Datasets:
Recag
/
C4_1

Dataset card Data Studio Files Community
1
text
stringlengths
10
56.7k
Now the question becomes: Is eight enough?
Combined company will make Chevron second-largest petroleum producer in the world.
The combined company will remain far behind Exxon Mobil Corp. and Royal Dutch Shell Plc. in market capitalization, but Chevron will jump from being the world's fourth biggest energy producer, to second, according to Wood Mackenzie.
The cash-and-stock deal announced Friday comes as U.S. crude prices have shot up 40% this year.
Chevron gets access to Anadarko's liquid natural gas operations in Mozambique and it would control a 75-mile-wide corridor across the Delaware Basin, a region bountiful with natural gas.
Oil prices have been on the rise as OPEC members cut production.
OPEC said this week that its output had been slashed by more than a half million barrels a day last month to just over 30 million barrels, a level not seen since early 2015.
U.S. crude was selling for nearly $65 per barrel Friday. But there are signals that global economic growth is slowing.
Shares of Anadarko jumped 33 percent Friday, while Chevron's stock fell 5 percent.
No longer limited to calling other Jaxtr users, the service is taking cue from Skype for its revenue strategy.
Jaxtr, the dial-around service (see Jaxtr makes click-to-call really simple) that lets you make free calls to those people who have at one point called you via the Jaxtr widget, is launching a new service that lets you bypass the step of first connecting with callers via the Internet.
Now you can make "out of network" calls directly from you mobile phone to anyone in the world. These calls aren't free, though. As in Skype, if you want to use this service to call people on regular phones, you've got to buy credits on the system against them. Rates are either good or great, depending on where you're calling: For example, calling a landline or mobile phone in China is one cent a minute, but a call to a mobile in the U.K. is 15 cents a minute.
In order to make out-of-network calls, you call a central Jaxtr number that's local to you, and then tell it who you want to reach. Then it calls you back and connects you--the typical dial-around procedure. But with Jaxtr, you can save the incoming number and use it the next time you want to reach the same person.
Skype has shown that a free telephony service can turn its free users into paying customers. Jaxtr also has another revenue stream: It has a free SMS service, in which message lengths are even more limited than normal text messages to Jaxtr can insert paid 40-character-long ads at the ends of messages.
Jaxtr is also announcing that it has closed a second round of funding: $10 million, led by Lehman Brothers. Jaxtr's first round was also $10 million, and the initial investors are contributing in this B round.
YOKOHAMA, Japan – Nissan Motor Co. announced it has licensed its Around View Monitor and Moving Object Detection technology, jointly developed with Clarion Co for use by Hitachi Construction Machinery Co.
These two systems are the building blocks of autonomous driving technology that will operate commercially viable Nissan Autonomous Drive vehicles by 2020.
The Around View Monitor is a parking support system that offers the driver a bird's eye view of the vehicle's surroundings in real time using four exterior cameras.
MOD is a driving assistance technology that analyzes the images from the AVM cameras to detect moving objects around the vehicle and warn the driver with visual and audio alerts.
Since the market launch of AVM in 2007 and MOD in 2010, both firsts for any automaker, Nissan has steadily expanded its safety technology offerings, which have become a cornerstone of autonomous drive technology development.
The licensing agreement enables Hitachi Construction Machinery to provide AVM and MOD technology to its massive haul trucks and hydraulic excavators working at large open-pit mines.
When drivers start operating the vehicle, drop cargo, back up to load cargo, or when a hydraulic shovel is used in close proximity to the vehicle, the AVM-MOD technology detects any movement or workers in the area around it in real time, enabling the driver to work with greater situational awareness which enhances safety.
Nissan will contribute to the growth of technology through the application of its unique technologies and know-how for its own use as well as in a variety of fields.
Profit generated through the effective use of these intangible assets will be invested in new technology development, further contributing to Nissan's technological competence.
Autonomous Drive is being developed to help lower the element of human error during driving and contribute to a reduction in the number of accidents and injuries related to automobiles.
The licensing of this technology is an example of Nissan's intention to offer the AVM and MOD technology to other industries beyond the automotive sector.
Through the wider application of its safety technologies Nissan aims to do its part in contributing to the development of society.
