Apparently, the Australian government has done a deal to sell uranium to India. Neither Labor nor the Greens and Democrats are happy about the decision, on the basis that India is not a signatory to the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, and therefore we shouldn’t be selling them uranium. As Tim Dunlop puts it
I’ve got an open mind about how our nuclear industry develops (see this, for an earlier discussion) but it is just plain reckless to operate outside the non-proliferation treaty.
The trouble with this argument is that there is no way in the world India will sign the NPT as it currently stands. Why? Because the NPT, as currently written, only allows the USA, UK, France, Russia, and China to have nuclear weapons (it also obligates those five countries to work towards complete disarmament, something none of them have seriously attempted to do). Under its terms, India would have to give up its nuclear weapons entirely. As article III puts it:
Each non-nuclear-weapon State Party (note: in this context, this means anybody other than the five previously mentioned countries) to the Treaty undertakes not to receive the transfer from any transferor whatsoever of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or of control over such weapons or explosive devices directly, or indirectly; not to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices; and not to seek or receive any assistance in the manufacture of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices.
But wouldn’t that be a good thing? Possibly. David Tiley passionately argues that we should “starve” India of uranium so that they will agree to nuclear disarmament. But he’s highly unrealistic. As long as China and Pakistan have nuclear weapons, India will keep theirs. And neither of those countries is going to be giving up nuclear weapons any time soon. It should also be noted that India, unlike both Pakistan and China, is believed not to have passed on its nuclear technology to other countries.
India’s government is perfectly prepared to starve its own civilian nuclear industry of fuel to ensure it has enough for bomb-making, and its own fairly modest mining efforts are quite enough to build a substantial nuclear arsenal - the limiting factor is their uranium enrichment and plutonium production/reprocessing capability, not the amount of uranium mined.
So what are the consequences of India not receiving imported uranium? They’ll burn coal instead. Lots of it. Hundreds of millions of tons of it.
We may not like the fact that India has nuclear weapons. But the idea that we could somehow leverage them into giving them up is ludicrous, as Labor’s proposal for a revised NPT that accommodates India indicates. The question is not whether we want India to have nuclear weapons. The question is whether we want India to be building nuclear power plants or coal-fired power plants. For the future of the world, I’d sure prefer it to be nuclear. And, in my view, it’s sufficiently urgent that we should sell them uranium immediately rather than waiting for the wheels of international renegotiations over the NPT (which would likely take many years, given that making a one-off exception for India is going to be highly problematic).
An earlier version of this post appeared on The View From Benambra
Fran Kelly spoke this morning with (I hope I have the name right) Leonard Spector from a Washington non-proliferation organisation. As I understood his comments, on a prima facie reading, The Treaty of Rarotonga bans Australia (and the other signatories) from selling uranium to anyone who is not part of the NPT regime. Does anyone versed in international law have any thoughts about that?
The issue of nuclear proliferation is one of those ’sleepers’; that’s been around since the 1960’s. First we had massive expansion of arsenals by USA, USSR in the early 60’s, then they decided to “MIRV” their missiles around 1968, and numbers of weapons just grew… China, Israel, India, Pakistan, South Africa, Iraq (thwarted), Noth Korea (???)…..
It’s the sort of issue that has the potential to rear up and bite our bums in a very unpleasant, deafening and incandescent way.
Tom Lehrer did well with his song, “Who’s Next?”. Clever guy: dripping with sarcasm, but why not when huge explosions seemed to be in the offing?
The NPT is far from perfect, but it’s worth trying to shore up, improve, enforce. Now here’s an area where the efforts of Paul Keating and Bob Hawke were a credit to our middling nation.
Australia’s been a stalwart supporter of the International Crminal Court (now operating in The Hague). Why not support the NPT in practical ways too?
cheerio
Not only is that the wrong answer to the question, its the wrong question. By some estimates electricity generation is responsible for only 9% of greenhouse gas emissions. Replacing all fossil fuel powered electricity plants with nuclear power stations would cut greenhouse gas emissions by around only 5-10%. Not to mention that the nuclear fuel cycle is not carbon neutral either.
