India - Australia Relations

[cobra commando]

Australia to return a 2nd century BC sculpture to India - The Times of India

 

[cobra commando]

Australian trade minister leads largest business mission to India - The Economic Times


Australia hopeful of securing FTA with India in 2015, says trade minister Andrew Robb - The Economic Times

 

[cobra commando]

India visit is an important step towards boosting trade ties: Andrew Robb - The Economic Times

 

[sorcerer]

PRESIDENT OF INDIA'S MESSAGE ON THE EVE OF NATIONAL DAY OF AUSTRALIA

The President of India, Shri Pranab Mukherjee has extended his greetings and felicitations to the Government and people of Australia on the eve of the National Day of Australia (January 26, 2015).

In his message to H.E. Gen. the Hon'ble Sir Peter Cosgrove AKMC (Retd.), Governor-General of the Commonwealth of Australia, the President has said, "On behalf of the Government and the people of India and on my own behalf, I extend warm greetings and felicitations on the occasion of your National Day.

India – Australia relations have deepened further with your visit and the reciprocal visits by our Prime Ministers during the year 2014. Our new initiatives will expand our engagement in political, economic and people-to-people exchanges. We look forward to working with you to strengthen our strategic partnership.

Please accept, Excellency, my best wishes for your good health and well-being. I take this opportunity to convey, through you, my best wishes for the continued progress and prosperity of the people of Australia".

Press Information Bureau English Releases

 

[cobra commando]

India, Australia plan to sign FTA by December - The Economic Times

 

[cobra commando]

Joint defence-security exercise will be a milestone: Julie Bishop, Australia's minister of foreign affairs

The India-Australia comprehensive trade pact will be the next milestone in their bilateral relationship, which got a boost from Prime Minister Narendra Modi's visit to the country last year, says Julie Bishop, Australia's minister of foreign affairs. In an interview to ET, Bishop talks about extending the ties to sectors like defence and nuclear energy to leverage on the current optimism. Edited excerpts:

How is the India-Australia engagement on defence- security progressing?

The joint defence-security exercise is about to be taken up and, I think, that brings a new level of cooperation from the defence-security side of things. We continue to cooperate on Indian Ocean RIM matters. It is a significant moment in the India- Australia bilateral relationship. Our PMs have provided a very good foundation and have deepened our relationship.

What other areas are you exploring for defence cooperation?

The exercise is a bit also on technology exchanges and personnel exchanges. We hope the strategic framework provides us to engage more closely.


Read more:
Joint defence-security exercise will be a milestone: Julie Bishop, Australia's minister of foreign affairs

 

[apple]

Joint defence-security exercise will be a milestone: Julie Bishop, Australia's minister of foreign affairs

Read more:
Joint defence-security exercise will be a milestone: Julie Bishop, Australia's minister of foreign affairs

Department of Foreign Affairs isn't the Department of Defence. And even if the Australian DOD was talking about joint exercises that doesn't mean the ADF would be making much of a commitment to any relationship.

But, nice words I suppose.

 

[cobra commando]

Australia seeks deeper defence ties with India

 

[apple]

Australia seeks deeper defence ties with India

Australia has a new Defence Minister along with Prime Minister now. That story doesn't actually mention any concrete facts, but it remains to be seen how the Indo Australian relationship will develop from here.

 

[bose]

Australia has a new Defence Minister along with Prime Minister now. That story doesn't actually mention any concrete facts, but it remains to be seen how the Indo Australian relationship will develop from here.

Australia should sell Uranium to India... So that we can divert the local ones for strategic development...

 

[Compersion]

How does Australia have its Uranium be sold to Taiwan ...

 

[apple]

Australia should sell Uranium to India... So that we can divert the local ones for strategic development...

Australia is selling it's uranium to India. That deal was signed years ago.

How does Australia have its Uranium be sold to Taiwan ...

Not quite sure if that's meant to be a question or a statement... But yes, the uranium sale to Taiwan was a weird one in that Taiwan, like India, wasn't a signatory of whatever the thing was. But, Australia used the technicality that Taiwan isn't internationally recognised as a country to get round that treaty and sell them uranium.

