Antinuclear

This concern hardly comes from a usual left-of-field suspect, stridently opposed to anything nuclear. Instead, the alarm is from the former chief of Australia’s atomic watchdog and, in assessing the India deal, he used words like  vague and meaningless.

John Carlson headed the Australian Safeguards and Non-Proliferation office for more than two decades until 2010. He copped a fair amount of flak in his time from anti-nuclear campaigners after his organisation duly ticked off on Australia’s agreements to supply uranium. But his deep experience made him aware of the potential pitfalls in striking nuclear safeguards. Carlson sounded a warning on the Lowy Institute’s blog last week, one that is worth noting in detail and should be taken seriously.

‘‘Now that the text of the [India] agreement has been quietly made public, some substantial departures from Australia’s current safeguards conditions are evident,’’ Carlson wrote. ‘‘These suggest, disturbingly, that Australia may be unable to keep track of what happens to uranium supplied to India.’’

Carlson sees several problems with the deal as it stands. India is not required to get Australia’s ongoing consent for use of plutonium from reprocessing spent fuel. Australia’s usual demand that any breach of the agreement will automatically invoke a right to have the nuclear material returned is missing. There is no mechanism in place for resolving a deadlock should the parties end up in a spat; and besides, much of the arrangement is being kept secret.

The question of keeping track of uranium is especially important in India’s case because the country has gone it alone in developing the bomb. Despite assurances of India’s ‘‘impeccable’’ nuclear record, the fact remains that India is among only a handful of countries not signed on to global nuclear treaties and it has yet to fully separate its civil and military nuclear facilities. So, as Carlson noted, the deal with Australia was always contentious…….

it is pretty clear that Australia’s negotiators have had a tough time striking this agreement. India’s Prime Minister,  Narendra Modi, is expected in Australia in November but that should not become a reason to rush through ratification of an imperfect deal.

The proposed agreement is now before the Parliament’s treaties committee; ironically enough, a body set up by the Howard government because of concern that the executive wielded too much power in Australia’s foreign relations. Carlson also makes the point the committee could closely examine the secret aspects of the deal.  http://www.theage.com.au/comment/nuclear-deal-with-india-compromised-by-vague-details-on-keeping-track-of-uranium-20141003-10pl5g.html#ixzz3FONG7QFl