Australia may insist on test ban and sending its own nuclear inspectors; Howard calls PM, discusses uranium sale

New Delhi

16 August 2007

Australia could send its own inspectors for checking Indian nuclear

plants to ensure proper use of the uranium it might supply, according to Australian

Foreign Minister Alexander Downer.

"This will provide still more safeguards than we currently have," he told the Australian

Broadcasting Corporation. He sought to suggest that a bilateral safeguards arrangement,

in addition to a similar agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency, would

help prevent the use of Australian uranium in the Indian nuclear weapons programme.

The chairman of the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation, Mr Ziggy

Switkowski, went a step further to seek an Indian commitment to abandon nuclear testing

in future. He expected a ban on nuclear testing to be part of any cooperation between

India and Australia.

India will have to play by acceptable international rules if she wanted Australian

uranium, he was quoted as saying in the Herald Sun newspaper.

"To be allowed access in one case to American technology for new generation reactors

and to our high quality uranium you've got to be prepared to accommodate the rules that

govern reasonable international behaviour," Switkowski said. "I think continuing

weapons testing would compromise that kind of a situation. I think at that stage we have

to reverse out of the agreement in terms of supplying Australian uranium."

The statements by Mr Downer and Mr Switkowski come on a day when Australian Prime

Minister John Howard telephoned Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to inform him of the

decision of the Australian Government regarding sale of uranium to India. The national

security committee of the Australian Cabinet on Tuesday decided in principle to export

uranium to India, conditional on agreed safeguards. Australia has the world's largest

known reserves of uranium.

The spokesman of the Ministry of External Affairs said: "The Prime Minister thanked

Prime Minister Howard. It was agreed that the matter would be discussed further at the

official level."

In Sydney, Mr Howard said that safeguards to prevent the use of the nuclear fuel in

weapons would be put in place. "Before effect is given to the in-principle decision we

have taken there'll also need to be a satisfactory finalisation of the negotiations between

India and the United States," he said.

The opposition Labour Party has demanded that the Australian Government immediately

review the pending decision to sell the uranium to India. Labour Party Foreign Affairs

Spokesman Robert McClelland said in Canberra: "The US State Department has now

made clear that the US-India agreement is off if India do go ahead with a nuclear

weapons test. So the foreign minister must immediately make clear whether the Howard

Government was prepared to take their proposed nuclear deal off the table if India

conducts nuclear weapons tests." The Indian Government, he said, won't rule out nuclear

testing and Australia has multiple international treaty obligations that the Government

should uphold. He added that Labour, if elected, would overturn any decision to sell

uranium to India and would lobby as a member of the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) to

block such exports.

PM: No annual US certification needed; says reprocessing right is permanent, IAEA safeguards pact will be taken up soon

New Delhi

13 August 2007

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on Monday told Parliament that the

United States has given "permanent" consent for India to reprocess spent nuclear fuel

and that the US cooperation with India will not be subject to an annual certification

process.

"Our reprocessing rights are upfront and are permanent in nature," he told the Lok

Sabha. (His statement was tabled in the Rajya Sabha.) He added: "US cooperation with

India is a permanent one. There is no provision that states that US cooperation with India

will be subject to an annual certification process."

His statement made no reference to the Hyde Act, which has been cited by the Left

parties to oppose the proposed India-US civil nuclear cooperation agreement. CPI(M)

General Secretary Prakash Karat has referred Section 104 g (2) E (i) rpt Section 104 g (2)

E (i) of the Hyde Act to suggest that the annual certification and reporting to the US

Congress by the President on a variety of foreign policy issues would be enforced by

successive US Presidents to coerce India to accept the strategic goals of the US.

Again, Article 14 (9) of the 123 Agreement does not reflect fully his assertion that

reprocessing rights are permanent in nature. The Article states that the arrangements

and procedures for reprocessing fuel will be concluded later and they "shall be subject

to suspension by either party".