March 6, 2019, 4:14 p.m.
Feb. 28, 2019, 8:34 a.m.
A three member bench of the Supreme Court has adjourned the hearing of Orange Line Metro Train case till Friday.
During the course of proceedings today, the court summoned the Chairman Planning Commission, the Secretary Finance and the NAB prosecution team on the next hearing.
In his remarks, Justice Azmat Saeed said work on the project should not stop because of funds.
A concrete slab and 10-foot high block walls with exposed rebar sit behind a chain link fence as an ugly reminder of how quickly the oceanfront condominium market crashed here in 2008.
NEW SMYRNA BEACH — A concrete slab and 10-foot high block walls with exposed rebar sit behind a chain link fence as an ugly reminder of how quickly the oceanfront condominium market crashed here in 2008.
But on the ruins of the partially built former Vizcaya condominium complex, which was abandoned during the Great Recession, a new developer is looking to build a new luxury condo complex, but with a different design and a new name: Waterford.
The planned 19-unit complex at 807 S. Atlantic Ave. would be the first oceanfront condo project to be built in Southeast Volusia in six years.
St. Petersburg-based Eckall Development says it already has two reservations for condo units at Waterford.
The city’s planning board on Monday will consider a new site plan for the seven-story building that developers hope to begin building by the end of the year.
Condo demand in New Smyrna Beach is on the rise.
From March through June, condo sales rose 34 percent to 205 this year from 153 last year, according to the New Smyrna Beach Board of Realtors. The median sale price in June was $189,000, up 6 percent from $139,000 a year ago, but slightly down from $212,500 in April, the highest level in 1.5 years.
A declining inventory is also fueling a rise in prices. The number of condos for sale in Southeast Volusia fell 22 percent to 462 in June, the lowest level in at least 4-1/2 years, from 594 a year ago.
A Winter Park developer started building the proposed nine-story, 19-unit Vizcaya condo project in 2007, but abandoned the project the following year.
That left a development site where 193 pilings had already been pounded into the earth, a slab poured and blocks laid for the first-floor walls. The property has remained in that state ever since.
Eckall Development bought the property in December for $1.1 million, according to Volusia County property records. The existing infrastructure was tested and is sound, said Lee Allen, a company principal.
Allen and Ken Eckelkamp, the founders of Eckall Development, say they are already familiar with Southeast Volusia having previously worked for JMC Communities, which built the 310-unit Minorca condo complex at the north tip of New Smyrna Beach between 2002 and 2007 and the 39-unit Seacrest condo complex in 2007 at 4071 S. Atlantic Ave. in New Smyrna Beach.
The last oceanfront condo started in the city was The Wave in 2007 at 2801 Hill St. The project was only 80 percent completed in 2008 when it was foreclosed and abandoned. Houston-based Silvestri Investments, which owns the Oceanwalk Condominiums in New Smyrna Beach, bought The Wave in late 2009, completed construction and has sold 10 of the 11 units.
Eckall Development needs to sell at least 11 units at Waterford before it can start construction, Allen said.
The company is offering six floor plans, including two penthouse units, each three bedrooms and three bathrooms. The units range in size from 1,845 square feet to 3,088 for a penthouse.
Prices currently range from $700,000 to $1.6 million, but are expected to rise once construction starts, Collado said.
A primary school caretaker has been found guilty of attacking a group of teenagers.
Karl Lucas, 27, of Manor Fields, Horsham, who is employed as a premises officer at the Three Bridges Primary School, Gales Drive, was involved in an attack on five teenagers.
West Sussex County Council said Lucas was not currently at work. Sussex Police said at about 5pm on July 12 last year a group of teenagers, two aged 18, and three 16 year olds, were attacked by two men as they walked in Manor Fields Park, Horsham.
The men tried to grab the teenagers’ football and cricket bat after confronting them. The two 18-year-old victims were each punched during the incident. One suffered minor cuts but the other was not injured.
Karl Lucas, 27, and Ben Lucas, 24, of Denne Road, Horsham, pleaded guilty to affray when they appeared at Lewes Crown Court on June 22.