International laws and treaties etc... would have been a good idea in 1913. But they are increasingly becoming extremely stupid

 

[cobra commando]

First bilateral exercise a success
21 September 2015

The inaugural bilateral maritime exercise between India and Australia, AUSINDEX15, has concluded in Visakhapatnam, India. The activity brought together ships and aircraft from both countries to strengthen defence co-operation under the Framework for Security Cooperation announced in 2014 by the Australian and Indian Prime Ministers, Abbott and Modi. Head Navy Capability, Rear Admiral Jonathan Mead, was on location in India for part of the exercise and said the relationship between the two militaries was strategically significant. “India remains one of Australia’s key security partners in the Indian Ocean and Asia-Pacific,” Rear Admiral Mead said. “We have mutual interests in promoting peace and prosperity in the region.” Three Royal Australian Navy vessels and a Royal Australian Air Force AP-3C made the passage to India for the inaugural biennial exercise. HMA Ships Sirius and Arunta and Submarine Sheean successfully trained with Indian Navy Ships Shivalik, Ranvijayi and Shakti, along with P-8I Maritime Patrol Aircraft during the week- long activity. The exercise started with briefings and practical demonstrations ashore, before progressing to sea for surface and anti-submarine warfare and coordinated anti-submarine exercises. AUSINDEX15 is expected to be held every two years.

First bilateral exercise a success

 

[Compersion]

Australia is selling it's uranium to India. That deal was signed years ago.



Not quite sure if that's meant to be a question or a statement... But yes, the uranium sale to Taiwan was a weird one in that Taiwan, like India, wasn't a signatory of whatever the thing was. But, Australia used the technicality that Taiwan isn't internationally recognised as a country to get round that treaty and sell them uranium.

International laws and treaties etc... would have been a good idea in 1913. But they are increasingly becoming extremely stupid

International law and also customs is always applicable and is a wonderful animal to jump on ...

"Taiwan signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) in 1968 and ratified it but after 1971 the People's Republic of China replaced Taiwan in the NPT and the IAEA."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_the_Non-Proliferation_of_Nuclear_Weapons

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Country-Profiles/Others/Nuclear-Power-in-Taiwan/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-China_policy

Now if one is to read the aboves in continuation and with order and some do say ... Taiwan can test nuclear weapon and become a nuclear weapon state and it is not illegal and is permissible under international law.

Australia supplying to Taiwan ... under what safeguards is that and who signed and how ... and where does the fuel get stored and used. Heck how and where and why did Taiwan have nuclear plants.

If Pakistan can test (and proliferate like a criminal) ... Taiwan a leader in technology cannot test and be a holder of nuclear weapons??

Why does PRC use Pakistan against ... to maintain status quo right !! It is really fine to see India do it that right way when nearby there is like you say discrepancy with international laws. Australia and India will learn and need to do business together.

 

[apple]

International law and also customs is always applicable and is a wonderful animal to jump on ...

"Taiwan signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) in 1968 and ratified it but after 1971 the People's Republic of China replaced Taiwan in the NPT and the IAEA."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_the_Non-Proliferation_of_Nuclear_Weapons

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Country-Profiles/Others/Nuclear-Power-in-Taiwan/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-China_policy

Now if one is to read the aboves in continuation and with order and some do say ... Taiwan can test nuclear weapon and become a nuclear weapon state and it is not illegal and is permissible under international law.

Australia supplying to Taiwan ... under what safeguards is that and who signed and how ... and where does the fuel get stored and used. Heck how and where and why did Taiwan have nuclear plants.

If Pakistan can test (and proliferate like a criminal) ... Taiwan a leader in technology cannot test and be a holder of nuclear weapons??

Why does PRC use Pakistan against ... to maintain status quo right !! It is really fine to see India do it that right way when nearby there is like you say discrepancy with international laws. Australia and India will learn and need to do business together.

Taiwan does have nuclear power plants. They were planning to build some extra ones, but I don't know if that ever happened.

