LAST Tuesday's vote of confidence in the Indian parliament supporting an international agreement on the use of uranium for clean energy production means that Kevin Rudd must correct the snub to India by reversing his earlier decision to abandon uranium sales for clean electricity generation.
The Government must reverse its position on this issue, which has been described as the most crucial to face India since it gained independence nearly 61 years ago.
One of the first foreign policy acts of the Rudd Government was to overturn a decision by the Howard government to help India supply greenhouse gas-free electricity to its growing population, provided certain conditions were met, under a agreement being negotiated between the US and India.
The Rudd Government's decision was wrong, an offence compounded by Foreign Minister Stephen Smith telling India it was because of party politics.
India's energy security and needs are the major issue in the relationship between our two countries.
This issue can make Australia a very important partner to India strategically. It is what India really wants from us.
From a climate perspective there is overwhelming merit in addressing the reality of India's energy needs by supplying the resources for clean energy, otherwise these resources will simply come from less environmentally friendly sources.
Two thirds of India's emissions come from burning coal, mainly in power stations. Without a change in the method of base-load power generation, this share of emissions from coal-fired power stations will increase through to 2030 and beyond.
As India grows, it will rank third behind the US and China in terms of global energy usage and greenhouse gas emissions.
If the existing restrictions on the import of nuclear technology and uranium for peaceful power sources are removed, as much as 35 per cent of India's total energy needs could be met by clean nuclear power plants by 2050.
This would have a much bigger impact on global greenhouse gas reductions than any domestic policy Rudd could propose.
Countries using Australian uranium avoid carbon dioxide emissions roughly equivalent to our entire annual CO2 emissions from all sources.
Around the world nuclear power today reduces global emissions by more than 2 billion tonnes a year.
As well, the conditions that Australia placed on any sales of uranium to India would have seen global non-proliferation strengthened by including India, a country the Government acknowledges has an exemplary record on non-proliferation. The majority of India's nuclear reactors are coming under the strict coverage of the International Atomic Energy Agency for the first time.
Smith has stated that India "has a strong record on non-proliferation" but that Labor will not change its position on opposing the sale of uranium to India because the policy is "long-standing and well known". This is putting grubby party politics ahead of the national interest.
India is understood to be deeply offended by the Government's decision, and the manner in which it was conveyed. Influential foreign affairs commentators from India have denounced the decision in the strongest terms, labelling the scrapping of the pledge to sell uranium as "retrograde ideology, pathetic hypocrisy, misplaced non-proliferation zealotry", and accusing our Prime Minister of parroting "the same lame excuse as if he has not read the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty text".
However, while the Government is saying to our Indian friends that we do not trust them with our uranium, at the same time Rudd and Smith say they have not yet made up their minds on whether to veto sales of uranium to India by the 44 other members of the Nuclear Suppliers Group.
How can Australia refuse to sell our uranium to India, yet plausibly support the rest of the world supplying uranium? Either way, Australia will be adding insult to injury.
The bottom line on all this is that by reversing Australia's commitment to sell uranium to India, Labor did substantial damage to the Australia-India relationship.
The national interest was not considered. Climate change was ignored. Nuclear non-proliferation was sidelined. A China bias was implied. Constructive US policy towards Asia was opposed. India's feelings were trampled .
It makes no sense to sell uranium to China and Russia, and not to India. Or to claim climate change to be the great moral challenge of our time and then block the adoption of nuclear technology, which is greenhouse gas-free and already provides 16 per cent of the world's electricity needs.
The US-India nuclear agreement is good for India, good for Australia, good for the region, good for climate change and good for nuclear non-proliferation. To block uranium sales to India is disastrous politics. It is a position that is unsustainable. It can and must be reversed.
Andrew Robb is Opposition spokesman on foreign affairs.
Posted by: john frum ||
07/27/2008 12:45 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11128 views]
Top|| File under:
It takes a foreign paper to overcome the MSM bias. Will this break the dam? The NE is supposed to publish photos this week, and a security guard has confirmed the facts of his visit. If this was Romney would the MSM have held back? rrriiiiggghhht
Posted by: Frank G ||
07/27/2008 11:25 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11129 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
50 cents says when he finally confesses, his idiot wife will "stand by him."
