I love it when Indians - coming from a culture where racism is institutionalised, i.e. the caste system - accuse Australians of being racist.

What can you say about the priorities of a nation in which half the children are malnourished but the government spends money on nuclear weapons and a space program?

Despite they hype about India's economic prospects it was interested to hear Jim Rogers on Lateline Business in August explaining why he was shorting India:

"...the one statistic which is decisive in my case is the fact that India now has 90 per cent debt-to-GDP.

"The studies show when countries get to that level of debt, it's hard for them to grow unless something miraculous happens because most of their efforts are spent paying off old debts."

http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/business/items/201108/s3285875.htm

With high debt, out-of-control population growth, declining ground water/agriculture and more, India's economic future is very "uncertain". Best not to risk exporting uranium to such an unstable nation. World uranium supplies are limited so it is not as if losing the Indian market places our long term future in uranium mining under threat. The Indian desperation to access Australian uranium shows the reality of the situation.

So much to question here.
Israel hasn't signed the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty, but Iran has. And yet our Foreign Policy is weighted toward Israel, not Iran. This leads me to think the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty forms the basis of one of those malleable justifications that can be deployed to suit.
India hasn't signed it? So what?
Is China an autocracy, a State governed by a single person having unlimited power? Under Mao, maybe, but isn't the system now one in which the Boss Cocky periodically gets moved on by a Central Committee?
What's government by a group? A bureaucracy?
And the caste system is not racist. It's other things, but it's not racist.

India only has a 90% debt to GDP ratio?
They have a long way to go catch up to us!

http://cdn.debtdeflation.com/blogs/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/061310_1206_Empiricalan112.png

I think the article's in the right direction. Just some points:

- Re "This is an extremely dangerous position for Australia to be in." On current knowledge this overstates Indian resentment. Some solid evidence is needed to prove "extremely dangerous". India remains a major customer for other Australian resources.

- Australia through the Nuclear Suppliers Group http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S.%E2%80%93India_Civil_Nuclear_Agreement#Reactions_following_the_waiver provided defacto agreement for countries in general to export uranium (U) to India. Yet Australia insists on maintaining its U ban to India.

- the ban is not only an ALP issue but the Greens strongly oppose U to India. Of course the Greens oppose all U mining and exports anywhere. The ALP would be mindful of the Greens position.

- Re "Safeguards such as making the trade conditional on the cessation of the production of fissile material for weapons could also be embedded within any bilateral deal" This is already the main area of NPT-Indo-Aus disagreement. India sees maintenance of its production of fissle material (HEU and Plutonium) as a matter of national survival that is non-negotiable.

As a concession Australia could stipulate that Australian U could not be converted into fissile material by India. Although there are technical reasons making such a safeguard as meaningless for India as the Australian safeguards on the U trade to China.

Ferguson's export overtures to India may simply be window dressing as such U exports may have been simply vetoed by Greens' pressure. see http://gentleseas.blogspot.com/2011/02/australian-uranium-sales-to-india.html

Interesting to see what the ALP National Conference (December 2-4, 2011) decides or doesn't decide on this issue.

Pete