No uranium for India until they sign the non-poliferation pact.

I have generally thought that John Howard is the best PM we have had in my life time - back to and including Menzies. But I'm getting just a little tired of Howard's swings. There was no way in the world we would sell unranium to India because it didn't sign the pact. After the deal between the USA and India, our resolve would still hold. Now, it is becoming likely that he will allow the sale of uranium to India, and the pact will still not be signed by India. Shocking double standards!

Mr. Howard has probably been forgiven for his lie on the GST by now - the GST has worked well. But now, with his refusals to discipline errant Ministers under his own code of conduct, the AWB fiasco and his current teetering on the brink of selling uranium to India, not to mention the quite disappearance of assurances that no worker would be worse off under the new IR laws, perhaps it is time for him to stand aside. He is increasingly ignoring the need for accountablilty, consistency and honesty.

Iran has signed the non-proliferation pact. Who is enforcing this pact? who cares?

We need to work towards a balance of power between China and India. These two countries will become the major economic (and potentially the major military) forces in this century.

While we could always send ship loads of coal to India a far better solution would be nuclear powered electricity generation for the obvious reasons of greenhouse gas emmisions.

Why can't we find a way to process and package our uranium (on our shores) so that it is not viable to be used for any other purpose than the peaceful purposes intended.

The IR legislation now law,will benefit the workers of INDIA,at the expense of the workers of Australia,all because of the DICTATOR John Howard

Bruce,. thats a good suggestion regarding packaging uranium here, but its the nature of the beast that currently makes it impossible. What it's used for, determines its by-products and future effects.

We should have great ties with Asia, they should be as strong as they are with other countries. Those ties should be from an unmovable position on what we do with our countries, resources and how we live, just as Asian countries demand that of us.

The major flaw with any uranium debate, which is what this blokes trying to push, is uranium use results in very long term dangers. How will future generations cope with many contaminated sites, in every country and millions of tonnes of dangerous by-products. That continue to accumulate without proper safe storage facilities around the world.

What's with all this uranium schtick?

How about engaging with the content of the article, instead of zipping away into single-issue bigotry?

There are some key realities about our own future contained in this article, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with nuclear this or uranium that.

India and China are destined, inevitably, to play a significant role in the global economy in this century. The author puts a cogent - albeit one-sided story - together that suggests we take it all a bit more seriously than we do currently. Unfortunately, our government is so introverted that it cannot even get the basics of a state visit in order. They are clearly incapable of running international policy, and should be voted out of office at the first opportunity.

On the other hand, we could simply close our borders, stop trading with these horrid people whom we clearly cannot trust with our valuable minerals, and at the same time teach them a lesson by refusing to buy their stuff either.

And watch our economy and our living standards sink slowly in the West.

Whether we like it or not, we need to retain some sort of position in the world that involves working with our neighbours. All I can see right now is the narrow-minded view of a suburban lawyer, grappling with policies that are firmly rooted in an "us and them" mentality.

More fool us.

Information on our foreign policies and attitudes is not readily available to other than the more specialised, that is at an accurate level, even if the hype is all to obvious and can be discounted. My comments are thus uninformed given only perhaps to show how insular we are fearful of anyone differing from us.
So far as I can see your construction is correct, Australia is a little insular.
However insularity can be reversed by becoming a trading partner. Pragmatism!
Australia has an increasing current account debt (used to be a worry when labour was in power, now a mere bagatelle) and foreign ownership of commerce (and other areas) increases, with only some counter balancing overseas ownership of ours. Free trade with America seems to be at our expense despite grand prophecies.
Design the same pull on our being what Renouf called “The Frightened Country” as America currently has and with the Governments desire to hold on to power, India might have a chance. There is no morality in foreign relations.
As a primary producing nation with little industry and decreasing technical expertise Uranium and coal are obvious sale items. Hence perhaps the concentration of replies in this area. Neither is without a real down side. The case for coal depends on getting rid of GHG component, for uranium controlling use other for energy and disposal of long term waste. None of these problems has yet been solved yet in each case real pressure from those who see profit or see balancing our current account is meeting a prime minister whose actions are of the moment according to need, his. China presently offers better trade, the future will be the problem of others! We may gas ourselves, Nuclear willdo little for this, radiate, explode or succumb to the pressures of empires India? China? A consortium of South East Asia? America seems likely to fade as front runner her internal debts (protecting the free world!) and her need increasingly for imports should ensure that. Maybe Australia is backing the wrong nag in this long term race-which is what you say!