Chav, I don’t have the exact figures to hand, but I’d suggest your numbers are pretty implausible.
If you have a look around at the EIA website, the USA’s emissions for electricity generation represent about 9% of world CO2 emissions on their own. Yes, that doesn’t include methane and the other non-co2 greenhouse gases, but it’s pretty hard to see how you’d get down to 9% of world emissions.
And, no, the nuclear fuel cycle isn’t completely carbon neutral, but it’s as close as most renewables, as any number of life cycle studies have shown.
Furthermore, you’re not taking into account the possibility of replacing other forms of stationary energy with electricity. To take one example, “heating oil” is a very common way of heating houses and buildings in parts of the USA. Electricity could easily be used instead.
Selling Uranium to India with a no weapons useage tag achieves BA because it allows the Indians to fuel their power plants with Oz Glow and save their own uranium for their weapons programme. Surely an interim agreement would be for the Indians to commit to not expanding their nuclear arsenal. That would be in the spirit of “non proliferation” ie expansion. I think that Howard in his warped little mind thinks that an India with nuclear weapons is a deterent control rod for an uncontroleable Iran and he is quietly happy for India to have nuclear weapons. But the chances of getting India to agree to anything meaningful are minimal. This is a people steeped in a take all give nothing drive, almost to American standards.
From “Lateline night before last:
“ALEXANDER DOWNER: Sure, and you’d never export uranium to India’s military or nuclear weapons programs and number one, they can obviously be quite clearly isolated and the Indians have made it clear that they would never subject them to International Atomic Energy Agency inspections and number two, India can always get uranium for its nuclear weapons program if they want to. There’s no question of that. It’s just that they will never get it from Australia.”
Note:”..they can obviously be quite clearly isolated …”
How?
Not the nuke facilities nor the uranium, the total need for uranium to enable weapons and non-weapons production.
How can we isolate the uranium we send to India from weapons use?
Every little bit we send can replace the bit from elsewhere that was targetted for weapons production.
It all goes into a pool [whether physically separated or not is irrelevant] of uranium required by India for non weapon and weapon production.
So we are indirectly selling uranium for nuclear weapons.
[And, of course, obviously, contributing to the present and future dangers related to the unsolved problem of storing tonnes of deadly waste for millenia.]
Tony Jones forget to ask Alex how this could be managed.
Howard isnt selling uranium to India he is setting up the speculators,like what happened when Labor and its three mines policy,close down a mine,and they have to be compensated.It is a handout to friends who have collected the money to keep a issue going,the speculators is who Howard is pleasing.And the carbon and other emissions from coal fired power stations should be considered a asset..and converted to useful product.The water used through out the whole development cycle may be a problem,but water quality may come about at the power stations.Both Howard and Labor are a devious lot, having so many issues to play around with to separate thinkers and turn them into opponents…as hot rocks are a option for Australia I dont dismiss, why arent there ongoing research into making coal burning emissions the useful product they could be.Simply because it has been convenient to believe in carbon trading which is erroneous.The Chinese and Indian governments may want to do something like that,but,where is the leadership from Australia..there isnt any..the corporates have the research locked up,so even geo thermal-hot rocks will go the way of windpower..the squeeze out..with political contrivance!? If they begin to sell uranium..a simple question that needs to be asked why have a nuke power station,if you could just use the uranium slightly warmed up like hot rocks?We need the New Zealanders to complain about matters blowing their way,otherwise the connivers will win.
The use of electrity to heat anything (including light globes is utter idiocy).
The losses are huge, take coal/oil generated. Barely a third of the energy in the fuel is transformed into electricity and to use electricity to then proudce heat yields about a third, ie a nonth of the original energy, and that doesn’t take into account transmission losses.
Elelcxtricy has two perfect, unique functions, running electronic thingies like TV, stereos & intertubes and motors.
Nothing else that can’t be substituted.
Once again we come back to the point that, as long as millions of people insist on coagulating in megacities, then stupoid mechanism are necessary to enable this stupidity.
