So, right now this is more a conglomeration of ideas and extended dot points, I need help structuring it so that it flows more nicely. I won't be speaking as a persona, and I think introductions are awkward and a waste of time. I am tossing up whether or not to have a slide show. Any help/critisicm is greatly appreciated, bearing in mind it is in a draft stage so the polish isn't there. Thanks!
(It is in the 'paragraph' form like that because it is easier to memorise that way.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The prospect of a nuclear economy seems enticing for some, and with good reason. Properly controlled and regulated, the use of nuclear fission can be a safe, clean and effective energy source and it has the potential to play a big part in our future energy needs.
The use of Uranium in fission reactors is common, and Australia is home to the world’s largest known Uranium reserves. While we unfortunately don’t use these resources for our own clean energy generation, we export all of our mined Uranium to other countries for their own nuclear systems.
As I’m sure you are aware, while nuclear fission can supply us with clean, efficient energy, there is a much more dangerous use for the immense power of splitting the atom. Nuclear weapons are some of the most deadly man-made tools of destruction, and in the wrong hands, could prove to be devastating.
In order to help manage, and eventually eradicate nuclear arms and munitions, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty was brought into practice in 1968 with the goals to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and weapons technology, to promote co-operation in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy and to further the goal of achieving nuclear disarmament and general and complete disarmament.
An underestimated amount of countries became signatories of the treaty, and to this day, only four countries remain non-signatories. They are North Korea, Israel, Pakistan and India.
Being a mass exporter of Uranium, it is in our best interest to know that the Uranium we supply is being used for peaceful purposes, so when Malcolm Fraser’s government began the sale of uranium in 1977, they made a commitment that sales would be made only to countries that were signatories to the non-proliferation treaty.
Now Julia Gillard has done the very reverse and has forced a policy change through a deeply divided ALP national conference. The decision that has many critics furious is the sale of Australian Uranium to India, who are not signatories to the treaty. It is not only a poor decision based on India’s appalling nuclear proliferation record, it is a disgrace that an International policy such as the Non-Proliferation Treaty can be blatantly ignored whenever a governmental body so chooses. That the decision has been made to disregard the treaty in this instance, then what purpose does the treaty serve? What justifies us not selling Uranium to Pakistan, Israel, Iran…
The South Pacific Nuclear Weapons Free Zone Treaty, of which Australia was a founding signatory, allows uranium exports only to countries that have full-scope, comprehensive nuclear safeguards in place. India has consistently refused full-scope safeguards, thus selling uranium to India would breach our international treaty obligations.
The clear long-term consequences of this policy backflip are the fuelling of India’s arms race with Pakistan, the halting of the quest for international nuclear disarmament and also the risk it poses to the health of local Indians and surrounding countries, who are at risk due to India’s proven poor handling and safety of nuclear products and radiation.
A nuclear war between India and Pakistan is not some theoretical possibility, but a real and growing danger. War has broken out between the nations three times since World War II, and cross-border support for terrorism has created further crises. An attack on the Indian parliament building in December 2001 triggered the deployment of half a million troops.
Only one year after nuclear test explosions by India and then Pakistan in 1998, they went to war in Kashmir. One million soldiers were deployed, and nuclear threats made by both sides. Pakistani officials have repeatedly said if Indian forces crossed the border, Pakistan would respond with nuclear weapons. In any crisis, deliberate or involuntary nuclear escalation could occur.
Between them, India and Pakistan possess 170 to 210 nuclear weapons. Both add more each year. Indeed, Pakistan has the world's fastest growing nuclear arsenal. This heaps pressure on India’s military to continue the development and construction of nuclear arms.
The consequences of a nuclear war between the two nations would be globally catastrophic. The two countries would be affected directly, but the entire world would be affected by radiation, giant soot clouds from burning cities that would blacken the sky and slash food production, atmospheric damage that would cause an increase in ultraviolet and cosmic radiation… All this could potentially be fuelled by Australian Uranium.
India is known to have breached past settlements regarding nuclear proliferation, in 1974, India detonated a plutonium bomb, violating agreements to use nuclear fuel supplied by the US only for peaceful purposes in a reactor supplied by Canada. It is also known that India wants access to nuclear trade including uranium precisely to further its nuclear proliferation. Senior Indian military leaders have publicly said so. India can also determine which of its many proposed reactors will be classified military or civilian, where only civilian are required to have safeguards in place, so it is up to them whether or not these safeguard are employed at all.
It is indeed shocking to realise how wrong this decision is on Julia Gillard’s behalf. The evidence is clear, and the potential negatives far outweigh the positives in the sale of Uranium to India. Gillard states that "We should take a decision that is in our nation's interest, a decision about strengthening our strategic partnership with India…” but with the obvious potential negative consequences of the trade, is it really worth it?
Home
Help
Search
Login
