a leader with the guts to take on difficult, sometimes unpopular, causes in the best interests of the nation.


Read more: Selling uranium to India is a mature act that banishes hypocrisy

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Exactly and that is what we will do or logically any nation will do. You don't need to 'spell' out that theory to anyone as if it was any secret.

Given X-Drive's comment, apparently I did need to 'spell it out' ...

That is a reality understood by any one and everyone who were involved in granting us the 'special' exemption and engaging in nuclear trade with us - both technology and yellow cake. And they seem fine with it.

Great, then 'everyone' should not be hiding behind statements of 'Pakistan is the worst proliferator', when in matter of fact it is thee West that takes that 'honor'.

If this is real politik and reality, then where is the shame in admitting to it publicly - why hide behind canards and try and put some sort of a 'equitable face' on the Indian NSG exemption?

 

[Roybot]

The argument here in Australia was that if we can sell it to China why can't we sell it to India. Specially when China is giving uranium to Pakistan. So indirectly even Pakistan gets Australian uranium.

 

[lilaspr]

You have to understand the Indian mindset. The common Indian people (or for that matter Pakistanis or Bangladeshis or Srilankans etc.) are always hungry for international recognition more than for anything else.

While I am talking only about most of the common people from poor to middle class families, it is so mainly due to their being called poor/third world people for so long. Anything that takes them to equal level with the ones that are rich or better off will be celebrated with all the fanfare. Or tell me why, is there such a sudden dearth of Uranium in the world? Or is it that doing business with Australia can solve some giant purpose without which India would cease to exist?






You sound pretty alien to the concept of democracy... 'guess the generals left a lasting impression on the people over there... in Uganda

This Is Rude!!!

 

[Birruna]

Mature acknowledgement by India on Australian changed response. I like it.

Gillard could have announced it later but timing of announcement with Obama in Aus is definatey intended to send a clear message to China.

 

[KS]

You're embarrassing all the other Indians here.

The Warsaw Pact?
MTCR?

Do you even know what those words mean?

He is partially correct.

Its not Warsaw Pact but the Wassenaar Arrangement.

And MTCR is true.

Or is it that doing business with Australia can solve some giant purpose without which India would cease to exist?

Massive Indian ego. Among other things..

If the rest of the world -that includes former and current superpowers who once established the NSG as a form of anti-Indian apartheid can go back on the reason-d-etre of the NSG and give an exemption to India, why this outlying country continues to hold back ?