They were both ordered to do 100 hours of community service and made to pay costs, £100 compensation and a £60 victim surcharge.
ply tires, air shocks. $400.
Awesome Tire And wheel combo.
trucks and SUV's with six bolt hubs.
It may be noted that Air India's was the only service that plied between Madurai and Mumbai.
Some passengers pointed out that all the tickets used to be sold out during the festive season and summer.
Chennai: Much to the chagrin of air passengers and traders of Madurai, Air India announced the temporary cancellation of its Mumbai to Madurai flight via Chennai from July 12 to July 31, citing low patronage to the service that has been catering to passengers of the southern districts for almost 42 years.
Although the announcement of cancelling AI671 (Mumbai to Madurai) and AI672 (Madurai to Mumbai) said that the cancellation has been done on a temporary basis, Air India sources said that the operation of the service from August 1 would be decided in the coming days. AI671 was taking off from Mumbai and reaching Chennai at 10.45 am every day from 1976.
The flight would leave for Madurai at 11.30 am. It was taking off from Madurai to reach Chennai at 2.15 pm. The decision was taken at a time when local passengers are demanding a direct service from Madurai to Mumbai.
“Private airlines are operating as many as 16 services between Chennai and Madurai. But Air India claims that the flight has low patronage. How can a private player operate flights without patronage? Air India is making way for private airlines,” a regular passenger alleged.
It may be noted that Air India's was the only service that plied between Madurai and Mumbai. “Many traders were using the Air India flight to send their jasmines, vegetables and other agricultural products to Mumbai for years. Withdrawing the flight service will hurt traders and farmers of the southern districts,” the passenger added.
Some passengers pointed out that all the tickets used to be sold out during the festive season and summer. “On normal days too, nearly 80 percent tickets were sold for the Air India flight. The claims of poor patronage made by the authorities are misleading,” they alleged.
Meanwhile, union minister Pon. Radhakrishnan said that he would talk to the Civil Aviation Minister to operate the existing flight service and an additional flight between Madurai and Mumbai.
It's not always easy to keep mentally focused during running. Focus requires discipline and a certain level of mental toughness, meaning that you have developed the capacity to perform to the best of your ability despite external conditions or internal distractions. You can minimize distractions and help yourself stay focused by implementing self-help techniques and maintaining a positive, nonjudgmental attitude.
Mentally tough athletes push through and overcome obstacles to stay focused on their ultimate goal. Developing the traits that characterize mental toughness can help you remain focused during running. According to sports psychologist JoAnn Dahlkoetter in an article for the online runner's resource, "Competitor," several characteristics or traits tare commonly identified in mentally tough runners: Resilience, focus, strength, preparation, vision, openness and trust. You simply do not allow yourself to become distracted by external conditions or internal emotions -- you have the ability to put these distractions behind you for the time being and live in the moment.
Positive self-talk can encourage you and help you stay focused while running. According to sports psychologists Leif Smith and Todd Kays in "Sports Psychology for Dummies," mentally repeating specific cue words, such as "focus" or "hustle," may help to increase your concentration when you feel a decrease in your level of focus. Tape the cue words to a piece of athletic tape around your wrist and mentally concentrate on them while you run, as though the words are your mantra. Don't beat yourself up if you're having an off day. Talk to yourself as you would talk to a good friend. Be positive and encouraging and tell yourself that you can do it.
When you feel yourself starting to tire or slow down, marathon runner and trainer Jeff Galloway suggests practicing the following drill, adapted from his book, "Mental Training for Runners: How to Stay Motivated." Tell yourself that you're going to continue running for just one minute more, reducing your pace slightly for a few seconds, then continue this pattern, telling yourself "one more minute" or "10 more steps" until you achieve your goal for the day. If you break down your goal into small chunks, it may seem more manageable and achievable and you'll be less likely to lose focus.
Almost all athletes use some form of visualization prior to or during their workout or competition to help them stay focused. According to Galloway, worrying and focusing on the negative possibilities is a major way that many runners become distracted and lose motivation. Visualization can help you overcome your worries and direct your focus back to your goal. Visualization involves vividly imagining and rehearsing positive outcomes to future events or the event in which you're currently involved. Before your race, you might lie down and imagine yourself running effortlessly, overcoming obstacles and achieving your goal. The more vividly you can imagine the scene by involving all of your five senses, the more effective your visualization will be.
