It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Australia Opposes US Nuclear Stance.

page: 1

log in


posted on Apr, 12 2005 @ 12:55 PM

Australia is set to oppose the United States over its refusal to sign a new anti-nuclear treaty to ban the production of fissile material at an upcoming international conference.
Foreign Minister Alexander Downer said in an interview that the US, while not opposed to the Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty, does not want to allow any verification mechanisms as part of the agreement, which Mr Downer said would render the pact “meaningless”.

He foreshadowed a showdown over the issue during the seventh review conference of the 35-year-old Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty at the United Nations Security Council in New York next month.

Mr Downer acknowledged that getting the agreement of countries for a fissile material treaty was “ambitious”, particularly faced with the US opposition.

“The problem is the Americans say: `Well we would be in favour of a treaty but we don't want any verification system.'

“Well, if you don't have any verification system, it runs the risk of making the treaty a bit meaningless.”


Well, the meeting in New York next month should be interesting, to say the least.


posted on Apr, 12 2005 @ 03:12 PM
Don't it make you wanna holler.
Why would we want to be held to the same standards in which we hold others-- Iran, North Korea come to mind. Verification of US non-prolification would probably scare the holy hell out of countries that aren't already scared of us.

posted on Apr, 13 2005 @ 05:05 AM

This is the point I have made several times on several threads.

The US has Nuclear weapons - but does not want anyone else to have them.
The US continues to develop nuclear weapons - but does not want anyone else to.
The US wants to know what everyone else is doing in terms of nukes - but does not want anyone else to.



posted on Apr, 13 2005 @ 05:37 AM
What I love about it is it shows American hypocrisy at its best. Don't worry, America are allowed to have double standards because they're gods chosen people and they single handedly won both world wars and no other countries really helped and they really didnt lose vietnam remember?

posted on Apr, 13 2005 @ 06:53 AM
you know, my american 'leaders' whom i DID NOT elect; nor do i support in any way possible

make me look really bad

im one of those types of americans who loves the constitution and dislikes being interventionist politicially

i suscribe to the idea that all humanity should unite peacefully and build spaceships and go visit other worlds and live there too

too bad mr bush doesnt think that way
all the american leaders think about these days is
How to Make a Fast $$$$$

They are just too greedy and foolish to be allowed to run anything, much less a nation

As an american citizen i must say im quite upset at the way my nation has been destroyed internationally by these irresponsible leaders

America was great! once...
then they focused on $$$ and boom it all went to hell...

if only , America; could stop being mean to everyone and we could really take a leading roll in solving the worlds problems; like disease , hunger, war
and obviously; Ending war does not mean we start a new one lol

plus if i was in charge id stop raping the rest of the worlds resources
and their inhabitants ...

im actually from texas....
and i voted for Al Gore...because he wanted to Destroy the Oil Empires!!
what i dont understand is why no one gave a damn about that

AL Gore kept saying "if im elected i will get RID of the OIL companys!!!"

but no one listens to an average poor man like myself
or Al Gore for that matter...

posted on Apr, 13 2005 @ 06:58 AM

Worry not my friend your time will come again.

As for the opinion of the US abroad, those of us with a bit of common sense are aware that the policies of the Bush Administration do not accurately reflect the opinions of the majority of Americans.

It is the same here in the UK.



posted on Apr, 13 2005 @ 07:53 AM
Same sentiment in Oz. The US gets an arrogant buffoon for a Pres., the U.K. gets an eloquent buffoon for a P.M, and we get...well...just a buffoon.

Finally Howard and Downer, a.k.a tweedle-dum and tweedle-dumber, are showing a bit of balls for once. It's a shame that they'll likely back down and return to licking Bush's boots as soon as trade agreements are mentioned.

"We strongly oppose Washington's stance on this issue."

"How's the Aussie beef exports these days?"

"I'm sorry, how high did you say I should jump?"

posted on Apr, 14 2005 @ 02:20 AM

Do the Aussies export a lot of beef to the US?

I would not have thought the US need to import beef.



posted on Apr, 14 2005 @ 03:05 AM
npt....noone obviously has read tired of explaining it so i wont bother, ughh

posted on Apr, 14 2005 @ 03:10 AM

Are you referring to the Non Proliferation Treaty?



posted on Apr, 14 2005 @ 04:50 AM

Do the Aussies export a lot of beef to the US? I would not have thought the US need to import beef.

Yeah, you'd be surprised. The US usually comprises around a 10% share of the destination for Australian exports and comes in second behind Japan, and in front of Korea and China. The major three products exported from Oz to the US are, in this order: meat, petroleum, and road vehicles. Australian exports are small change to the US, but very important to Australia, thus the leverage enjoyed by the US.

Trends in Australia's Exports - pdf

Goods Exports Figures at April 2002
Japan $23.728b, 19.7% Coal, metal ores, meat
USA $11.971b, 9.9% Meat, petroleum, road vehicles
Korea $8.869b, 7.4% Petroleum, metal ores, coal
China $7.588b, 6.3% Metal ores, textiles, petroleum
New Zealand $6.972b, 5.8% Petroleum, road vehicles,
ADP equipment
Taiwan $5.339b, 4.4% Non-ferrous metals, petroleum, coal
All Countries Total $120.426b, 8.6 –1.6 Metal ores, coal, non-ferrous metals

These are three year old figures, but it hasn't changed much since then. More figures here.