Is a bit of a strange thing for anyone to remember, that sale back ~10 years ago. I'm an Australian and I totally forgot we did that. You've certainly got a good memory Compersion.

Australia relationship with Taiwan and before that the Chinese Nationalists and Chiang Kai-Shek, is quite a long, complicated story that A) I'm not really an expert on and B) I don't think is relevant to discuss here. Just between you and me, while Australia and PRC pretend to be great friends, we're not really.

While PRC and Oz, from my perspective, have a rather more rational, adult relationship with each other than what India seems to have and gotten along pretty well over the last 30 years, Australia and ChiCom troops, or their proxies, have been doing a far bit of killing each other circa 1950-1972.

Think it would be fair to say while we'd rather Taiwan didn't have nuclear weapons, it wouldn't really concern us very much if they did have them.

All that being said, I am a bit confused as to why you'd want to bring up Pakistan when talking about Australia and Taiwanese trade relations. Taiwan isn't a crazy as Pakistan (is any country?). Also, I don't really understand your last paragraph.

Presume you are very familiar with Australia's sale of uranium to India, which was far more problematic than the Taiwan deal.

India took too long negotiating the deal. PM Howard indicated he supported the sale, India took years, and years, and years, trying to buy cheap, "hard balling" the negotiations i.e. being Indians. And then the government changed and new government wasn't interested in the sale. Uranium's not a used car and Australia, at least at the government level, doesn't need the money. We weren't, to borrow a term from the business world, a motivated seller.

 

[Compersion]

Taiwan does have nuclear power plants. They were planning to build some extra ones, but I don't know if that ever happened.

Is a bit of a strange thing for anyone to remember, that sale back ~10 years ago. I'm an Australian and I totally forgot we did that. You've certainly got a good memory Compersion.

Australia relationship with Taiwan and before that the Chinese Nationalists and Chiang Kai-Shek, is quite a long, complicated story that A) I'm not really an expert on and B) I don't think is relevant to discuss here. Just between you and me, while Australia and PRC pretend to be great friends, we're not really.

While PRC and Oz, from my perspective, have a rather more rational, adult relationship with each other than what India seems to have and gotten along pretty well over the last 30 years, Australia and ChiCom troops, or their proxies, have been doing a far bit of killing each other circa 1950-1972.

Think it would be fair to say while we'd rather Taiwan didn't have nuclear weapons, it wouldn't really concern us very much if they did have them.

All that being said, I am a bit confused as to why you'd want to bring up Pakistan when talking about Australia and Taiwanese trade relations. Taiwan isn't a crazy as Pakistan (is any country?). Also, I don't really understand your last paragraph.

Presume you are very familiar with Australia's sale of uranium to India, which was far more problematic than the Taiwan deal.

India took too long negotiating the deal. PM Howard indicated he supported the sale, India took years, and years, and years, trying to buy cheap, "hard balling" the negotiations i.e. being Indians. And then the government changed and new government wasn't interested in the sale. Uranium's not a used car and Australia, at least at the government level, doesn't need the money. We weren't, to borrow a term from the business world, a motivated seller.

Thanks for replying also good to reqd your point of views.

Please read what I wrote about Pakistan in terms of international law and customs observation (lack) versus Taiwan (adherence)

Please also refer to "status quo" in Pakistan nuclear weapon area posture (I.e. with india) and "status quo" in one China policy.

Australia nuclear supply to Taiwan was not done under a PRC umbrella but a USA one. It is important to highlight USA is a declared nuclear weapon state and has law to defend taiwan (I might be wrong but has any nuclear weapon been position and placed in taiwan -like I said international law and customs is a animal). In fact PRC singed a civil nuclear agreement you will notice with some countries well after Taiwan was supplied the juice by australia . does australia supply uramnium to PRC. Did australia consider and review its adherence and lack of international law and custom that were applicable suddenly to india. But irrespective of the earlier naunces the view of india is sound and clear in australia which is good.

