Australian U turn on Uranium?

[trackwhack]

We don't have any such territory. The French tested in their colonies.

Of course we do!

In the Bay of Bengal and the Arabian sea.

 

[pmaitra]

Of course we do!

In the Bay of Bengal and the Arabian sea.

Our fishermen fish in these waters. It would be a bad idea to spread radiation here. It will also raise protests from neighbouring countries.

 

[Galaxy]

Uranium U-turn welcome, overdue

Uranium U-turn welcome, overdue

15 November 2011​

What a week in Australian foreign policy.

Two days before President Obama's visit, which will likely mark a pivot to a truly Indo-Pacific strategic vision by Washington and Canberra, Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard has publicly declared her support for safeguarded uranium exports to India.

These two things are connected – not as some conspiracy (though some on the left will see the timing as suspicious), but rather because it is about time we sent a signal that we recognise an emerging India as a vital and trusted part of a stable Indo-Pacific regional order. To be sure, the eve-of-Obama timing was at least a bit clumsy. It would have been better if the Prime Minister's statement had come earlier. Australia is embracing India strictly for its own reasons, not Washington's.

But in any case, Gillard's move is welcome and overdue. It is high time the Australian Labor Party developed a contemporary policy allowing uranium exports to help India produce much-needed electricity.

I have seen both sides of this issue, first as an arms control diplomat and then as a diplomat on posting in India. In 1998 I was a junior official writing talking points condemning India for its nuclear tests. From 2000-2003 I worked in New Delhi, watching India's foreign and security policy evolution first-hand and trying to improve Australia-India relations after the damage from our failed, moralistic 1998 stance. From 2004 to February 2007 I monitored the changing Asian strategic order from inside Australia's peak intelligence agency.

Since my first opinion piece calling for a change of Labor policy on uranium in April 2007 I have been an open supporter of improved relations with India. And now I try to balance realistic assessments of the Asian nuclear and strategic order with my advocacy of a true strategic partnership with India as part of Australia's wider approach to an era of Chinese, Indian and sustained American power and influence. Part of this work involves close consultations with prominent Indians from across politics, media, diplomacy, business and journalism.

All of this makes me well aware that the question of tempering Australia's activist nuclear diplomacy with its need for better India ties is a tough call needing proper debate. But on balance, Australia's foreign policy, security and economic interests are all served by a change of policy on uranium.

Labor's existing policy overturned Prime Minister John Howard's bold decision in 2007 to begin negotiating uranium exports to India. At that point Australia was poised to be on the leading edge of nuclear engagement with India; instead, the Labor policy reversal ceded some of that ground to the US, Canada, Kazakhstan, Japan, France, Russia and fairly much any other nuclear supplier.

Of course, Labor could and should have gone to the 2007 election with the same policy as Howard – it would have won hands-down anyway – and then four years of delay and frustration in Australia-India relations could have been avoided. Instead, when Labor overturned its restricted 'three mines' policy on uranium mining, the offset for Labor's left was the reaffirmation of the NPT-only export rule, making India a very large and disappointed sacrificial lamb.

The policy of exporting only to countries that have joined the Non-Proliferation Treaty – a treaty that India is literally unable to sign – is unsustainable. The NPT only allows countries that tested the bomb before 1967 to possess nuclear arms, so India would need to surrender its small atomic arsenal before signing. Of course, it cannot do that while China and Pakistan possess nuclear arms.

Yet in other ways, India is a good non-proliferation citizen. Unlike China or Pakistan, it has never helped other countries acquire the bomb. And it has signed up to putting all its new reactors under safeguards for purely civil use. Yet we have been pointlessly telling India 'we do not trust you'. That is a contradictory message at a time when we are trying to engage strategically and economically with India as this century's third-largest economy and the world's biggest democracy.

Of course we need to apply proper conditions and safeguards to ensure civilian use of our uranium, and if India has a problem with those safeguards then any deal would and should be off. But even then, at least there would be an end to Labor's outdated and discriminatory policy – a refusal even to talk about uranium with India, while we export to China and Russia.

Let the real debate begin.

Uranium U-turn welcome, overdue

 

[Yusuf]

Of course we do!

In the Bay of Bengal and the Arabian sea.

1) our possessions in both seas are inhabited.
2) we don't. Sed to test right now. Right now we need the tech, the uranium, the money invested in power plants. Once the west has billions invested and a lot riding on India while their own economies are a mess and also a couple of other countries too might have gone nuclear which will mean NPT loses all credibility, then if we need to we can test. By then we will be equal to the US economy and no one sanctions such a big economy. Knowing when to play the right card is the key in such games.