Grrrrrr.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
07/27/2008 12:05 Comments ||
Top||
#2
The NE supposedly has airtight defences for any action Breck Boy brings. And they certainly knowhow to drive up sales. Pretty soon the NE will be Americas Paper of Record.
#3
Even so, Tony Pierce, editor of the Los Angeles Times, issued an edict to the papers own bloggers to stay off the subject. Because the only source has been the National Enquirer, we have decided not to cover the rumours or salacious speculations, he wrote.
Mickey Kaus, a blogger for Slate magazine, leaked the memo. He noted: This was a sensational scandal that the Los Angeles Times and other mainstream papers passionately did not want to uncover when Edwards was a formal candidate and now that the Enquirer seems to have done the job for them it looks like they want everyone to shut up while they fail to uncover it again.
The New York Times has not deigned to touch the story, although it recently ran thousands of words on a relationship between McCain and a female lobbyist, which appeared to be based more on innuendo than fact.
My, my! Doesn't the Times feel any professional courtesy to its New World brethern?
Posted by: Bobby ||
07/27/2008 12:37 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Isn't it lovely how easily the Times falls into a feeling of superiority to its supposed equal on the other side of the pond?
#5
If this were, say, Mitt Romney or some other recent GOP contender, you could bet your last dollar the media would run it 24/7, even pre-empting the latest paens to their own candidate, the Obamasiah, to ensure saturation coverage.
If it were McCain himself, the level of media hysteria would break all previous records for crass sensationalism. Actually, it would be pretty remarkable if it were McCain, but it might explain his recent lack of energy.
#6
"Pretty soon the NE will be Americas Paper of Record."
The late lamented Weekly World News billed itself as "The World's Only Reliable Newspaper." I preferred to call them "the most trusted voice in major media."
#7
The Weekly World News is back in business (follow AC's link). One of their stories for the July 27 issue was,
DEMOCRATS PLANT SEXY INTERN TO SEDUCE BUSH
By -- By MICHAEL CHIRON
WASHINGTON -- White House security personnel have reportedly booted a young female intern off the staff after discovering she was a mole planted by the Democrats -- on a mission to seduce President George W. Bush!
After 9/11, federal authorities estimated that as many as 5,000 terrorists were living in the U.S. The new figure is jarring not only because it's four times as large but because it's based on real persons, not estimates.
It's not something headquarters wanted to publicize. Officials had downplayed the threat so as not to spook the public. The spin had been that Britain has the homegrown problem, not us.
But that was before the ACLU launched a campaign with the Democrat Congress to demonize the watch list as a Gestapo-like tool. The FBI had no choice but to knock down their myths.
The ACLU charged that an "out-of-control" FBI is adding mostly innocent people to the list, ballooning it to "over 1 million names." "I doubt this thing would even be effective at catching a real terrorist," ACLU spokesman Barry Steinhardt harrumphed.
In fact, the list has saved countless lives, according to the head of the FBI's terrorism screening center an assertion backed up by a recent independent review by the GAO.
And the watch list monitors only 400,000 people, not a million, says the FBI official, Leonard Boyle. The rest are aliases due to the myriad spellings and variations of Arabic surnames.
In a rare public appearance on C-Span, Boyle added that the overwhelming share of individuals on the terrorist list are foreigners, while "5% to 6%" of individuals are U.S. citizens or legal residents.
That still pencils out to at least 20,000 people living in this country right now at large and on the streets who have "some relationship with terrorist activity," as Boyle described it.
They pose a big enough threat for airlines to legally bounce them off planes, and for every law enforcement authority from border agents to local police to detain them for questioning.
At 20,000 strong, these suspected homegrown terrorists number a full army division. And they don't include the more than 440 active terrorists the Justice Department already has put behind bars since 9/11. Britain, by comparison, is watching just 8,000.
But never mind all that. The ACLU and its allies on the Hill want to scrap the terrorist watch list and take law enforcement's eye off these potentially dangerous suspects.
In a perfect world, the ACLU might qualify as a terrorist facilitator deserving of its own spot on the list.
#1
the overwhelming share of individuals on the terrorist list are foreigners
Bush needs to issue an executive order for immediate forcible deportation of these characters, along with all immediate family members, back to country of origin. Do this at their, or their country's expense. Combine that with permanent denial of U.S entry privileges and they might start to get the message.