Initiated by Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman General Nathan Twining and Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Arleigh Burke, and then presided over by General Thomas Power, Director of the Joint Strategic Target Planning Staff (1960-1964), SIOP-62 mapped out a synchronized nuclear attack by the U.S. Air Force, Navy and Army combining strategic bombers, Polaris submarine-launched missiles and Atlas ICBMs in an ‘alert’ force of over 1,706 nuclear weapons and a ‘full’ force of over 3,240 nuclear weapons delivered to 1,060 targets in the Soviet Union, China and allied states. In this Plan there was little or no distinction made between Communist states that were at war with the United States and those that were not. Some sites (Designated Ground Zeroes – DGZs) would be struck by two or more weapons, and included both military installations and urban-industrial areas. The alert force would target 199 cities and the full force would target 295.2 The planners estimated that the total human deaths from such an attack would be 108 million in the Soviet Union and 104 million in the PRC as well as several million in satellite states,3 while Kaplan estimated that 175 million Russians and Chinese would be killed by the ‘alert’ force and 285 million would be killed by a ‘full’ force, and an additional 40 million more injured.4 To make such threats credible, the Departments of Defense (DoD) and Energy (DoE) and the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) conducted visible tests of new nuclear weapons in various atmospheric conditions in a twenty test series between 1946 and 1963. Even after the limited test ban treaty was adopted, they continued with underground tests.
General Thomas Power presided over the creation of SIOP-62 as Commander in Chief, Strategic Air Command (1957–1964) and Director, Joint Strategic Target Planning Staff (1960–1964).
As nuclear intimidation continued, and as other nations sought to gain ‘parity’, the global nuclear industry grew. It was clearly understood in these early decades that the dual-use of nuclear materials in nuclear energy generation and nuclear weapons served to establish and maintain national influence in the international arena. Since 1945, the supply and procurement of uranium together with coal (for steel production) has been a good indicator of a nation’s capacity to both rapidly increase its energy production with the potential to produce munitions and, for those states already with the capacity, to produce and enhance a nuclear weapons arsenal. High-energy power generation was an index of a nation’s war-making potential underlining the link between mining and militarisation.
In the following I seek to explain why and how the Australian government in 2014 has concluded a uranium trade deal with India that is in breach of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) by tracing the development of a nuclear nexus between India, Australia, Japan and the United States. Just as it was in the early cold war, this trade in nuclear materials is informed by interlocking and mutually reinforcing economic and geostrategic interests that have long undermined international disarmament initiatives. I argue that changing climatic conditions caused by emissions intensive energy production, however, demand a fundamental re-thinking of this paradigm.
Of the 67 reactors under construction globally as of July 2014, at least 49 were experiencing delays and eight had been under construction for 20 or more years. China too, having planned before 2011 to replace heavy carbon emitting coal-fired power stations with nuclear power stations, stalled and re-assessed its position after 3.11.8 For the most part, China (along with the US, India and Germany) has boosted its renewable electricity generating capacity so that by 2013, it produced through wind, solar and hydro power over 1000 terawatt hours – the equivalent of the total power generation of France and Germany.9 In Japan, nearly four years after the Fukushima Daiichi meltdowns, 46 other nuclear reactors remain shut down. The Nuclear Regulatory Authority (NRA) approved the restart of two reactors in Sendai, Kyushu on 10 September 2014 and Mayoral consent was secured in October.
Until 2014, along with China, Japan has also seen a boom in mostly solar and wind electricity generation. But this has been stalled by utilities who have refused to take an influx of renewable power into the grid or to reduce electricity prices.10 With fewer nuclear plants scheduled for construction around the world than for shutdown, however, the nuclear industry faces the likely prospect of contraction11 and replacement by rapidly advancing renewable energy options, including solar, wind, tidal, hydro and possibly geothermal power over the longer term.