Go rural, leave the dea to bury & vote for the dead.
Anyone into some neglected Oz political sci-fi try Florence Eldershaw Barnett’s “Tomorrow & Tomorrow & Tomorrow”, banned during WWII and only released exurgated in 1984 (sic!)
Thanks for this post Robert, one quick thing, I’m appalled at the framing of India as some kind of rogue nation without a knowledge of it’s responsibilities to the world whether under the NPT or outside of it.
Listening to them you’d think India was run by a pack of insane warmongers.
Anyone serious about looking at this will know that India, a country where hundreds of millions have no ready access to energy, is in a serious energy crunch, those who have a mindless and fearful opposition to nukes would consign India’s poor (and middle class) to further decades of energy poverty.
That is what this is about, energy pure and simple.
True, our selling uranium to India will have no effect on India’s nuclear weapons program (they’d be mad to divert our yellowcake - it’d risk a serious scandal when, as you point out, there’s no need for them to run that risk). But we shouldn’t sell them the stuff because it’s another nail in the coffin of the NPT. The US has been the chief undertaker here - we’re playing our usual role of mortuary assistant.
It’s the effect on other potential nuclear powers we should consider.
India’s nuclear weapons are an absolute necessity to keep watch over the nutters next door.
How exactly, John, does anuclear weapon keep watch?
I’m surprised Rudd hasn’t accused of Howard of Double Standards over the Govt’s treatment of Haneef, accusing of him of Terrorism, while on the other hand pointing out that Howard is quite willing to export Uranium to India where it may fall into Terrorist’s hands.
Not only is it not carbon neutral, if it goes wrong, it goes wrong in a big way…
Not to mention the problem of waste storage.
Why not just use renewables? Solar, wind, hydro..?
Hannah: you’re assuming that uranium supply is the limiting factor in India’s military nuclear program.
The fact is that you don’t need much uranium to make a sizable nuclear arsenal. Running a civilian plant uses much, much more.
Amphibious: efficiency is ultimately a second-order concern - it’s ultimately about the environmental impact of energy use. There’s so much energy in uranium we can afford to waste some.
If you look at the World Resources Institute spaghetti chart they say:
To put it another way, I make it about 47% of the whole is from stationary energy. Much of this could come from electricity as well as increasing portion of the 10% that comes from road transport.
Here is a little bed time reading for you Robert.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6946210.stm
The title is “Chernobyl, not a wildlife haven”.
Robert is right that leaning on the Indians by themselves is not going to play; I am more concerned about our role in cheerfully undermining the NPT even further. For me it is part of a larger discussion about the role of morality in international affairs.
But I also think the international community should be working on the Pakistan-India conflict in general, which is the place those bombs could go off. What happens if we trade active support for a civilian nuclear program for inspection?
I know the Indians became involved in bombmaking because they were afraid of the Chinese, but that must be less of an issue now. Besides the fact that delivery to Pakistan is presumably easier than a major Chinese city.
Is it possible to create bilateral disarmament between India and Pakistan. One benefit - that is going to calm the Iranians down, with their own commitment to a nuclear arsenal. Although the Iranians have a much longer list of bomb making countries loitering just beyond their borders.
Immanuel Wallerstein on nonproliferation:
Then:
Phillip Adams conversation with William Langewiesche is worth a listen.
My own position is that I’d be prepared to sell uranium to India for power generation as a technically competent stable democracy, for reasons set out by Robert, but I’d have to be convinced they were going to deal appropriately with the waste.
From Robert:
“Hannah: you’re assuming that uranium supply is the limiting factor in India’s military nuclear program.”
Nope.
Not assuming that at all at all.
I’m assuming they need uranium for their nuclear programme, whatever the aims of such are.
That’s why they want to buy the stuff.
If they didn’t want it they wouldn’t buy it.
That includes uranium for weapons production.
And so if we sell them uranium it releases some of the uranium they are getting from elsewhere [whatever amount that is] to be directed at weapons production.