Also

Taiwan (ROC) singed NPT and part of IAEA (earlier) and when did PRC sign NPT later. Do IAEA have inspections in taiwan and PRC and under what framework for civil nuclear supply by australia and under what compliances if supply used for military.

That means Taiwan is a "unrecognised state abiding by the treaty". Can taiwan use uranium supply by australia to make a bomb. Will PRC place sanctions on australia for allowing this.

But what about unrecognised nuclear weapon state ?? It says China in NPT and taiwan signed it first - and there is one state policy and there is two signatory by PRC and ROC to NPT !!

Taiwan please declare yourself a nuclear weapons area .

Australia supplying to Taiwan and it was done. India wants to do it the right way and for long term. Australia will learn and do business with India. It takes time and in diplomacy not only memory but relationships are deeper and greater to decades.

Last point with this Taiwan issue one might hear a effort where India and Taiwan will be seen to be not comfortable with one another. One will and must take that for India strength (not against taiwan but others). One will also read about nuke protests in taiwan and making it nuke free (it is obvious by whom that is being done [where india strentgh will be focal going ahead and used to get benefits] and recogition of the above - nuclear weapon state status by international law and customs and one china policy and status quo). Also USA will be shown to be gateway to bigger status (like Taiwan got uranium). Temptations are there but I know my country will do it the right way. And I know USA and others admires that even though they won't admit it.

 

[apple]

does australia supply uramnium to PRC. Did australia consider and review its adherence and lack of international law and custom that were applicable suddenly to india. But irrespective of the earlier naunces the view of india is sound and clear in australia which is good.


That means Taiwan is a "unrecognised state abiding by the treaty". Can taiwan use uranium supply by australia to make a bomb. Will PRC place sanctions on australia for allowing this.

Australia supplying to Taiwan and it was done. India wants to do it the right way and for long term. Australia will learn and do business with India. It takes time and in diplomacy not only memory but relationships are deeper and greater to decades.

And I know USA and others admires that even though they won't admit it.

Yes, Australia does sell Uranium to China. We signed that deal when Prime Minister Howard, the guy I'd mentioned who wanted to sell uranium to India, was still in office. That non proliferation thing that applies to India doesn't apply to China, so the legal situation was totally different.

Don't think there's any issues between Australia and India in regards to business and customs. Private firms do a huge amount of trade. The increasingly shrill complaints for the Indian govt about Australia refusing to sell uranium were quite weird. Showing how desperate you are to buy isn't the most sensible way to acquire something.

In that regards, Taiwan, as well as China, seem more effective at trade at the government level. Both those deals were barely mentioned in the press, and then they happened. Like I mentioned, uranium's not a used car. Haggling over the price isn't going to make it any cheaper and we don't need to sell. Correct me if I'm wrong, but despite the deal being a few years old, don't think the first shipment of Australian uranium has arrived yet in India. What ever deal was eventually made with the uranium mines doesn't strike me as being that favourable to India.

Didn't particularly like them, but the Howard govt was the last truly competent govt Australia has had. That sale to Taiwan, which you correct noticed, was very dodgy. That the sale to Taiwan went through the US was also pretty dodgy. Technically not illegal, but it certainly wasn't cricket.

All the post Howard governments have been obsessed with the press and wouldn't have tried anything like that or they would have been crucified in the papers.

Also, opposition to nuclear power amongst members and voters of the Labor Party, the party which replaced the Howard govt, is pretty widespread. The Indian ambassador to Australia would (/should) have known all this and I'm not sure why the Indian govt thought pressuring us was going to improve anything.

And yes, everyone basically likes India.

 

[Compersion]

Yes, Australia does sell Uranium to China. We signed that deal when Prime Minister Howard, the guy I'd mentioned who wanted to sell uranium to India, was still in office. That non proliferation thing that applies to India doesn't apply to China, so the legal situation was totally different.

Don't think there's any issues between Australia and India in regards to business and customs. Private firms do a huge amount of trade. The increasingly shrill complaints for the Indian govt about Australia refusing to sell uranium were quite weird. Showing how desperate you are to buy isn't the most sensible way to acquire something.

