A few years ago, our Australian government made the conscious choice to assist a criminal US government in a war on it's own population - and had the lying gall to accuse we objectors of being "anti-American". The results are now in for everyone to see.

Now it seems, we are poised to do the same thing for the Indian people.

Does anyone here really believe that the people of India wish for nuclear weapons?

Then who tells Mr Downer what to do or think? Exactly which "foreigners" is Foreign Affairs having an affair with? That is the question.

Jim puts up some good arguments but he underemphasizes the historical and (less known) strategic background to this issue.

India first exploded a nuclear device in 1974 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smiling_Buddha > Its main concerns were that one enemy (China) had nuclear weapons and India also wanted to gain the edge over its constant opponent (Pakistan).

Once Pakistan developed deliverable nuclear weapons (by the mid 1990s) and tested them in 1998 (in response to Indian tests the same year) there was no turning back.

Given the reality of nuclear threats from Pakistan and China India's nuclear weapons capability is seen as an essential source of protection and national pride by the Indian people.

I think the green house gas argument for supplying uranium to India has always been basically window dressing. Australia wants to strengthen its defence relationship with India (partly to contain China and to keep India on side). This is in the context of wider US strategy which is to block Chinese and Russian expansion.

OTHER COUNTERS to Jim's idealism are:

(1) the NPT is basically a Club of the 5 large powers (US, Russia, UK, France and China) who developed nuclear weapons first and then wished to maintain their dominant (NPT endorsed) status quo by preventing other countries from developing nuclear defenses; and

(2) My Indian contacts have made it quite plain that if trade partners created a uranium shortage in India, India would allow uranium levels in civilian reactors to run down while maintaining uranium requirements for Bomb making. In any case they estimate that India will develop the capacity for up to 72 thermonuclear devices (hydrogen bombs) a year, using India's indigenous Uranium. http://spyingbadthings.blogspot.com/2007/07/australian-uranium-unnecessary-for.html

(3) If Australia doesn't supply uranium to India then the US, Canada or even Russia could make up the shortfall.

Being principled on an issue is useless if it has no effect on the real world.

Pete

If you accept the inevitability of increased uranium sales then I think Australia should act as a kind of paid umpire. To do that it needs to become a preferred supplier with predictable rules but perhaps offering extended services such as taking back waste. That way there is reduced temptation to use less principled suppliers. One of the rules would be that any diversion for military use would lead to blacklisting. In other words they would have their bomb but henceforth they have to buy from Khazakstan or wherever.

I note the people who urge energy cutbacks for developing countries tend to be globetrotting frequent flyers...do what I say not what I do.

I must disagree with what Plantagenant has posted. The difference that is made by abiding by some principles on the sales of Uranium is that with 30% of the current Uranium ore in the world in Australia it makes Uranium users, such as India very cautious. When their supplies of Uranium reduce to the point where that next amount requires them to use Australian Uranium then they have to consider further optons. That day will come and they know that so it matters to them now if we do not sell any Uranium to them now.

what is the point of this discussion? do we have any cabinet members asking for advice?

the relevant fact is this decision will be made in secret by a group of people who were perfectly willing to engage in illicit activity with saddam hussein, in the face of u n sanctions. they aren't concerned with anything but money and votes.

you are ruled by these people. if you had any self respect, this would be a matter of concern.

DEMOS, you are too quick to dismiss the fact that governments work for the people, not the other way around.
http://www.votenuclearfree.net