A report prepared last year by the National Counterterrorism Center in Washington quantified the scale of violence in India. Between January 2004 and March 2007, the report concluded, the death toll from terrorist attacks was 3,674, second only to Iraq during the same period.
#1
Terrorism, even for a state's political uses, has the worst tendency to turn around and bite you right in the arse. India is going to have to get a handle on the mooks, sikhs, hindus, and all the rest of the nuts if they really want to make the big time.
What the Americans and the European Union thought to be an easy task to occupy Afghanistan and control it, in order to dominate Eurasia, and almost automatically gain Africas subordination, rendering the western Hemisphere and Ocean, geo-politically peripheral to the worlds central continent, as advised by Brezezinsky, but they were proved wrong, because, they failed to pay heed to his warning, that the scope of such global hegemony is admittedly great, but its depth is shallow, limited both by domestic and external restraints, because, hegemony involves the exercise of decisive influence, but unlike the Empires of the past, not of direct control. The desire for direct control by the occupation forces, was resisted by the people of Afghanistan and now has been joined by the jehadis from Russia, China, Pakistan, Central Asian States and Al-qaeda, turning Afghanistan into a real cauldron. The Joint Resistance, thus is a fast growing phenomenon, " the real arbiter, presenting an interesting scenario to be dispassionately discerned.
Russia supported the American war on Afghanistan in 2001, but was soon dismayed due to pro-American revolutions, occurring one after another in their near abroad- in Georgia, Ukraine and Kirghyzia. Putin was naturally furious and warned of dire consequences. Ostensibly, the smugglers of arms and ammunition were let loose, who, traded through Turkmenistan territory, to the Northern Alliance warlords, who in turn have been selling their hardware to the Taliban in the south. Repeating the pattern of 1980s, against Soviet occupation, the jehadis from Iraq, Chechnya, Turkey, Xinjiang province of China, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Kirghyzia have found their way into Afghanistan, adding a new dimension to the resistance against the occupation forces. As part of the retributive justice, this is Russian vendetta, for the defeat they suffered in Afghanistan, during the eighties and the geo-political security concerns of the neighbouring countries, together has created a formidable resistance against the occupation forces. The New York Times, terms it as the Taliban Rising Tide.
The allied forces in Afghanistan therefore are in a nut-cracker situation, now getting a bashing from the joint resistance, which will act as the real arbiter in this conflict. They were used by the Americans, during the 1980s to force a withdrawal on the Soviet occupation forces. The Russian are now using them, to avenge their defeat. The Chinese are happy, that they would be relieved of the threat to their soft under belly, posed by the occupation forces. The Pakistanis are seeking status quo ante and a friendly Afghanistan. Iran and the Central Asian states, want to be relieved of the curse of the occupation forces, who continue to keep the entire region de-stabilized and in a state of turbulence.
Afghans are tenacious fighters. They love freedom and have never compromised on it. In 2002, I was able to convey the message to Mullah Umar, not to start another war against the occupation forces, but to follow the American agenda of democracy, reconstruction and free enterprise as a better option. The reply I got is interesting: We will fight, till the occupation forces leave and we are free. For the Afghan nation, to follow the American agenda is not in harmony with our national dignity, values and traditions. We will fight and fight till we are again a free nation. In their fight for their freedom, they are not alone. Across the borders, the Pakhtun tribal belt of Pakistan, which served as the main support base for the resistance against the Soviet occupation forces, now plays a more effective role because, the restraining power, Pakistan, which managed and supported the resistance in the past, is no more in a position to be effective, although more than 100,000 soldiers remain deployed on the borders. It is therefore logical that in order to safeguard Pakistans vital national security interests, harmony must be achieved between the militant power base astride our borders and the democratic power base as ordained by the peoples verdict of 18th February 2008, but, unfortunately, political expediencies have kept the democratic power base restricted in playing its full role.