In that regards, Taiwan, as well as China, seem more effective at trade at the government level. Both those deals were barely mentioned in the press, and then they happened. Like I mentioned, uranium's not a used car. Haggling over the price isn't going to make it any cheaper and we don't need to sell. Correct me if I'm wrong, but despite the deal being a few years old, don't think the first shipment of Australian uranium has arrived yet in India. What ever deal was eventually made with the uranium mines doesn't strike me as being that favourable to India.

Didn't particularly like them, but the Howard govt was the last truly competent govt Australia has had. That sale to Taiwan, which you correct noticed, was very dodgy. That the sale to Taiwan went through the US was also pretty dodgy. Technically not illegal, but it certainly wasn't cricket.

All the post Howard governments have been obsessed with the press and wouldn't have tried anything like that or they would have been crucified in the papers.

Also, opposition to nuclear power amongst members and voters of the Labor Party, the party which replaced the Howard govt, is pretty widespread. The Indian ambassador to Australia would (/should) have known all this and I'm not sure why the Indian govt thought pressuring us was going to improve anything.

And yes, everyone basically likes India.

Thanks for replying also good to hear from you.

Leading from earlier where i was wondering if any nuclear weapon has been stationed in Taiwan ...

http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/news/19991020/

"We can now fill in many gaps in the history of the arms race and the Cold War," says Robert S. Norris, a Natural Resources Defense Council senior analyst and a co-author of the article. "Until now, there has never been official information on where, when, and what kinds of nuclear weapons were deployed overseas, and finally we have authoritative information about their presence in such surprising places as Japan, Greenland, Iceland and Taiwan."

The reason that is mentioned is:

In India there is a electricity grid something akin to one nation national grid where all the grid is one. Simply put a nuclear station is used for electricity production and one would believe that uranium provided by Australia to such a grid be it USA and even India no matter where and how it is used theoretically any supply to such a grid in any amount complies that anywhere such nuclear weapon is used by the country Australia would have provided it. Unless a military nuclear facility is always disconnected from the "grid". This is a point where Australia, USA and even India has not thought about but anyway the reason i mention it is:

1. If nuclear weapon was stationed in Taiwan and it was a USA delivery system. The Australian uranium supplied to USA even in minisule amounts theoretically states that Australia provided a military weapon system to be used in Taiwan (and others). Did Australia evaluate its international laws and customs for such a variance. Does PRC state anything against Australia. Does USA state anything against Australia. This is frankly a fire-cracker along with the actual supply of Uranium to Taiwan by Australia.

2. Has Taiwan tested a nuclear weapon and has capability for nuclear weapon test and is it illegal and dodgy:

http://www.chinanews.com/2000-1-7/26/14868.html


(you might need to use a translator)

3. There are 21 countries that recognize Taiwan to be a State.

One China policy clear states Status Quo needs to be maintained. And if one side has nuclear weapons that means the other must also (this would be only justification for Australia and USA to supply and support nuclear weapons and supply to Taiwan). Next look at the manufacturers of Taiwan nuclear plants. Is there any other country (you will notice one important name).

One would not be surprised later if it was announced that PRC by way of North Korea tested because of the above.

How India and Australia signed the nuclear agreement was done in a approach that was done systematically and carefully and India wanted it to be done that way with no shortcuts and in no hurry. It is important also for others that "try" and follow India path. It will be near impossible and extremely difficult. There needs not only be a track record consistent approach, but also stature and even clean hands.

Like you have mentioned how PRC and Taiwan got supply from Australia (no fan fare and dare one say no public analysis). Was it easy. Was it short cuts. Does it have mistakes and confound and even contradict what Australia said to India and even position ...

Looking at pricing points and economics is moving away from the reasoning. Also the value of the deal under a framework where India became a declared nuclear weapon state without any short cuts and misunderstandings and in a international regime where it was difficult and required careful planning. And with such a process i am not sure if it is such a simple fact that the deal is not favorable to india. It is a win win situation for australia and india relations.

