Should Australia expot Uranium to India

1. 75

   barryrutherfordposted 12 years ago

   India  has not signed the International Agreement on nuclear proliferation and as such Australia has until now been unwilling to export Uranium to India.
   
   Following Talks with Barack Obama who is visiting Australia for the first time as President of the United States.
   
   An announcement is expected that will allow for the increase in shared Military facilities in Australia as well as the commencement of exporting of Uranium to India
   
   What to you think?

   replyreport
2. 67

   Pearldiverposted 12 years ago

   Hell it's better than Aussie sending 'Yellow Cake' via other Aussie companies in New Zealand mate
   
   We WERE the First Nuclear Free country to stand up to the Nukes by becoming Nuclear Free...
   
   And now?
   
   We've got damn Hobbits doing hakas everywhere!

   replyreport
3. 60

   SiddSinghposted 12 years ago

   If this was a matter of principles, Australia should stay put on its current stand - do not export Uranium to India.
   
   But it is not a matter of principle you see.
   
   India was not a signatory to NPT when Aus decided that they will not export to India. India is not a signatory to NPT even today. So what happened in between to make Aus rethink?
   
   Well, Fukushima happened. There is a major rethink in adopting nuclear power for power generation for new plants. So one can assume that the overall demand for Uranium (for power gen) will slacken, at least in the short to medium term.
   
   The whole "principled" stand was that Australia will not export to a non-NPT country - which ostensibly implies that the recipient country is bound to not indulge in nuclear proliferation.
   
   But why then does Australia export to China? China is an NPT signatory, but guess where did the Pakistani and N Korean nukes come from? And what about Iran's nuke program?
   
   http://www.nti.org/db/china/niranpos.htm
   
   Or is it that Australia cannot afford to rebuff China?

   replyreport
   1. 75

      barryrutherfordposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      SiddSingh
      
      I am with you on this!

      replyreport
      1. 60

         SiddSinghposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Ah. Let me disclose that I am an Indian.
         
         Nevertheless, I believe that a principled stand should be firm. And it should be consistent in its application.
         
         Obviously, the current Australian policy in this regard is neither.

         replyreport
4. 60

   SiddSinghposted 12 years ago

   This article throws a bit of light on the reasons for current rethink -
   
   http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indi … 746970.cms
   
   Particularly telling are these two extracts -
   
   "Supporting uranium sale to India, Gillard explained at a press conference in Canberra why her government should overturn its current ban. Recognizing that the old strategy of bringing India into the NPT had been overtaken by the US-India civil nuclear agreement, Gillard said, "It effectively lifted the de-facto international ban on cooperation with India in this area. ... for us to refuse to budge is all pain with no gain  and I believe that our national platform should recognize that reality."
   
   Pain without gain? Is this a principled stand, or realpolitik?
   
   The second extract -
   
   "The spot price of uranium after Fukushima has fallen to below $50 a pound as compared to over $140 in 2007."

   replyreport