Gillard's push for uranium sales to India

[KS]

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

There is a difference between 'diverting' the imported yellow cake meant for peaceful purposes to weapons progrman and using our own yellow cake for weapons program and using the imported one for the purpose it was imported - civilian.

While X-Drive said about the latter you rattled about the former. Big difference.

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'.

Yes they did - at a time when terrorism was not a great threat to world peace and the nations they 'shared' the technology with were not rogue states. Pakistan on that count fails both.

Another big difference between the Western 'sharing' and Pakistani proliferation is that by Pakistan's own account its security was breached when a lone man went against the establishment (again Pakistan's claim) to sell nukes clandestinely to the highest bidder. Whereas in the case of Western 'sharing' the countries to which it was 'shared' to were well-screened, approved by multiple governmental committees regarding national security and was done with the full knowledge of the Establishment. In short there was NO breach of nuclear security.

So western 'sharing' and Pakistani 'proliferation' are as different as chalk and cheese and comparing them is a logic only an ingenious Pakistani can come up with.

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?

Addressed above. There can be no comparison between Pakistan's dubious record in guarding its nukes and others. So naturally the world is wary of giving anything regarding nukes to Pakistaan. Infact given a chance the first thing they would do is de-nuke Pakistan.

 

[Developereo]

Well duh! It is your assumption that it is due to US pressure. You are not that important that she will hold a press conference to let you know that what you think is bull.

US actions in the region, especially Australia, have been directly aimed at countering the growth of Chinese influence. As part of that, the US has been brokering any number of regional alliances and has been pushing for closer ties between Australia and India.

Call for Australia, US security pact with India - Indian Express

If India can force the US to pressure its ally Australia into doing stuff for India... man I can only imagine India's might, that too at a considerably smaller economy when compared to the big players. Wonder what would happen when India does become one of the big players...

Where did you get that India forced the US to pressure Australia?

Where did you hear that 'mentioning'?

There were various policy statements to that effect lately. I don't have time to look them up right now; try googling.

Uncle SAM is breaking every rule that the West created :

US and India have a joint interest in containing China so, yes, the US will break rules to advance its interests.

It has got nothing to do with anyones pressure.

People need to understand that Australia has it own interests too. If selling uranium to India undermines Australian interest then we will never sell it, no matter who puts pressure. Australia is not Pakistan, that it will buckle under US pressure and do things which are not in its interest.

Not to forget that the mining industry has been pushing for this for quite some time now.

A lot of special interests have been advocating all sorts of things for a long time. This doesn't change the reality of recent actions by the US to work with Australia and others in the region to shore up resistance to China: the expanded US bases, the regional trade alliances, etc.

Cookies must be enabled | The Australian

JULIA Gillard's decision to open the door to uranium exports to India came after talks with the Obama administration, which viewed the ban as a roadblock to greater engagement between Washington and New Delhi.

The US, under President Barack Obama, has been pursuing a closer partnership with India and considers Australia an integral part of its strategy.

 

[KS]

^^ Actually it has as much to do with the mining lobby as with US.

They could not simply sit down and watch billions of dollars of contracts going to 'open-minded' countries like Kazakhstan,Mongolia,Namibia rather than to Australia that has the world's largest and allegedly best quality Uranium due to some outdated policies.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

There is a difference between 'diverting' the imported yellow cake meant for peaceful purposes to weapons progrman and using our own yellow cake for weapons program and using the imported one for the purpose it was imported - civilian.

While X-Drive said about the latter you rattled about the former. Big difference.

There is no difference - it is a matter of supply and demand. A greater foreign supply of Uranium frees up local supply for weapons production, which means foreign suppliers of uranium are in essence supporting Indian nuclear weapons expansion.

Yes they did - at a time when terrorism was not a great threat to world peace and the nations they 'shared' the technology with were not rogue states. Pakistan on that count fails both.

Please point out to me where in the UN Iran and Libya have been declared 'rogue states' - by what international agreement and under what international body are these nations 'rogue states'?

Another big difference between the Western 'sharing' and Pakistani proliferation is that by Pakistan's own account its security was breached when a lone man went against the establishment (again Pakistan's claim) to sell nukes clandestinely to the highest bidder. Whereas in the case of Western 'sharing' the countries to which it was 'shared' to were well-screened, approved by multiple governmental committees regarding national security and was done with the full knowledge of the Establishment. In short there was NO breach of nuclear security.

So western 'sharing' and Pakistani 'proliferation' are as different as chalk and cheese and comparing them is a logic only an ingenious Pakistani can come up with.