You use the words dodgy which i find ironical. It implies that Australia does not have a independent policy (because why would they enter into a dodgy deal). Leave you with a final thought.:

http://disarmament.un.org/treaties/a/npt/china/acc/washington

Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT)
Action Type Accession
Depositary Government of the United States of America
Date 17 March 1992
Note
On July 1, 1968, the Treaty was signed at Washington in the name of the Republic of China. An instrument of ratification of the Treaty on behalf of the Republic of China was deposited at Washington on January 27, 1970. Effective January 1, 1979, the United States recognized the People’s Republic of China as the sole legal government of China. The authorities on Taiwan state that they will continue to abide by the provisions of the Treaty and the United States regards them as bound by its obligations.

The instrument of accession to the Treaty by the People’s Republic of China contains statements, a translation of which reads as follows:

“Mr. Secretary,
“I have the honor to inform you that the People’s Republic of China, in accordance with the decision made by the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress of the People’s Republic of China on 29 December 1991, hereby accedes to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (hereinafter referred to as the Treaty) which was opened for signature at London, Moscow and Washington on 1 July 1968, and to state as follows:

“1. Pursuing an independent foreign policy of peace, China has all along stood for the complete prohibition and thorough destruction of nuclear weapons. With a view to bringing about this objective and maintaining international peace, security and stability, and taking into consideration the aspirations and demands of the large numbers of non-nuclear-weapon countries, China has decided to accede to the Treaty.

“2. China pursues a policy of not advocating, encouraging or engaging in the proliferation of nuclear weapons, nor helping other countries to develop nuclear weapons. China supports the objectives set forth in the Treaty, namely, prevention of the proliferation of nuclear weapons, acceleration of nuclear disarmament and promotion of international cooperation in the peaceful use of nuclear energy, and believes that these three objectives are interrelated.

“3. China maintains that the prevention of proliferation of nuclear weapons is not an end in itself, but a measure and step in the process towards the complete prohibition and thorough destruction of nuclear weapons. Non-proliferation of nuclear weapons and nuclear disarmament should be mutually complementary. Only when substantial progress is made in the field of nuclear disarmament can the proliferation of nuclear weapons be checked most effectively and the authority of the nuclear non-proliferation regime truly enhanced. At the same time, an effective nuclear non-proliferation regime is conducive to the goal of total elimination of nuclear weapons. To attain the lofty goal of complete prohibition and thorough destruction of nuclear weapons, countries with the largest nuclear arsenals should earnestly fulfill their special obligations by taking the lead in halting the testing, production and deployment of nuclear weapons and drastically reducing those weapons of all kinds they have deployed inside and outside their countries. Tangible progress they make in all these aspects will create conditions for the convening of a widely representative international conference on nuclear disarmament with the participation of all nuclear-weapon states.

“4. China maintains that in order to improve and strengthen the nuclear non-proliferation regime and help attain the goal of complete prohibition and thorough destruction of nuclear weapons, the following specific measures should also be taken:
(1) All nuclear-weapon states undertake not to be the first to use nuclear weapons at any time and under any circumstances, and an international agreement on the non-first-use of nuclear weapons should be concluded.
(2) All nuclear-weapon states undertake not to use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear-weapon countries or nuclear-free zones, and an international legal instrument on the non-use or non-threat of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear-weapon countries and nuclear-free zones should be concluded.
(3) All nuclear-weapon states undertake to support the proposition of establishing nuclear weapon-free zones, respect the status of such zones and undertake corresponding obligations.
(4) All states that have nuclear weapons deployed outside their boundaries withdraw all those weapons back to their own territories.
(5) The major space powers halt their arms race in outer space and cease the development of space weapons, the nuclear-related in particular.

“5. The signing and ratification of the Treaty by the Taiwan authorities in the name of China on 1 July 1968 and 27 January 1970 respectively are illegal and null and void.”

And the Australia has to say out loud they believe in ONE CHINA POLICY. Why did Australia supply Uranium to Taiwan and PRC ??