If I have enough money to buy food and a gun, just enough or maybe even not enough for both, and you give me money for food then some of the money I was going to spend on food can now be directed at buying a gun.
Thanks, you just helped me buy a gun, even if none of your specific dollar notes went to the purchase of the gun.
Simple.
But Mr. Downer doesn’t understand that [or at least doesn’t seem to] and Tony Jones let it pass by in a whoosh over his head.
And Robert I thought you would know this stuff, I’d have bet you even know the fancy economics jargon phrase that describes it.
There has gotta be one.
Anybody?
David, Gareth Evans was saying tonight that if Iran goes nuclear then Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Syria will almost certainly follow. Which is a worry.
On morality, I think the greater urgency is to help India decarbonise. There is a fair bit of pragmatism in that. The sods are hell-bent on industrialising and have made it clear that they did not cause the global warming problem and they are going to insist on doing their share of CO2 emitting as determined by them.
Eventually you need an agreed regime of emitting and the WTO with the will and power to sanction states that don’t play the game. But that’s akin to hopeless dreaming in the near to mid-term.
We do need to revisit the nonproliferation treaty but can’t even begin until Bush is out of the way.
“TOM IGGULDEN: Even if Australian uranium doesn’t find its way into nuclear bombs, it could free up India’s other uranium supplies to be used in its weapons program”
“Lateline” last night.
Now where was Tom when they had Downer answering [sic] questions?
Phil, I couldn’t agree less.
I’m no more demonizing India by pointing to the fact that their government has a terrible record on nuclear proliferation than I am anti-American for criticising the Bush regime or a self-hating Jew for criticising the Israeli Government’s actions.
Even though Robert doesn’t believe it, there are plenty of alternatives to coal and nuclear which could go up as fast (given how long it takes to commission nuclear reactors), cheaper, and without causing greenhouse emissions or increasing proliferation risks. The two biggest would have to be geothermal or solar thermal.
Every single shipment of uranium, of reprocessed uranium, of nuclear waste, increases the risk that one day somebody will detonate a nuclear bomb again. Nothing in the world is worth taking that risk, when it can feasibly be avoided.
There certainly seems a fair turnout of apologists conveniently rocked up here to defend this wingnut-ness.
Now that we are selling uranium to those people in Tehran that Howard, Downer and the rest of you have been telling us for years are vile “terrists” so earnestly, by way of middleman Russia, tell me your cups TRULY runneth over!
Tim, on what basis do you describe India’s proliferation record as “terrible”? Have you compared it to, say, that of the USA, France, or China, perhaps?
Any country that has engaged in illegal development of nuclear weapons and leakage of nuclear technology and know-how to thrid parties, in my book, has a terrible record on proliferation.
India has done both. They breached the ‘peaceful-use only’ agreements with the US and Canada, passing that material to their military program in order to develop Smilling Buddha in 1974. Then, in recent years, Indian scientists and companies have leaked materials and technologies to Iran and others. Not deliberate government proliefation, but then neither was AQ Khan. The Government didn’t do enough to stop it.
In addition, the testing of Smiling Buddha led to a major arms race in the region. That in itself makes them responsible for proliferation.
Come off it, tim. There’s no terribleness or saintliness about it: nuclear proliferation really only has two values, 1 and 0.
If we were to deny uranium sales to countries who’ve historically done the most questionable atomic proliferation, sales to the UK, USA and France ought to be right out. At least India has never tested any atmospheric weapons on Australian soil.
From Liam:
“At least India has never tested any atmospheric weapons on Australian soil”
Ah yes the atom bomb tests of my childhood.
I remember them well.
If you follow the prevailing winds from South Australia’s Maralinga eastwards you hit the place where I spent my childhood years.
At the same time as many of the “tests”.
Could have been worse of course, I could have been a human guinea pig on site or one of the indigenous people local to the area.
Reminds me of that old Tom Lehrer song:
“First we got the bomb, and that was good,
cause we love peace and motherhood.
Then Russia got the bomb, but that’s OK,
cause the balance of power’s maintained that way.