 

[trackwhack]

1) our possessions in both seas are inhabited.
2) we don't. Sed to test right now. Right now we need the tech, the uranium, the money invested in power plants. Once the west has billions invested and a lot riding on India while their own economies are a mess and also a couple of other countries too might have gone nuclear which will mean NPT loses all credibility, then if we need to we can test. By then we will be equal to the US economy and no one sanctions such a big economy. Knowing when to play the right card is the key in such games.

Once we have invested billions in nuclear power we are essentially hostage to the West. If we test then our nuclear plants freeze. Who do you think will suffer more if we reach our stated ambition of 25% power from nuclear, of which more than 50% will be from uranium fueled PWR's and PHWR's. If we test and fuel is banned, our economy will go into deep freeze. Please think through what you are saying. This is precisely the reason that many scientists did not want to go through with the deal and many others advocated that we use the window before the deal to test before signing.

Secondly please go through details of both archipelagos, there are islets that are more than 100 km away from inhabited islands, where we can test. You think French Polynesia was uninhabited?

 

[trackwhack]

Our fishermen fish in these waters. It would be a bad idea to spread radiation here. It will also raise protests from neighbouring countries.

Temporary effect. Can be easily compensated.

Neighboring countries? Dont give a shit. Most of our neighboring countries are ports for the Chinese. Why would we care? Will make them think a 100 times before they mess with us again.


Q: Is underwater nuclear testing common?

A: Yes, The United States has conducted 1,054 tests of nuclear devices between July 16, 1945 and September 23, 1992. Before 1962, all the tests were atmospheric (on land or in the Pacific or Atlantic oceans) but overall the majority - 839 - were underground tests. From 1966 to 1990, 167 French nuclear test explosions have been performed on two atolls in French Polynesia, Morurua and Fangataua. Of the 167 tests, 44 were atmospheric. Atmospheric explosions were carried out until 1974, but only underground tests after that. The underground tests have been conducted at the bottom of shafts bored 500-1200 meters into the basalt core of the atoll. Initially these shafts were drilled in the outer rim of the atoll. In 1981, most likely due to the weakening of that rim, the tests with higher yields were shifted to shafts drilled under the lagoon itself.

 

[Yusuf]

India is building strategic reserve of uranium. 15 years down the line, the west will not be able to sanction India.

 

[trackwhack]

India is building strategic reserve of uranium. 15 years down the line, the west will not be able to sanction India.

Please search - Barack Obama Amendment. Per the 123 agreement and the deal with the NSG, we get only enough fuel that justifies our present need to run the reactors for a short time frame. This was done to ensure India does not build a strategic reserve. So no in 15 years, even if we managed to siphon off enough from our purchases we will have enough reserves to power our reactors for a 12 month period max. Wrong again.

 

[Galaxy]

EAM welcomes Australian decision to undertake review of policy on Uranium sales to India


November 15, 2011

In response to a question the External Affairs Minister Sh. S M Krishna said,

"We attach importance to our relations with Australia which are growing across the board. Energy is one of the key areas of bilateral cooperation.

We understand that Prime Minister Gillard proposes to seek a change in Australian Labour Party's policy on sale of Uranium to India, in recognition of our growing energy needs, our impeccable non-proliferation record and the strategic partnership between our two countries. We welcome this initiative."


Bangalore
November 15, 2011

MEA - Ministry of External Affairs

 

[Yusuf]

Please search - Barack Obama Amendment. Per the 123 agreement and the deal with the NSG, we get only enough fuel that justifies our present need to run the reactors for a short time frame. This was done to ensure India does not build a strategic reserve. So no in 15 years, even if we managed to siphon off enough from our purchases we will have enough reserves to power our reactors for a 12 month period max. Wrong again.

Using imported fuel frees our own mines to be made as reserve.

 

[p2prada]

Totally disagree,
for one there are other ways to show australia that we dont need uranium for bombs. Explode a themonuke at the southern most tip of the indian ocean. you dont need uranium (or at least too much of it) for that. Then publicly state in a press conference that australia's apprehensions are misplaced as India's nuclear weapons program is largely based on thermonuclear devices and not fission devices. Also state that we strongly believe that australias decisions are driven by chinese money to ensure india's economic development is undercut through cheap tactics like these. This would have convinced them and Mr Rudd would sound like a blabbering fool if he tried to oppose it.