So Pakistan as a nation benefiting from 'nuclear sharing' would imply that the West 'approved' of Pakistan's quest for nuclear weapons? Then why do recent US diplomatic disclosures indicate a concerted US effort to prevent nuclear technology from finding its way to Pakistan, including pressure on France to not complete a reprocessing facility in Pakistan, pressure on companies and States in Asia and Australia to not export items with alleged 'dual use' capabilities etc.

The comparison is valid, only an Indian would try to come up with convoluted and nonsensical arguments to try and make proliferation by the West and proliferation by Pakistan appear 'different as chalk and cheese'. Pakistan violated no international agreements or treaties when AQ Khan proliferated, but what about Western nations that were acting as suppliers for the nuclear technology being obtained by Pakistan, Israel and South Africa?

Addressed above. There can be no comparison between Pakistan's dubious record in guarding its nukes and others. So naturally the world is wary of giving anything regarding nukes to Pakistaan. Infact given a chance the first thing they would do is de-nuke Pakistan.

It isn't addressed - you completely missed the point. Proliferation is a poor excuse since the West itself has been guilty of far worse proliferation than Pakistan, perhaps in violation of treaties and agreements that the West itself negotiated and entered into.

 

[Varad]

Very good decision by Australia. Relations with Australia are getting stronger by the day. I see Australia as very strong partner
in the future.

 

[KS]

There is no difference - it is a matter of supply and demand. A greater foreign supply of Uranium frees up local supply for weapons production, which means foreign suppliers of uranium are in essence supporting Indian nuclear weapons expansion.

There is a difference, a big one at that.

The IAEA has mandate only over the nuclear material they give to India and as long as they are used only for intended purposes there is no breach of law. What we do with our Uranium is our sovereign matter and IAEA or any other country does not have mandate over that.

So while the former option (in previous post) is a blatantly illegal action, the latter is perfectly legal.

Also a foreign supply does not mean automatically that we divert all local produce to weapons. It is just a possibility, not a mandatory event.

Please point out to me where in the UN Iran and Libya have been declared 'rogue states' - by what international agreement and under what international body are these nations 'rogue states'?

The are de-facto rogue states. Not de-jure.

So Pakistan as a nation benefiting from 'nuclear sharing' would imply that the West 'approved' of Pakistan's quest for nuclear weapons?

At that time, when Pakistan was the blue eyes boy of the West - YES.

Then why do recent US diplomatic disclosures indicate a concerted US effort to prevent nuclear technology from finding its way to Pakistan, including pressure on France to not complete a reprocessing facility in Pakistan, pressure on companies and States in Asia and Australia to not export items with alleged 'dual use' capabilities etc.

Because of Pakistan's horrific record at proliferation, low nuclear security and a very low threshold for the usage of nuclear weapons aka the First Use policy.

The comparison is valid, only an Indian would try to come up with convoluted and nonsensical arguments to try and make proliferation by the West and proliferation by Pakistan appear 'different as chalk and cheese'. Pakistan violated no international agreements or treaties when AQ Khan proliferated, but what about Western nations that were acting as suppliers for the nuclear technology being obtained by Pakistan, Israel and South Africa?

It isn't addressed - you completely missed the point. Proliferation is a poor excuse since the West itself has been guilty of far worse proliferation than Pakistan, perhaps in violation of treaties and agreements that the West itself negotiated and entered into.

No... Pakistan did not violate any international treaty. But by its own clumsical defence of its Proliferation that it was one-man who breached all established nuclear protocols for some quick bucks without the knowledge of the Establishment , it gave the world a very poor,frightening impression of its 'own nuclear security'. And no nation is ready to trust it ever since.

How can anyone or even Pakistan itself be sure that there is no A.Q.Khan right now ratting off nuclear secrets ,ofcourse without the knowledge of the establishment to the highest bidder (which may include even terrorists like Al-Qaeda) ?

 

[newdelhinsa]

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?

Original Post By President Camacho

This Is Rude!!!

Given the immature tone of few teenage Indian posters such blunt post can deter many trolls for the good between any would be Australia- India relationship, especially when the deal has to pass through many envy eyes; would like to see it sabotaged.

 

[Alchemy]

This sudden change of heart is surely due to a prod by USA to Aus . Since USA has limitations in selling uranium directly to India , it is influencing its allies to do so .
Eventually it will help India since thorium reactors have its limitations and cannot be used to generate huge multi thousand MW of power , Uranium reactors are the way to go and energy hungry india needs more uranium to for reactors of the magnitude of Kudankulam and more !

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

There is a difference, a big one at that.

The IAEA has mandate only over the nuclear material they give to India and as long as they are used only for intended purposes there is no breach of law. What we do with our Uranium is our sovereign matter and IAEA or any other country does not have mandate over that.

