Skip to main content

Melbourne cannot sell uranium to India

By
Unless India agrees to open its military facilities to nuclear inspectors, sale of uranium by Australia to that country will be a breach of Federal government’s obligations under the South...

Unless India agrees to open its military facilities to nuclear inspectors, sale of uranium by Australia to that country will be a breach of Federal government’s obligations under the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty, a noted legal expert said on Tuesday.
“Australia would be in breach of the so-called Rarotonga Treaty, if India does not change its stand,” Donald Rothwell of Australian National University said in a written legal opinion.
The Rarotonga Treaty bans uranium sales to most countries unless they agree to “full-scope safeguards” defined by the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.
The uranium sale policy is said to be the hot topic of discussions at this week’s national conference of Australian Labor Party in Sydney. The Labor Party will debate on lifting its long standing ban on uranium sale to India.
“If India does not agree to Article 3.1 Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) safeguards and Australia were to export uranium to India, Australia would be in violation of its Treaty of Rarotonga obligations,” Rothwell was quoted as saying by ‘Herald Sun’.
This could lead to a challenge from other countries that are part of the treaty, he added.
Australia is not saying India shouldn’t be subject to safeguards. The real question is the extent and scope of the safeguards. India would need to sign up to full-scope safeguards that would require it to open military facilities.
He said India ratifying IAEA standards was “one step”.
All countries – apart from the five nuclear powers recognised in 1967 as weapons states (China, France, Russia, Britain and the US) – are required to “not only have open inspections of civil facilities but any military facilities that use nuclear material.
“The five nuclear weapons states aren’t required and that is the crux of why India thinks the NPT is discriminatory,” Rothwell said.
Australia’s nuclear agreements with Russia and China do not require the same level of safeguards as these countries were recognised as “nuclear weapon states” by the NPT.
Rothwell said answers by the then foreign minister Alexander Downer on the question of export of uranium to Taiwan in 1996 indicated that the federal government had received legal advice on its Rarotonga Treaty obligations when exporting to countries classified as “non-nuclear weapons states” by the NPT.
Downer, at the time had told Parliament: “The South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty imposes a legal obligation not to provide nuclear material unless subject to the safeguards required by Article 3.1 of the NPT; that is full-scope safeguards.”
Yesterday, Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard’s office said it didn’t comment on the legal advice it received.
“The Prime Minister, as leader of the Labor Party, is seeking to change the party platform to allow the sale of uranium from Australia to India. Any decision by the Australian government on the transfer of uranium to India will comply with our international treaty obligations,” said a spokesman for Gillard.
Prime Minister Julia Gillard has earlier announced her plans to push her party to agree to change its stand to allow sales of uranium to India, which she has said would create jobs in Australia and would still have safeguards attached.
A vote will be put to members at the party’s national conference this weekend.
Tim Wright, the Australian director of ICAN, said the Prime Minister had failed to consult her lawyers.
“Not only is the sale of uranium to India illegal, it is also highly dangerous given that India is rapidly bolstering its nuclear forces,” Wright said.
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the SPY EYES Analysis and or its affiliates. The contents of this article are of sole responsibility of the author(s). SPY EYES Analysis and or its affiliates will not be responsible or liable for any inaccurate or incorrect statements and or information contained in this article.



Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Pakistan can never be Madina E Saani

By
By Nadeem Sajjad. Pakistan is a land loved by many and lived in by millions. It has been witnessed in the past --and somewhat in the present age – that the origin of the name (word) “Pakistan” has had many different accounts of its creators/inventors. Known to be the most accurate of all accounts, is the one of the much respected Chaudhry Rehmat Ali. Others have the concept that the word “Pakistan” was given to the Muslims of India, after the success of Lahore resolution in 1940, by the Hindus of the subcontinent and was then used by Quaid e Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah in his presidential address to the All India Muslim League annual session at Delhi on 24 April 1943. Whatever may be the origin, the Muslims got their own land to practice their religion Islam, and to maintain their traditions. The thing that should be emphasized upon is that the country was created in the name of Islam.  Knowing the origin is one thing, but naming the country or the name itself to something els...
2 comments
Read more

Waging war on ourselves

By
BY  ETHAN CASEY A couple of years ago, giving a talk at a church in Seattle, I was conveying as best I could the anger Pakistanis feel toward the US about drone attacks, when a woman raised her hand and asked, “What’s a drone attack?” I give her credit for asking, but I was astounded nonetheless. Ever since then I’ve kept that woman in my mind, and often cited her to audiences, as an example of the ignorance of ordinary Americans about things that are happening – I should say things we’re doing to other people – beyond our shores. My mentor  Clyde Edwin Pettit  used to say that we’re all ignorant, only about different things. That can be a helpful working assumption when trying to achieve common understanding, but it’s also true that some of us are closer than others to the coal face of hard experience. For example, the novelist  John Grisham recently pointed out  that support for the death penalty is “still very much the consensus among white people i...
Post a Comment
Read more

Pakistani Pilots in Arab Israel War

By
45 years after the 1967 war: How the Arabs lost Jerusalem War is normally measured by its final outcome, but many individual heroes gave up their lives for the Arab side during the 1967 Six-Day War. (Image courtesy AP)   By  ALI YOUNES   SPECIAL TO AL ARABIYA This past June marked the 45th anniversary of the Arab defeat of the 1967 war. War is normally measured by its final outcome, but many individual heroes faithfully gave up their lives for the Arab side, defending the honor of their nations. The actions of those men deserve to be highlighted and explained, especially the contributions of the Pakistani pilot Saiful Azam and the brave Jordanian soldiers of the battle of Ammunition Hill in Jerusalem. At 12:48 p.m. on June 5, four Israeli jets were descending on Jordan’s Mafraq air base to smash the country’s tiny air force, shortly after the entire Egyptian air force had been reduced to rubble.  To intercept the incoming attack, ...
2 comments
Read more