A thermonuclear device needs a fission device to trigger the chain reaction and there would be more fission reactions as the bomb explodes. Else it is a dud.

The fission device will carry the Plutonium we need.

I doubt the Uranium we will get from Australia will be used in bomb making. We can always use Russian and Kazakh rocks.

 

[niharjhatn]

Just read somewhere that Australia has 4 major uranium mining operations (one just kicked off really recently), and they have huge back orders for other nations. A U-turn on the Indian ban is unlikely to have any major effects on the short term (sorry guys for the life of me can't find it... might have been a video).

However, quite characteristically, Australian opinion have somehow managed to spin it to something new.. Check out Bruce, Lecturer of Law for university of Canberra's opinion:

Bruce Arnold, Lecturer in Law, University of Canberra

Life would be so convenient if we could pick and choose which laws to obey. Given Australia's pretensions to leadership in our region and our stated respect for international law we cannot blithely disregard international agreements such as the NPT simply because we can make a quick buck or because a trading partner is prepared to engage in global street theatre.

India wants to be treated as a major member of the international community. Membership involves responsibilities, not just recurrent selective claims of victimhood. Irrespective of debates about whether nuclear power is 'green', whether nuclear will allow India to lift a hundred million people out of poverty (and reliance on use of dried cow dung as fuel in poorly ventilated huts), and whether use of uranium will benefit the environment and public health by reducing emissions from coal-fired power stations, we should not be endorsing a 'pick & choose' approach to international law.

Indulging India's refusal to sign up to restrictions on nuclear proliferation is patronising. It makes a mockery of the notion of international law. Australia might well operate on the basis of a hardheaded realpolitik, deciding not to posture about human rights and the wide range of agreements that make up international law.

An explicit commitment to realism – policymaking driven only by considerations of power and national advantage – might be advantageous merely because it would force Australian voters to grapple with some hard decisions. As things stand we are however committed to a rule of law, rather than the rule of the cash register (a cash register that ultimately doesn't result in large-scale employment or enhancement of social capital). If we take law seriously, want to be taken seriously as a nation and want other nations to take law seriously – something that is in our long-term interest – we cannot ignore the NPT. Prime Minister Gillard should not succumb to short term expediency. She'll gain more credibility as a conviction politician and as a national leader if makes the uranium sale conditional on adherence to the NPT.

Should Australia sell uranium to India?

If such is the thoughts of the top minds of a very fortunate nation... I really don't know what to say :shocked:

Bruce obviously has significant aversion to the notion of pulling people out of poverty (how that was relevant I have no idea).

In the end, the opinion shows that as India has not signed International treaties, and the fact that US companies are still reluctant to deal with the N-word regarding India ; the Aussies are scared of barking behind their masters back... and they are also concerned about the reaction China will give.

Remember, China is a nation 110% focused on using nuclear technology for the benefit of the environment and supplying energy to its people, whilst India (and it seems, all other 'brown' nations ) can't be trusted on the Issue.

I ask them WHAT THEY THINK WILL HAPPEN in a war situation/years of increased tension. Do people honestly believe that when their existence is at stake, they will continue to abide to these international laws? Such NAIVETY!

The actions of the Americans, Russians etc in their attempts to control the amount of nuclear weapons the rest of the world has is laughable. Their own stocks are enough for destroying the world several times over, but they immediately pull a card for 'playing it safe' when it comes to other nations. NPT is simply an attempt to control the weaker nations, and make sure that THEY'RE stocks never reach the levels of the big players.

All this done by the leadership of the US, who's economy is driven by weapons development (in fact, they are one of the few nations I'd say that are reliant on it), as well as they're track record of exploding not one, but TWO nuclear weapons in a war scenario. Great role model for others to follow!

Compare it to India, who have been locked in an ongoing conflict for years with our pyaare padosi yet never launched an all out attack for Islamabad.

Sigh, the world is full of hypocrisy.

 

[trackwhack]

Using imported fuel frees our own mines to be made as reserve.

Yusuf, all the ore reserves we have can run 40,000 MW for one year or 4000 MW (our current installed capacity) for 10 years. In 20 years our installed capacity is going to be in excess of 50,000 MW, which is why I said there is no way we can build strategic reserves for more than 12 months. If we explode a bomb, our reactors stop working.
You've been posting opinion after opinion, I've been responding with numbers and facts. Im out, thanks.