So while the former option (in previous post) is a blatantly illegal action, the latter is perfectly legal.

Also a foreign supply does not mean automatically that we divert all local produce to weapons. It is just a possibility, not a mandatory event.

In terms of increasing Indian capability to increase nuclear weapons production manifold, there is very little difference between foreign exports of Uranium being used for civilian purposes or being diverted into weapons production - de facto, not de jure, to apply your argument on rogue states from earlier.

The are de-facto rogue states. Not de-jure.

Whose facts? What facts? The US invasion of Iraq on the basis of lies, and British support for it, resulting in hundreds of thousands dead, should make both of those states 'De Facto rogue States'.

At that time, when Pakistan was the blue eyes boy of the West - YES.

Then why was the US actively trying to sabotage and slow down Pakistan's nuclear program? Why did France agree to US demands for not finishing the reprocessing plant in Pakistan? Why was the US attempting to stop shipments of alleged dual use technology to Pakistan, if we were such 'blue eyed boys of the West'?

Because of Pakistan's horrific record at proliferation, low nuclear security and a very low threshold for the usage of nuclear weapons aka the First Use policy.

A FU policy has not bearing on civilian nuclear technology for power generation, and I have already pointed out that the Western record on proliferation is far worse than that of Pakistan's.

No... Pakistan did not violate any international treaty. But by its own clumsical defence of its Proliferation that it was one-man who breached all established nuclear protocols for some quick bucks without the knowledge of the Establishment , it gave the world a very poor,frightening impression of its 'own nuclear security'. And no nation is ready to trust it ever since.

Again, much of Pakistan's own nuclear industry and infrastructure was set up with proliferation out of the West and Asia - so what defence does the West have, since, as I pointed out, the US was applying significant pressure on various European, Asian and Australian nations to prevent the export of nuclear and dual use technology to Pakistan?

Why should the world trust the West when it did far worse than Pakistan is alleged to have done?

How can anyone or even Pakistan itself be sure that there is no A.Q.Khan right now ratting off nuclear secrets ,ofcourse without the knowledge of the establishment to the highest bidder (which may include even terrorists like Al-Qaeda) ?

How can anyone be sure that the individuals in Western nations and in western companies and organizations that assisted the AQ Khan network and others in proliferating technology to Pakistan, Israel and South Africa are not right now continuing to do so with other individuals and through other networks?

Why merely hold Pakistan responsible for individuals violating security and technology restrictions, when the West and Asia have done far worse?

 

[janon]

How can anyone be sure that the individuals in Western nations and in western companies and organizations that assisted the AQ Khan network and others in proliferating technology to Pakistan, Israel and South Africa are not right now continuing to do so with other individuals and through other networks?

Why merely hold Pakistan responsible for individuals violating security and technology restrictions, when the West and Asia have done far worse?

Because of past records - no AQ Khan type of incidents before in the countries that are trusted. Pakistan lost the world's trust because of that episode.
Another reason is the presence of huge terrorist networks that periodically challenge the government's authority - again, inconceivable in the wesstern countries. Is it so difficult to understand the difference between pakistan and other countries in these matters?

 

[Roybot]

@ developereo

I never said that it was PM Gillard who raised that point.

That was the argument being raised in the mining industry and even by the Resources Minister.

Resources Minister Martin Ferguson, who has long supported changing the policy, says international practice has changed.

It was hypocritical for Australia to sell uranium to China and Russia but not the largest democracy in the world.

---------- Post added at 07:26 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:23 PM ----------

A lot of special interests have been advocating all sorts of things for a long time. This doesn't change the reality of recent actions by the US to work with Australia and others in the region to shore up resistance to China: the expanded US bases, the regional trade alliances, etc.

Cookies must be enabled | The Australian

JULIA Gillard's decision to open the door to uranium exports to India came after talks with the Obama administration, which viewed the ban as a roadblock to greater engagement between Washington and New Delhi.

The US, under President Barack Obama, has been pursuing a closer partnership with India and considers Australia an integral part of its strategy.

Ok for example, China and Pakistan strengthening their strategic relationship. Is Pakistan doing it for its own interest or for China's interest?

Same goes for Australia and America. Both have similar strategic goals.

 

[KS]

In terms of increasing Indian capability to increase nuclear weapons production manifold, there is very little difference between foreign exports of Uranium being used for civilian purposes or being diverted into weapons production - de facto, not de jure, to apply your argument on rogue states from earlier.

Again you are cleverly manipulating the argument into how it will increase the Indian nuclear weapon stockpile. But the argument is not that.