[edit on 2005/4/14 by wecomeinpeace]

posted on Apr, 14 2005 @ 08:37 AM

I know it seems like a lot but 12billion is not that much.

Furthermore what control does the White House or Rummy have over where the US buys its beef?

Even if it does, I am sure there are other markets who would take up the slack.



posted on Apr, 14 2005 @ 12:50 PM

I know it seems like a lot but 12billion is not that much.

Maybe not to Britain and the US it's not. To Australia, it's a huge amount. Don't be deceived by looking at the map (it's mostly desert, btw) and by how much Australia features in the news. Australia has a relatively small economy. 10% of your exports, the second largest chunk, is not something you can play around with lightly. Why do you think the US govt is so nice to the Saudis?

Furthermore what control does the White House or Rummy have over where the US buys its beef?

In dealing with the US, trade and military issues are always related. It's all connected. Three words for you: Free Trade Agreement

US-Australia free trade deal: a dubious payoff for joining Iraq war
Some 60 United States officials are due to arrive in Australia this week for the first round of negotiations on a proposed free trade agreement (FTA) between the two countries, a deal that is widely regarded as a payoff for the Howard government’s unswerving support for the US-led assault on Iraq.


While both Washington and Canberra publicly deny any direct link between the FTA and the war, official documents indicate otherwise. Last November, in notifying the US Congress of the Bush administration’s intention to commence negotiations, US Trade Representative Bob Zoellick stated that an FTA would “strengthen the foundation of our security alliance”.


Zoellick continued: “We are already partners in the areas of intelligence, military inter-operability, command-and-control, and security planning. An FTA would facilitate the building of new networks that enhance our Pacific democracies’ mutual interests.”

Time to Strengthen U.S.-Australian Relations in Trade and Defense - Heritage Foundation
President George Bush recently announced that he will meet with Prime Minister John Howard of Australia on September 10 in Washington to discuss trade, regional security, and the future of U.S.-Australian relations. 1 Australia is one of America's most durable and dependable allies and an important trading partner. 2 Indeed, Americans and Australians have fought side by side in every major war of the last century. Although their defense alliance with New Zealand, the ANZUS Treaty, is marking its 50th anniversary this year, concerns about regional security are growing, and Australia is seeking a bilateral trade agreement with the United States.

Trade not only strengthens the economies of trading partners, but also enhances the defense and security ties of allies. In other words, promoting trade is both good economic policy and good foreign policy. A bilateral agreement should be promoted. Regarding security, Australia is one of America's most supportive allies. Strengthening the interoperability of U.S. and Australian forces to further buttress the alliance should be a policy objective. In addition, although the United States has not yet approached the Australian government about a direct involvement in its missile defense efforts, there may be a role for Australia to consider. The Bush Administration has signaled its desire to establish closer relations with Canberra, and the opportunity to do so is clearly at hand.

You might not know about an incident called the ANZUS Crisis when in 1985 New Zealand turned a US Navy destroyer away from its ports and called into question the military treaty. New Zealand's anti-nuclear policy then became the impetus for them being put on the US' blacklist for trade agreements.

Australia and the ANZUS Crisis

The immediate retaliation was the cancellation of the ANZUS 'Sea Eagle' joint naval exercises, in which the Buchanan was to have been a participant.62 The US House Foreign Affairs Asian Subcommittee, headed by Representative Stephen Solarz, called for hearings on the ANZUS treaty.63 Senator William Cohen introduced a resolution to Congress calling for a cessation of American special trade and security benefits to New Zealand. The State Department acknowledged it was examining economic sanctions as a means of forcing a change in New Zealand's policy. Economic reprisals were eventually rejected, but 'certain categories of military intelligence' would no longer be available to New Zealand, and the administration would 'not argue New Zealand's case with fervour' when Congress examined special trade preferences in vital New Zealand export markets.


Most importantly, the various political perspectives begin to indicate the proportions that ANZUS took in the public debate-not just a security treaty, but with tendrils linking into issues of trade,cultural ties with the US, fears and memories of invasion, anti-Communism, anti-Americanism, the role of states, the joint facilities, and the health of the Western alliance.

New Zealand is playing soldier now, so they get a chance at an FTA.

U.S.-New Zealand Free Trade Agreement
Members of the US Congress are urging President Bush to begin negotiations for a Free Trade Agreement with New Zealand. ... In the aftermath of September 11, New Zealand Prime Minister Clark quickly and firmly offered diplomatic, political, and military support. New Zealand is one of only two countries that has fought side-by-side with America in every war since World War I.

Still, NZ stil had to sit on the sidelines while Aus and the US negotiated their FTA.

Even if it does, I am sure there are other markets who would take up the slack.

Actually, not quite so easily as you'd think.

posted on Apr, 15 2005 @ 03:06 AM


I was not aware of any of that.

Thanks for the the info.

That said it does not surprise me in anyway.



posted on Apr, 15 2005 @ 11:41 PM
The mad cow scare created a booming market for Australias's export of beef, if I recall. One particular client being America's McDonald's.

top topics


log in