Was it because India was intellectually on the right path. Where the PRC and Taiwan documents were not and ... can be called dodgy and done quickly !! Doing it the right way will get people to call you names but like i said doing it the right way takes time and the relationship out of that is better.

 

[apple]

It's good to hear from you too.

Leading from earlier where i was wondering if any nuclear weapon has been stationed in Taiwan ...

http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/news/19991020/

Not really sure why you provided that link. Although am a little confused why you are still talking about Taiwan.

That link seems to be made by, what I'd refer to as, hippies. That America has stored it's own nuclear weapons out side of the continental USA doesn't surprise me at all. To me that just seems logical.

Think you're making a pretty huge leap with your logic to try and infer that Taiwan has, or is developing, nuclear weapons based on that.

A US warship, which is carrying nuclear weapons, visiting a country would meet the requirement for that list the hippies came up with. Australia would make that list and it's been a very long time since we've been involved with nuclear weapons.

The reason that is mentioned is:

In India there is a electricity grid something akin to one nation national grid where all the grid is one. Simply put a nuclear station is used for electricity production and one would believe that uranium provided by Australia to such a grid be it USA and even India no matter where and how it is used theoretically any supply to such a grid in any amount complies that anywhere such nuclear weapon is used by the country Australia would have provided it. Unless a military nuclear facility is always disconnected from the "grid". This is a point where Australia, USA and even India has not thought about but anyway the reason i mention it is:

I have no idea what your are trying to say with this paragraph and the underlined part particularly confuses me.

Do you mean that because Australian uranium is used to generate electrical power, and electricity is required for nuclear weapons to operate, Australia is providing nuclear weapon states with the capability to use its weapons?

1. If nuclear weapon was stationed in Taiwan and it was a USA delivery system. The Australian uranium supplied to USA even in minisule amounts theoretically states that Australia provided a military weapon system to be used in Taiwan (and others). Did Australia evaluate its international laws and customs for such a variance. Does PRC state anything against Australia. Does USA state anything against Australia. This is frankly a fire-cracker along with the actual supply of Uranium to Taiwan by Australia.

Suspect (although neither actually know nor care) Australian uranium has been used in the nuclear weapons of; the USA, the UK and France, quite possibly the PRC too. All those countries are signatories to the whatever, so that would not be at variance with international law.

Fail to see how this is a "firecracker".

RN ships may have had some nukes on board when they docked in, say, Jamaica. The uranium in the weapons they had may have come from Australia. What does this have to do with India?

2. Has Taiwan tested a nuclear weapon and has capability for nuclear weapon test and is it illegal and dodgy:

http://www.chinanews.com/2000-1-7/26/14868.html


(you might need to use a translator)

3. There are 21 countries that recognize Taiwan to be a State.

One China policy clear states Status Quo needs to be maintained. And if one side has nuclear weapons that means the other must also (this would be only justification for Australia and USA to supply and support nuclear weapons and supply to Taiwan). Next look at the manufacturers of Taiwan nuclear plants. Is there any other country (you will notice one important name).

One would not be surprised later if it was announced that PRC by way of North Korea tested because of the above.

Yeah, I'm not going to bother to try and translate the story from China News. I'll take your word for it that it claims that Taiwan is developing nuclear weapons.

Don't get your point about North Korea, but your middle paragraph I'll respond to. Australia most definitely does not support Taiwan having nuclear weapons and, at least publically (and I'm 99% sure privately too), neither does the USA.

How India and Australia signed the nuclear agreement was done in a approach that was done systematically and carefully and India wanted it to be done that way with no shortcuts and in no hurry. It is important also for others that "try" and follow India path. It will be near impossible and extremely difficult. There needs not only be a track record consistent approach, but also stature and even clean hands.

Like you have mentioned how PRC and Taiwan got supply from Australia (no fan fare and dare one say no public analysis). Was it easy. Was it short cuts. Does it have mistakes and confound and even contradict what Australia said to India and even position ...

As to the systemic approach, sure. If that's the way India wants to do business that's great.