New mining leases were approved in Western Australia, Queensland and New South Wales, and Queensland Premier Campbell Newman broke his electoral commitment not to permit uranium mining by inviting uranium mining companies to commence exploration operations. The new (Queensland) Mineral and Energy Resources (Common Provisions) Bill 2014, for example, passed on 9 September 2014 authorizes a Coordinator General to overrule community objection rights to ‘State significant projects’ including coal, bauxite and uranium mines, or to limit them to concerns unrelated to environmental protection.13 This Act gives virtual immunity to large companies exploring for uranium deposits in the Mitchell and Alice River basins in Cape York and the Gulf country. Encouraged by these positive signs, along with other Japanese, Chinese and Indian investors in uranium projects in Australia, the major French energy corporation Areva recently bought a 51 percent share in a joint venture with Australian uranium miner Toro Energy for exploration in the Wiso Basin in Northern Territory.14 In other words, federal and state governments in Australia have been approving exploration licenses and the opening of uranium mines at a time when the global nuclear and uranium industry was marked by decline and exit.
While some of the larger corporations chose to wait for uranium demand to rise, many in the Australian uranium mining industry scrambled to reprioritise, turning to the newly emerging market of nation-states tipped for rapid economic expansion. India attracted attention due to its high-growth economic potential, geostrategic positioning and nuclear ambitions. As then Prime Minister Howard had done in 2007, ‘energy starved’ India’s ‘power crisis’ is again being widely portrayed in desperate terms,15 while the solutions are presented as economic expansion and greater energy consumption by a growing middle class.16 In addition to coal exports, Australian politicians, in consultation with business representatives in the uranium and minerals sector, have framed the push for uranium trade with India as a ‘moral duty’ and ‘humanitarian responsibility’ to improve living standards of India’s impoverished people.
Over the nearly four years since the Fukushima disaster, the Japanese government and corporations have actively courted more than 20 countries for the purchase of Japan’s nuclear technologies. Agreements had been reached with Jordan, Vietnam, South Korea and Russia under the Kan and Noda Democratic Party Japan (DPJ) governments, and the export of nuclear technology remained central to the Abe government’s economic plans. Two more nuclear technology agreements with Turkey and the United Arab Emirates have since been reached,19 and six more are under consideration – with India, South Africa, Mexico, Brazil, Saudi Arabia and Bangladesh. Despite the continuing negative effects of ongoing radioactive contamination dispersal from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant, the Abe government remains intent both on nuclear startups in Japan and on promoting its exports of nuclear technology to other countries.
A similar initiative followed on 5 September 2014, when Abbott and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi signed the Australia-India Nuclear Cooperation Agreement in New Delhi. It was the culmination of the efforts initiated by the Howard government in 2006,22 carried forward by the Gillard government in 2011–2012.
After India’s ‘Smiling Buddha’ Pokhran-I nuclear tests in May 1974, when the Indian government declared that it intended to harness nuclear energy to manufacture nuclear weapons, the Australian government (and many other countries including the US) placed a ban on exporting uranium to it (France and Russia continued to sporadically export uranium under a safety clause). India had built its clandestine nuclear weapons program using imported Canadian reactors.
Since Nehru, India has justified its indigenous development of civil and military nuclear capacity and fuel and its refusal to ratify the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) by pointing to the nuclear weapons held by existing nuclear weapons states. It has argued that the NPT is a flawed agreement that reflects the hypocrisy of the nuclear weapons states in refusing to seriously engage in disarmament while expecting non-nuclear weapons states to abstain from possession. In 1975, partially in response to the Indian tests of the previous year, the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) initially comprising seven nations (United States, United Kingdom, Soviet Union, Japan, France, Canada, West Germany) was formed to prevent the diversion of nuclear materials used for commercial and peaceful purposes for the production of nuclear weapons. NSG members were obliged to cease trade with governments that did not submit to international inspection. India and Pakistan were included. Despite the bans, India went ahead to conduct its Pokhran II nuclear tests in May 1998. These were followed by Pakistan’s tests two weeks later. UN Security Council Resolution 1172 of June 199823 expressed grave concern and demanded that both countries foreswear further tests and abandon their nuclear weapon ambitions.
expressed grave concern and demanded that both countries foreswear further tests and abandon their nuclear weapon ambitions.