It is the illegality of diverting the IAEA rules bound imported Uranium and the legality of using of our own Uranium for Weapons.

While the former is the only thing outside countries have mandate on, the latter is purely dependent on Indian strategic doctrine and other 'legally' countries don't have a say in that and do not have a mandate to care about that.

As long as the imported Uranium is used for intended purpose, there is no problem.

Then why was the US actively trying to sabotage and slow down Pakistan's nuclear program? Why did France agree to US demands for not finishing the reprocessing plant in Pakistan? Why was the US attempting to stop shipments of alleged dual use technology to Pakistan, if we were such 'blue eyed boys of the West'?

Because maybe it did not want others eating into it's potential market ? Look one may give a whole lot in intentions to these acts for which the intentions are not spelled out explicitly. There is no use in arguing s you will latch onto your position and I to mine.

The underlying point is the West knew of Pak's weapon program and ignored it tacitly and at times actively helped it..

A FU policy has not bearing on civilian nuclear technology for power generation, and I have already pointed out that the Western record on proliferation is far worse than that of Pakistan's.

Ofcourse it has - no one wants to whet the nuclear appetite of a country that by its own admission has a very low threshold for nuclear tolerance and will use it as and when it deems required. Now that is a sovereign choice of the Pak establishment. Similarly the refusal to deal with Pakistan is the sovereign choice of the technology donor countries.

Again, much of Pakistan's own nuclear industry and infrastructure was set up with proliferation out of the West and Asia - so what defence does the West have, since, as I pointed out, the US was applying significant pressure on various European, Asian and Australian nations to prevent the export of nuclear and dual use technology to Pakistan?

You dont make any sense.

The only point here is that Western 'sharing' (including to Pakistan) and the Pakistani 'proliferation' are two different things.

While in teh West case their own 'nuclear' security was not breached, in Pakistan's case an individual fooled the entire Establishment and breached their nuclear security by clandestinely selling nukes to the highest bidder.

The difference is while the West shared only with whom they considered startegic allies (hence the term 'sharing') the Pakistani prolifertors went for the highest bidder who could well have been non-state actors who could have posed a huge security risk to the world.

And thence world started seeing Pakistani program w,r,t to its security with fear and suspicion and do not trust it,,even though the Generals may say it is safe. Because like A.Q.Khan they might not even know if an individual is there selling the nukes right now.

Why should the world trust the West when it did far worse than Pakistan is alleged to have done?

How can anyone be sure that the individuals in Western nations and in western companies and organizations that assisted the AQ Khan network and others in proliferating technology to Pakistan, Israel and South Africa are not right now continuing to do so with other individuals and through other networks?

Why merely hold Pakistan responsible for individuals violating security and technology restrictions, when the West and Asia have done far worse?

Because you get branded a thief only when you are caught. Don't get caught, you are not a thief.Unfortunately Pakistan was stupid enough to get caught and now has to live with the stigma.

Its as simple as that.

And here another nail in the record -Pak supporting Syrian nuclear programme: ex-Israeli Army Gen

 

[Developereo]

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.

On the lighter side,

Barack Obama insured against crocodile attack in the Northern Territory | Herald Sun

PRESIDENT Barack Obama was yesterday insured against crocodile attack for his visit to the Northern Territory.

Insurance company TIO issued him the standard policy - a cover note carrying a photograph of a saltwater croc with the promise to pay $50,000 in the event of a fatal attack.

 

[Developereo]

Ok for example, China and Pakistan strengthening their strategic relationship. Is Pakistan doing it for its own interest or for China's interest?

Same goes for Australia and America. Both have similar strategic goals.

The benefits to Australia have been argued for a while and those arguments haven't changed over the years. The only thing against the sale was a matter of principle regarding the NPT. Gillard has thrown those principles down the drain at a time when the Australian economy is not particuarly hurting. There has to be a different reason, and it's not hard to identify that reason given the intense US lobbying and activity in this region against China lately.

 

[janon]

The benefits to Australia have been argued for a while and those arguments haven't changed over the years. The only thing against the sale was a matter of principle regarding the NPT. Gillard has thrown those principles down the drain at a time when the Australian economy is not particuarly hurting. There has to be a different reason, and it's not hard to identify that reason given the intense US lobbying and activity in this region against China lately.

You are right that it was a matter of principle. However, they have come to realize that the principle they were following was flawed, and that is why they don't want to stick to it any more. Selling uranium to china but not to india cannot really be justified when you examine the rationale behind following the said principle. And when you realize that the principles you are following are wrong, the principled thing to do is to stop following those principles, and to follow better ones - which is what they are doiing now.