The Indian ingress into Afghanistan since 2004, has been a cause of concern for all the neighbours. In 2004 the US state department declared Afghanistan as part of South Asia geo-politically, thus providing easy reach to its strategic partner India. India thus established a vast intelligence network supported by CIA, Raw, Mossad, MI-6 and BND (German), having its nerve center at Jabal-us-Saraj and out posts at Sarboi, Asadabad, Kandhar, Herat, Mazar-e-Sharif and Faizabad, thus targeting all the neighbouring countries such as Pakistan, China, Russia, Iran and the Central Asian states. The recent attacks on the Indian consulate and their out posts, in Afghanistan appear to be retributive actions by the affected countries. The Indo-US-Israel nexus thus acts as the red-rag to the jehadis and a force multiplier in preserving their struggle for freedom.
The military situation in Afghanistan therefore, is indeed ominous for the coalition forces, where as US presidential candidate Mr. Obama thinks: We must fight the war to the finish in Afghanistan. .. We must move beyond a purely military alliance built on convenience, with a nuclear armed nation (Pakistan) and the nexus of terror and radical Islam. Such thinking which is totally divorced from reality has proved costly for the United States and their allies in the past and will be catastrophic in the future. The occupation forces are beating a retreat from Iraq and the time frame of withdrawal has relatively cooled down the situation there. Similarly a time frame of withdrawal from Afghanistan, will prove conducive to lowering the resistance to enter into dialogue and negotiation for peace. But the main hurdle is the European pride and its bruised ego, hurt due to encountering serious frustration in Afghanistan. It is their first engagement outside Europe in the last sixty-five years, which has gone awry. It is failing and would leave NATO toothless, without a mission. Yet they have to take the bitter pill, before failure turns into defeat.
The NATO forces in Afghanistan recently attacked a post in area Angoor Adda, manned by the Pakistan army, who retaliated strongly. The NATO helicopters lifted their dead and wounded to Kabul and Bagram and the following week assembled fresh troops opposite Miranshah supported by tanks and gunships, threatening to cross the border into Pakistan, but better sense prevailed on them and they beat a retreat. Good for them. The mood of the Pakistan army has changed. They are seething with anger, and cannot tolerate the killing of innocent Pakistanis by NATO predaters and gunships. Such actions must stop, before they become the cause of bigger embarrassment to the occupation forces.
The joint resistance will soon lead Afghan nation to freedom. It has acquired a global reach, with its main power base located along the Durand Line in Pakistan and Afghanistan. It is dispersed and diluted forming into shadow armies, led by committed believers. In a short period of twenty five years it has humbled two super powers and the Europeans and Israel. It rejects domination and hegemony. Its goal is freedom, which can not be denied, by calling their freedom movements as terrorism, than to recognize the reality and negotiate peace with them and help them integrate into the emerging global order, which needs to be governed by the three golden principles of the Chinese people " Peace, Cooperation and Engagement. An American lawyer, Wendell Willkie rightly said: Freedom is an indivisible word, if we want to enjoy it and fight for it, we must be prepared to extend it to everyone.
The writer is a former army chief
Posted by: john frum ||
07/27/2008 12:12 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11130 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
It is therefore logical that in order to safeguard Pakistan's vital national security interests, harmony must be achieved between the 'militant power base' astride our borders and the 'democratic power base' as ordained by the peoples verdict of 18th February 2008,
With General Kayani refusing to stop backing the jihadis, it looks like Pakistan is back to its old tricks.
Posted by: john frum ||
07/27/2008 12:20 Comments ||
Top||
#3
The first paragraph presents the situation as General Beg, ret'd wishes it were. Based on the little I know, it seems he never does find reality in the rest of the article. But then, he and his comrades never did learn to recognize any reality beyond local politics.
America beseiged on all sides, our forces forced back, humiliated, captured while attempting to retreat, routing in all directions.
The Russians and Chinese sitting back, rubbing their hands together greedily and laughing.
The valiant Lions of Islam advancing, driving the American sheep before them, pillaging their villages, raping their women, and listening to the lament of their enemies.
Doesn't really seem that way from where I'm sitting (and I've got lots of Army and Marine buddies who've been in Afghanistan and haven't really been telling any horror stories about the situation there).
#6
This guy is laboring under the misapprehension that we have thrown everything we have at the ME. We have in both wars tried to limit the damage and do the dirty deed with as few troops as possible. If we really got tired of messing around with you we could settle this in a matter of minutes, move in and take what we want. We could go British Empire on their asses and take whatever we want, killing anyone that gave us a funny look. They are fortunate that we have not yet found the strength as a nation to enter our imperial era.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