Despite the resolution’s unanimous adoption and threat of sanctions, the turning point was when the George W. Bush administration (2001-2009) chose to prioritize U.S. bilateral relations with India over any unified front to counter nuclear proliferation. The US–India energy agreement of July 2005 opened the way for other states, such as Australia, to engage bilaterally with India.
Meanwhile in October 2008, the Singh government overcame stiff opposition in parliament to secure national and international backing for the signing of the US–India ‘1-2-3’ Nuclear Cooperation Agreement.This Agreement stipulated that India would open its civilian nuclear facilities to inspection by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and delineate its civil and military facilities so as to ensure US-origin fuel would not be used for military purposes. In return the US would supply nuclear fuel and nuclear technologies (six reactors) and gain greater access to the Indian nuclear market.
As unanimous approval from the 48 states of the NSG was also required, the US and India lobbied hard and secured an unprecedented waiver of NSG export guidelines so as to permit nuclear commerce with India despite its non-NPT signatory status. Having granted the exception, several NSG members then negotiated bilateral nuclear accords with India (including France, United Kingdom, South Korea, Canada and Kazakhstan). In 2008 the Singh government purchased 300 MT of uranium ore concentrate from Areva of France, in 2009 2000 MT of uranium oxide pellets and 58 MT of enriched uranium dioxide from JSC Tvel/Russia, also in 2009 2100 MT of uranium dioxide concentrate from NAC/Kazakhstan and in 2013 2000 MT of uranium ore concentrate from NMMC Uzbekistan.27 While details are yet to be finalised, the deal with Australia in 2014 would secure for India a steady, reliable, high-grade uranium supply from the world’s largest known uranium deposits (its uranium resources are about 28 percent of the world total).
While details are yet to be finalised, the deal with Australia in 2014 would secure for India a steady, reliable, high-grade uranium supply from the world’s largest known uranium deposits (its uranium resources are about 28 percent of the world total).
In November 2010, in a joint statement signed by US President Obama and Indian PM Singh, it was agreed that negotiations would begin between Nuclear Power Corporation India Ltd (NPCIL) and US nuclear energy companies in return for implementing India’s full membership of the NSG in a ‘phased manner’. India agreed to accommodate the demands of General Electric and Westinghouse, which sought strict adherence to the CSC31 by diluting the CLNDA to reduce both suppliers’ liability and the time period for exercising right of recourse in the Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Rules 2011.32 The US-India Business Council, PM Modi and industry executives from the Nuclear Power Company of India Ltd. (NPCIL) also devised an insurance package to indemnify the American suppliers in the event of a nuclear accident for the maximum liability amount stipulated in the CLNDA (INR 1500 Crore/$250 million).33 This was to encourage US/Japan companies (among others) to collaborate in building new nuclear reactors to allow India to ‘achieve its full blown potential’.34 In short, India would take as close to full liability for nuclear accidents as possible in return for receiving the benefits of NPT and NSG membership without the full obligations expected of its members. In doing so, the integrity of the NPT was further compromised.
Given that Australia’s uranium mining and export accounts for less than 1 percent of its hundred billion dollar mineral export business (iron ore, bauxite, coal, copper, nickel etc),36 however, these decisions by Australian leaders risked significant political capital over what has been a highly contentious issue in Australia’s recent political history.
the NPT non-nuclear-weapon states agree never to acquire nuclear weapons in exchange for which the NPT nuclear-weapon states agree to share the benefits of peaceful nuclear technology and to pursue nuclear disarmament aimed at the ultimate elimination of their nuclear arsenals.
Nuclear weapons states have had the primary responsibility to ensure disarmament of their own arsenals so as to prevent nuclear non-proliferation among other states. The export controls regime of the NSG and enhanced verification measures of IAEA (International Atomic Energy Association) Additional Protocols are ostensibly to end every possible means to acquire nuclear weapons. While Article Four of the NPT provides ‘inalienable rights to every non-nuclear weapon state’ to pursue nuclear energy for power generation, India is neither a member of the NPT nor a Non-Nuclear Weapon State and there is no provision in the NPT which permits for signatories to form nuclear cooperation agreements with Non-NPT states.