Who’s next?
France got the bomb, but don’t you grieve,
cause they’re on our side (I believe).
Then China got the bomb, but have no fears,
they can’t wipe us out for at least 5 years.
Who’s next?………”
Looks like every pissant country with two colonels and a torture chamber wants one these days. And we’re prepared to flog them the necessary uranium to do it.
Another giant step forward for nuclear non-proliferation.
Thank you very much Mr Howard.
tim, the deal would be off with India if they were shown to leak the stuff or the technology to other states as far as I’m concerned. Downer says they have a clean sheet, but then who’d believe him?
That’s roughly what William Langewiesche was saying on LNL the other night. He’s written a book The Atomic Bazaar: The Rise of the Nuclear Poor. He reckons you need 50kg of yellowcake and the technology to build a big bomb (car-size) is not all that hard, but to make it smaller and deliver it is another thing. He thinks quite a few states are likely to acquire the capacity, but are unlikely to use it. Non-state actors by contrast will find it harder to acquire but having intent and no homeland to look after are very likely to use it.
It seems Rudd will cancel any agreement to sell to India. I’m kinda glad he decided to stand up on that one.
Meanwhile it seems the Govt is lining up Russia next and Labor would too if they promised to be good. Why anyone would trust them, I don’t know.
Is it at all possible that those who want the NPT strengthened could join together to make the U-for-India plan a federal election issue?
For a start, ask every federal candidate what their attitude to the NPT is, and their policy for its future, including:
* U exports from Australia
* inspection rules
* role of the IAEA
* role of non-nuclear states
* disarmament by the biggest losers (sorry, nuclear weapons states)
* reduction of tensions in India/Pakistan, Middle East
* role of the UN
* South Pacific nuckear-free treaty
etc
I think this has the potential to be an important issue.
But we blog-folk, would we rather snipe at each other and thrill to the sound of the tills at Scores (gentlemen’s) Club; or can we see a way to influencing one little part of the coming campaign?
Over to youse all….
cheerio
Liam, you won’t find me defending any uranium sales at all. I want to see the US, UK, France and everyone disarm completely.
Brian, by the time the deal was cancelled it would be too late, wouldn’t it? Fine time to take the moral high ground once the bad stuff’s happened. And, as, since you’ve said, Downer is already telling porkies about India’s record, what’s to say he wouldn’t keep assuring us they’re clean long after he had advice that they weren’t?
tim, I did hear Dolly say that it would take six years for any actual sales to take place, but I was only half listening and I don’t know why it would take that long. Presumably to put the measures they are requiring in place.
That should provide ample time for the Ruddster to do something different providing we give him the chance.
Brian, Tim, Russia has enough HEU and bomb-grade plutonium stocks to blow the world to kingdom come ten times over. Whether we sell them more makes SFA difference.
BTW you need 50 kg of highly-enriched uranium. That’s roughly the equivalent of six and a half tonnes of yellowcake, and the tech to enrich it. Enriching is the hard part of the process, as noted repeatedly.
As for nuclear disarmament, Tim, I come back to a point I made some time ago - how?
Robert, thanks for clarifying the point about 50 kg of highly enriched uranium. I should have checked the audio rather than relying on memory.
Langewiesche was saying that terrorists would find it hard to collect the requisite uranium in one go but if they tried to get it in smaller quantities they multiplied their chances of getting caught. (Again from memory)
I’d have to say that I was surprised that there was any consideration at all of selling to Russia. So why did anyone bother talking about it? Possibly because a journo asked a question.
Robert, it takes just one hit of high-grade heroin to kill someone. There’s tonnes of the stuff already out there. Does that mean Australia should get in on the act and start marketing our Tasmanian poppies as a large potential source of heroin on the world market?
re the excellent question of how, check out the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons and their detailed proposals, including a model nuclear weapons convention.
I’m not saying it’s easy, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do our darndest to try. Instead of doing the opposite and fuelling nuclear tensions (and thereby fuelling proliferation) across south asia and the middle east…