Prime Minister Singh said that the finalisation of an India-specific safeguards agreement

with the International Atomic Energy Agency "is being taken up shortly", ignoring the

demand made by the opposition BJP-led NDA, the UNPA and the Left parties alike that

the next steps for operationalising the agreement should be put on hold.

"We have negotiated this agreement as an equal partner," he asserted. "There is no

question that we will ever compromise, in any manner, our independent foreign policy.

We shall retain our strategic autonomy [and] the agreement does not in any way impact

on India's ability to produce and utilise fissile material for its current and future strategic

needs."

He said that the concept of full civil nuclear cooperation has been clearly enshrined in

the 123 Agreement. He, however, hastened to add that the US has a policy of not

supplying to any country enrichment, reprocessing and heavy water production

technology but the agreement provides for such transfers to India through an

amendment.

He said: "Forward-looking language has been included for dual use transfers of

enrichment, reprocessing and heavy water production facilities. We hope transfers will

become possible as cooperation develops and expands in the future."

He clarified that the agreement did not affect India's right to conduct nuclear tests, if it

was necessary in the national interest, because a multi-layered consultation process

has been included with regard to "any future events" that may be cited as a reason to

seek cessation of cooperation or termination of the agreement.

Prime Minister Singh said that there was no change in India's position that she would

accept only IAEA safeguards on our civilian nuclear facilities. "This would also be in a

phased manner and as identified for that purpose in the Separation Plan, and only when

all international restrictions on nuclear trade with India have been lifted. India will not

take any irreversible steps with the IAEA prior to this," he emphasised.

He justified the nuclear pact with the US on the ground that even if India were to exploit

all her known resources of coal, oil, gas and hydropower, she would still be confronted

with a yawning demand and supply gap.

"Nuclear energy," he said, "is a logical choice for India. Indigenous supplies of uranium

are highly inadequate and hence we need to source uranium supply from elsewhere."

He went on to suggest that there would be "major spin-offs" for the private and public

sector industries in the area of high technology trade. Another major gain for India, he

pointed out, would be creation of opportunities for Indian scientists to participate in the

international activities.

Russia ticks off US on Iran; cautions Washington against provoking Tehran

Moscow

26 December 2005

As the European Union's nuclear negotiations

with Iran remain delicately poised, a top Russian official has cautioned

the United States against precipitating an avoidable crisis and urged

Washington to refrain from making provocative statements.

"If the US [continues its] provocation against Iran, there is no prediction

which way [Iran] will go," a top Russian official told this newspaper. On

Russia's position, he said, "We have told Iran not to go beyond the limits

of energy purposes and the supply of nuclear fuel".

The remarks flow from concerns about the likelihood of a situation

developing in Russia's proximity that was "not in favour of Moscow".

There is also a perception that if Iran goes nuclear, it will pose a "real

threat" to Russia more than the US.

Concerns have also been expressed by certain quarters about a

breakdown in the talks and a showdown early next year when the board of

governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) holds a

regular meeting in Vienna.

The EU and the US are backing the Russian proposal that would allow

Iran to enrich uranium on Russian territory. Doing so would prevent

Tehran from diverting enriched uranium towards its nuclear weapons

programme.

Tehran on Sunday rejected Moscow's offer to process uranium for Iran on

Russian soil. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Russia had on Saturday

said that its proposal to facilitate "on Russian soil a joint Russo-Iranian

undertaking to enrich uranium still stands".

Iran, which resumed discussions with the EU negotiators -- Britain, France

and Germany -- last week, insisted on its right to produce enriched

uranium while maintaining that it was keen only on meeting its energy

requirements. The next round of talks are expected on January 18.

Russia and China abstained from voting in the September 24 meeting of

the IAEA. Their decision blocked the moves to refer Iran to the United

Nations Security Council. Both Russia and China also have veto powers

as permanent members of the Security Council.