 

[trackwhack]

A thermonuclear device needs a fission device to trigger the chain reaction and there would be more fission reactions as the bomb explodes. Else it is a dud.

The fission device will carry the Plutonium we need.

I doubt the Uranium we will get from Australia will be used in bomb making. We can always use Russian and Kazakh rocks.

I realize that, which is why stating that our arsenel is primarily fusion bombs in effect states that we dont need any more uranium to convert to plutonium and our existing stocks are adequate.
The line that Australia are towing is the uranium will lead to an arms race because we are going to start piling up fission devices.

 

[pmaitra]

we should not be endorsing a 'pick & choose' approach to international law.

Sigh, the world is full of hypocrisy.

... and NPT is just about that, pick & choose between Nuclear haves and have nots. If the Aussies were so egalitarian, let them root for a non-discriminatory treaty because going by the author's own logic, NPT is indeed pick & choose.

 

[Rahul92]

Wait for another economic crisis for another U turn

 

[KS]

Double whammy..adding salt to injury...

CANBERRA: Australia has no plans to consider selling uranium to Israel or Pakistan despite moving to open up uranium sales to India, Prime Minister Julia Gillard said on Tuesday.

Gillard said she wants the ruling Labor party's national conference in December to overturn a ban on uranium sales to countries which have not signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, to allow sales to India.


Australia says no plans to sell uranium to Pakistan | World | DAWN.COM

 

[nrj]

Rudd livid over Aus PM's U-turn on uranium sales to India

 

[niharjhatn]

Rudd livid over Aus PM's U-turn on uranium sales to India

To be expected... he was ousted from his prime-ministership by his own party, and besides, has a distinct pro-China attitude... I believe he even has Chinese/vietnamese blood in him/in his extended family.

No wonder he is so LIVID, the same colour as Julia's hair!

 

[Poseidon]

US helped Australia's U-turn on uranium exports to India: report.

US influenced Oz U-turn on uranium exports to India: report.

The United States seems to have influenced Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard's U-turn on uranium exports to India, as the Obama administration viewed the long-standing ban was a roadblock to greater engagement between Washington and New Delhi.

"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 Australian newspaper claimed.

The Prime Minister yesterday signalled she would use the Labour party's national conference next month to reverse a ban on exporting uranium to India, a non-signatory of the Nuclear non-Proliferation Treaty.

"There's nothing to be read into it, coming as it does the day before President (Barack) Obama's visit, other than it suited me as the day to make the announcement," she said, adding "So it's my decision, my announcement and it was made because of my logistics as today is the appropriate day."

The paper said it was understood that Australian and US officials have been involved in intense strategic discussions about India and the Indian Ocean for several months.

Foreign Minister Kevin Rudd has been in India this week for a meeting on Indian Ocean co-operation and Defence Minister Stephen Smith is expected to visit India early next month to boost bilateral defence co-operation.

The Obama administration has been pursuing a closer partnership with India and considers Australia an integral

part of its strategy, the paper said.

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said early this month that the US-Australian alliance had been transformed from "an Asia-Pacific alliance to an Indo-Pacific alliance".

The paper said the US has reconfigured its military commands so that the US Pacific Command embraces responsibility not only for the Pacific but for India and the Indian Ocean.

This is in line with sustained argument from Australian officials and ministers over many months urging the Americans to consider the Pacific and Indian oceans as a single unified theatre of operations, it said, adding in response, the Americans have urged deeper engagement with India for Australia but this required the end of the ban on uranium exports.

Discussions have taken place in several forums, including the AUSMIN ministerial meetings and the joint working party formed by the US and Australia to feed into the US Global Force Posture Review, due to report soon.

This is expected to encompass both the greater US presence in northern Australia, to be announced in Darwin tomorrow, and a higher US priority for the Indian Ocean.

Gillard yesterday said selling uranium to India would boost the economy, create more jobs and strengthen ties with the world's largest democracy as it attempted to meet its target of supplying 40 per cent of its electricity through nuclear generation by 2050.

She also pointed to the US-India civil nuclear agreement of 2008, which lifted the "de facto international ban" on the sale of uranium to India.

"Given that change in diplomatic circumstances around the world, for us to refuse to budge is all pain and no gain. And I believe our national platform should recognise that reality," she said.

However, Gillard ruled out any move to embrace nuclear power.

US influenced Oz U-turn on uranium exports to India: report - Indian Express

USA indeed is one of our closest partner.