India quite rightly has pointed out the hypocritical approach of the nuclear weapons states in approaching the NPT regime. As the Indian External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee stated in 2007, India was not an NPT signatory because it considers the regime to be not one of ‘universal, non-discriminatory verification and treatment’.37 In the same statement, Minister Mukherjee also claimed that India had an ‘impeccable record on non-proliferation… [was] a leading advocate of the elimination of all nuclear weapons… [and was an adherent] to the values of peace and non-violence’. India’s ‘impeccable track-record on non-proliferation’ was a catch phrase coined by President Bush in 2005,38 and reiterated by both PM Modi and PM Abbott in 2014.
Treating India as an exceptional case and a de facto nuclear weapons state makes even more conspicuous the selective imposition of sanctions or favour upon other non-NPT signatory nuclear weapons states such as Pakistan and Israel, or NPT signatory non-nuclear weapons states such as Iran.39 But the self-interested and strategically motivated application of the NPT was not new, nor was it limited to the US and its allies. The Soviet Union supplied China with the necessary technologies and skills to develop its own nuclear weapons capabilities, as China then supplied Pakistan. In turn, Pakistan also supplied other states that aspire to obtain nuclear capabilities. All were in a chain reaction, however, to U.S. threats to China and ultimately to the Soviet Union, in the early decades of the Cold War. While it is debatable that uranium and nuclear technology supply to India by others might serve to deter contemporary Chinese or Pakistani nuclear aggression, it has not served to prevent Indian conflicts with either of those two nations in the past. In any case, the use of nuclear trade as a strategic instrument does not ensure greater security or stability of the international community broadly defined, and this sort of leverage is not a valid use of the NPT.
So despite PM Abbott’s assurances that ‘suitable safeguards’ were in place to guarantee that Australian uranium would be used for ‘peaceful purposes’ and for ‘civilian use only’, as the former Director General of the Australian Safeguards and Non-Proliferation Office John Carlson points out, the Agreement departs from two principles of Australia’s 1987 Safeguards Act (section 51):40 the acquirement of ‘consent to reprocessing’ from the Australian government prior to the separation of plutonium from spent fuel; and the ‘right of return’ of nuclear materials supplied in the event of a breach of the agreement.41 Instead, the Agreement defers to the US-India nuclear cooperation agreement in which India would reprocess in facilities built with the assistance of US companies, and leaves open the question of how separated plutonium would be used or how arbitration would apply to settle disputes.
Ten of India’s twenty nuclear facilities are beyond the regulatory authority of the IAEA and India only selectively recognises IAEA safeguards for specific foreign supplied reactors and facilities. India also refuses to submit to suppliers inventory reports and accounting processes for nuclear material flowing through the nuclear cycle. As the IAEA is not able to fully inspect India’s dual-purpose (civilian and military) indigenous reactors and facilities for reprocessing, enrichment, retransfers to third countries, research and development or the production of tritium (used as a trigger for weapons), India is not fully accountable to either the IAEA or the supplier nation with which it has a bilateral agreement with in-built IAEA norms.
So even if India adheres to Australia’s requirements that its uranium be used solely to supply civil nuclear reactors for electricity generation that may be inspected by IAEA as per the nuclear safeguards agreement, Australia’s (or any other NPT members’) uranium export to India effectively supplements or liberates limited supplies of Indian uranium for military uses.42 Nor could, in the unlikely discovery of the ‘misallocation’ of some Australian origin uranium toward military use, the IAEA force compliance. In fact, whether or not India accounts for the flows of Australian material in its nuclear fuel cycle, it is impossible to verify whether it has actually adhered to the safeguards.
Australian Minister for Resources and Energy Martin Ferguson, Adani group founder Gautam Adani, Queensland Premier Campbell Newman in India in 2012.
As has been recommended by the United Nations (UN), World Health Organisation (WHO), International Energy Agency (IEA), Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC), and recognised by the World Bank and the European Investment Bank, the rapid phase out of coal-fired power stations is essential if the world is to meet the now seemingly optimistic carbon emissions reductions necessary to keep planetary warming below 2 percent of pre-industrialisation levels.46 While two hundred licenses for coal-fired power stations have been revoked by the Supreme Court of India recently, many Indian overseas coal projects are still underway.