| Submit your comments on this article |
| Down Under |
| Australia will not sell uranium to countries not party to NPT |
| 2008-08-02 |
| SYDNEY -- Australia on Friday said it will support the safeguards agreement between the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and India, but has reaffirmed that it will not sell uranium to India or any other country that is not a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). "After careful consideration, the Australian government has formed the view that the safeguards agreement is a positive step which will strengthen nuclear non-proliferation efforts and is consistent with the non-proliferation objectives of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty," Foreign Minister Stephen Smith said in a statement here. "The Australian government's position remains very firmly that it will not supply uranium to countries that are not a party to the NPT. Australia strongly supports international efforts to strengthen nuclear non-proliferation and remains committed to universal adherence to the NPT. We will continue to encourage those States not party to the NPT, including India, to join the Treaty," said Smith. Australia is one of the 35 members of the IAEA board that met in Vienna on Friday. |
| Posted by:Steve White |
| #7 Some argue that the NPT is a fragile thing and will not survive an attempt at modification. The nuclear weapon states (NWS) badly want article IV to be amended to remove the 'right' to civilian nuclear technology with replacement by an international fuel/reactor consortium. Non nuclear weapon states (NNWS) like Iran and Brazil are strongly opposed to this. They want to control the fuel cycle so they maintain breakout capability. Other NNWS like Sweden would push for amending article VI. This promises that the NWS would work towards complete nuclear disarmament. Many would like an actual cutoff date by which time all weapons are to be dismantled. There would be opposition to amending article IX to include India by other powerful states such as Japan or Germany would would see themselves relegated to a lower tier. There would be a flood of NNWS seeking to be NWS. Others argue that existing treaties and norms strongly inhibit the acquisition of nukes and the NNWS are unlikely to seek nuclear weapons. They claim that the nations that have nukes, outside of the NPT (India,Israel,Pakistan) are motivated by security considerations that the NNWS do not have, many NNWS being already under the nuke umbrella of their NWS allies. |
| Posted by: john frum 2008-08-02 12:58 |
| #6 You can't tell me that they can't come up with a workaround for NPT membership. The U.S. is a member and we didn't disarm, russia, G.B., none of them did either. I understand the time line at issue, but maybe they should get realistic about this. India's not going to disarm, agreed. But the treaty could be modified for their particular case if it would bring them into the fold. If it can't , then it isn't worth a damned spit anyway. |
| Posted by: bigjim-ky 2008-08-02 12:35 |
| #5 Many of the sanctions imposed by Jimmy Carter (following the 1974 test) and Bill Clinton (following the 1998 tests) are actually still in force. While higher ups may announce a change in policy, officials in the state department are quite reluctant to issue the actual waivers. They typically stall for years. What the Bush-Singh nuke deal was really about was clearing away those thirty years of sanctions and recriminations. |
| Posted by: john frum 2008-08-02 11:49 |
| #4 The US actually pushed India quite hard on the nuclear issue. On July 16, 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson was informed that a significant crop failure in India had forced millions of people to the brink of famine. The President responded by cutting off all U.S. economic and food aid to India. He instituted a "short leash" food aid policy toward India, releasing, with apparent reluctance, surplus American food on a month-by-month basis, many delayed to the last minute without any explanation. The shift to short bursts of assistance put constant pressure on India to earn the next batch, and often the Indian Ambassador, or occasionally the Prime Minister, would be forced to phone or come to the White House to plead for a release of U.S. food shipments Komer’s briefing to Johnson on relations with India stated that “our biggest problem in India is helping to make it tick. Our aid gives us real leverage here.” The four things that Komer lists that the U.S. wanted for an aid package were “major economic policy changes (freeing up the private sector, new emphasis on agriculture, relaxation of import controls),” “a firm anti-proliferation pledge,” “a stronger anti-Chicom stance,” and finally “Pak/Indian reconciliation" |
| Posted by: john frum 2008-08-02 11:42 |
| #3 If they sign the NPT they'd be required to give up their nuclear weapons, and they won't do that. They wouldn't be allowed to sign the NPT as a nuclear power; countries that had nukes when the NPT was created were grandfathered in, and no one else can join the club. |
| Posted by: Steve White 2008-08-02 11:28 |
| #2 India can only sign the NPT as a non-nuclear weapons state. It would have to disarm. |
| Posted by: john frum 2008-08-02 11:28 |
| #1 Well, somebody had to say it. I don't know why we haven't pushed harder for India to be an NPT signatory. I don't blame them for wanting to keep the IAEA out of their hair, but if they want to be a major player, they're going to have to modernize their thinking a little. It would only strengthen the NPT's legitimacy in the region. Pakistan would then be under the gun. |
| Posted by: bigjim-ky 2008-08-02 11:11 |