As to the supply of PRC and Taiwan, it may have contradicted what later happened in regards to India. But A) not so much as PRC is a signatory of that treaty which India isn' t and B) the deals were done by different governents. New governments contradict all sorts of positions of previous governments.

Looking at pricing points and economics is moving away from the reasoning. Also the value of the deal under a framework where India became a declared nuclear weapon state without any short cuts and misunderstandings and in a international regime where it was difficult and required careful planning. And with such a process i am not sure if it is such a simple fact that the deal is not favorable to india. It is a win win situation for australia and india relations.

Sure, I have no idea how favourable, or not, the details of the contract are to India as that would be massively secret.

You use the words dodgy which i find ironical. It implies that Australia does not have a independent policy (because why would they enter into a dodgy deal).

I meant it was dodgy as it was not illegal, but not in the spirit of the relevant law. Don't get what you mean by independent and the deal was obviously done for money. The Liberal party, which was in govt. when the Taiwan deal was made, are big friends with mining companies.

You sort of missed my point about the "dodginess" of the Taiwan deal and the delays in getting through the India deal. The Howard govt. wasn't allergic to bad press, and the media was not (in retrospect) that critical of them. Since then the Australian media has gone sort of crazy and by the time the negotiations with India about the sale of uranium had progressed to the stage that it was near to happening, critical stories of all politicians and politics had massively increased.

Perhaps I could explain what I'm trying to express by saying, if Taiwan had tried to buy uranium in, say 2010, it never would have happened as that deal was "dodgy". Post Howard govt, the less "dodgy" deal with India proved massively more difficult than the Taiwan sale.

Leave you with a final thought.:
http://disarmament.un.org/treaties/a/npt/china/acc/washington

Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT)
Action Type Accession
Depositary Government of the United States of America
Date 17 March 1992
Note
On July 1, 1968, the Treaty was signed at Washington in the name of the Republic of China. An instrument of ratification of the Treaty on behalf of the Republic of China was deposited at Washington on January 27, 1970. Effective January 1, 1979, the United States recognized the People’s Republic of China as the sole legal government of China. The authorities on Taiwan state that they will continue to abide by the provisions of the Treaty and the United States regards them as bound by its obligations.

As I was saying in my first post to you. I'm not much of an expert on Taiwan. I get totally confused when trying to work out what kind of relationship that have PRC. So, I'm not really going to comment on that section as I don't understand enough about it.

And the Australia has to say out loud they believe in ONE CHINA POLICY. Why did Australia supply Uranium to Taiwan and PRC ??

Was it because India was intellectually on the right path. Where the PRC and Taiwan documents were not and ... can be called dodgy and done quickly !! Doing it the right way will get people to call you names but like i said doing it the right way takes time and the relationship out of that is better.

Not really sure who is getting called names and why that would be important. As I was saying before (on a totally different topic) Taiwanese are not lunatics like Pakistanis. They don't care if Australia's openly supports a one China policy, they are still our allies. And China's an important partner. If you think India's intellectually on the right pathy, great. Everyone's happy.

 

[cobra commando]

India, Australia Complete Formalities for Civil Nuclear Pact

Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull discuss India- Australia relations in their first bilateral meeting.

ANTALYA: India and Australia today announced completion of all the formalities for their bilateral civil nuclear agreement, paving way for the pact to come into force. The announcement was made after a meeting of Prime Minister Narendra Modi and his Australian counterpart Malcolm Turnbull in Antalya on the sidelines of the G20 Summit. "Another milestone achievement as two PMs announce completion of procedures for India Australia Civil Nuclear Agreement," External Affairs Ministry spokesperson Vikas Swarup tweeted after the meeting. "With the completion of procedures, including administrative arrangements, the India Australia Civil Nuclear Agreement will enter into force," he said. Australia had signed a civil nuclear agreement with India in September last year to supply it uranium for meeting Indian energy needs. Australia has got 40 per cent of the world's uranium and the deal is important for both the countries. Mr Modi thanked Mr Turnbull and described the agreement as a "milestone and source of trust and confidence".

India, Australia Complete Formalities for Civil Nuclear Pact