The future seems to be nuclear in Asia, at least that's what the latest spate of energy deals in the region seem to indicate. Hot on the heels of an agreement between the US and India on nuclear power technology , Australia has now signed a deal with Beijing that will pave the way for huge uranium exports to China for its growing nuclear power industry. Beijing is expected to build 40 to 50 nuclear power stations over the next 20 years to in a bid to meet its staggering energy needs.

On Monday the Australian foreign minister Alexander Downer and his Chinese counterpart Li Zhaoxing signed a nuclear safeguards deal in Canberra, a first step to supplying thousands of tonnes of uranium in the future. Australia has about 40 percent of the world's uranium deposits but will only export to countries that have signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and who also agree to bilateral nuclear safeguard deals. The NPT prohibits five nuclear weapon states -- Russia, United States, the United Kingdom, France and China -- from transferring nuclear weapons or technology to non-nuclear weapon states or non-NPT countries, such as India or Pakistan.

Australia currently only has three operating uranium mines, and its government said actual exports to China were unlikely to commence until 2010, by which stage capacity will have to be boosted to meet the demand. China predicts is consumption will be 20,000 tonnes per annum, whereas the Australian mines currently only produce 10,000 a year. Chinese Premier Wen Jinbao, who was present at the signing of the deal, told reporters: "China and Australia are conducting nuclear cooperation and this is solely for peaceful purposes." Australian Prime Minister John Howard said: "Of all the important relationships that Australia has with other countries, none has been more greatly transformed over the last 10 years than our relationship with China."

The deal was portrayed by the Australian government as a means to reduce green-house gas emissions. Downer said: "Given China's high projected growth in electricity demand over the coming years, there are clear environmental benefits in diversifying from fossil fuels to low greenhouse-emission technologies such as nuclear power."

Environmental groups, however, criticised the deal, suggesting that a guarantee of Australian uranium would allow Beijing to earmark its domestic uranium for its nuclear weapons program. Australian Green Party politician Christine Milne told Reuters: "Make no mistake -- selling Australian uranium to China will make the world less safe."

The German press examines the implications of the deal for China, the region and the rest of the world. Many papers comment on China's political cunning and its growing power in the increasing global competition for energy resources.

The center-left Süddeutsche Zeitung writes that China doesn’t need the raw material for weapons technology as it has enough of its own uranium for producing bombs. "Australian uranium is intended for the energy hunger." It adds that "in the global competition for resources and market integration, China is acting with phenomenal speed.

While Europe is quarrelling with Russian gas monopolists and cravenly nurturing its oil contacts in the Arab world, Beijing has no inhibitions: Sudan, Nigeria, Iran, Russia and Australia - contracts are signed on a weekly basis." The paper comments that the result will be that access will become more difficult for Europe and prices will climb. "China will become the 500 pound gorilla in the fight for the allocation of energy resources."

The deal shows China's "political cunning", the paper adds. The US has just signed a nuclear deal with India, and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is cultivating the friendship with Australia, all with a view to reducing China's influence in the region. "Beijing has counterattacked, using its economic power. Australia could not withstand the attempt."

Conservative daily Die Welt comments that Australia is to sell some of its uranium to China -- "with the understanding that it is for peaceful purposes." The paper is sceptical: "The Australians have that in writing, and maybe it will be so, although it is hardly possible to check on it." It comments that there is no doubt that this is a strategic deal. The Australians, who value their friendship with the US, are likely to have been backed up by Washington. In that regard, the deal is a sign that the Americans have nothing against its "strategic competitor" in the Far East, as China is described in the National Defence Doctrine, covering its energy needs in the West.

On his recent trip to India, Bush signed a similar deal with New Delhi on nuclear energy production and thus chose to "forgive and forget" India's nuclear weapons program -- which is outside of the NPT. According to the paper, that deal was also envisaged as a "counterweight to the intimacy on weapons and energy between Moscow and Beijing" and both deals were justified as a means to tackle air pollution. The paper adds that, for Germans, a few lessons can be drawn: that "Bush is more flexible in the world political game than he had been given credit for;" that those who don’t want climate change caused the burning of coal must choose the lesser evil and it concludes that, "last but not least, no sensible country should trust its future to the yo-yo price of oil and gas or to the troubles in the Middle East"

The left-wing Tageszeitung writes that the uranium deal between China and Australia should not be a cause for concern even to those who are against nuclear power. "The future of the industry in China is not dependent on the supply of uranium, which is widely available there." The paper welcomes the fact that a Western government has signed a deal with China, which will allow that country to plan its energy policy in the long term. "It shows that the hastily announced cold war on raw materials is not taking place" and that the way is open for the international community to negotiate with Beijing on China's growing energy needs.

The Indian government has already signed a deal with China, which stipulates that oil companies from the two countries are to hold consultations in order to prevent pushing up the prices when bidding on foreign oil supplies. There are also deals with Japan on gas supplies in the East China Sea and with Russia on oil and gas supplies to China.

According to the TAZ, "All of these deals reduce the danger of a massive build up of nuclear energy in China." The paper argues that the Western pro-nuclear lobby have been speaking of a Chinese investment boom in the industry, "in order to provoke the belief here that a nuclear sceptic Europe would lag behind China."

According to the paper, China actually intends to diversify its energy production, and plans to install as many wind as nuclear power plants over the next 15 years." German companies are already involved in building renewable energy in China - a field in which the country will soon be a world leader. The paper concludes that "the cold war on energy is not taking place."

The financial daily Handelsblatt writes that "in the 21st century a country's resource policy has to be orientated towards the clearly recognisable scarcity of important goods on the world market." It comments that the prosperous People's Republic of China has recognised this fact like no other country. "With diplomatic skill and a lot of money, Beijing has for quite a while been securing access to important supplies of energy and metal resources." The paper comments that Germany imports more raw materials than any other industrial country. And it is particularly dependent on imports in the energy sector, leaving it highly vulnerable. In contrast to China, Germany's resource policy seems to be missing a long-term view. According to the Handelsblatt, the impression here is that Germany "has still not seen the sign of the times or the urgent need for action."

- Siobhán Dowling, 1:10 p.m. CET

Schröder's Reputation Battered

While in office Germany's former chancellor Gerhard Schröder went out of his way to support a proposed pipeline that would link Germany to Russia's vast natural gas reserves via the Baltic Sea in hope of securing future energy supplies. Now, only months later he has taken up a job with the company that was established to construct the pipeline. This has raised quite a few hackles, with some suggesting a possible conflict of interest. On Monday, Schröder won a first battle in the bid to save his reputation, after a court in Hamburg upheld an injunction against the leader of the opposition Free Democrats (FDP), who had claimed that the former chancellor had crossed the line between influencing the project and then becoming personally involved in it shortly thereafter. This week's revelation that Schröder's government had approved a possible loan guarantee for almost €1 billion for the Russian-German consortium that he now works for has given more fodder to those crying foul. Schröder denies knowing about the guarantee, but there are now calls for an inquiry into the former chancellor's actions.

The German press looks at the court victory, the fallout for Schröder's reputation, and the implications of the pipeline deal for German energy policy.

The center-left Süddeutsche Zeitung comments that Schröder could have avoided the current criticism if he had shown the German Russian plan to Angela Merkel, his successor as chancellor, and left it to her to announce the pipeline as a matter of national interest. "It would have been even better if he had declared that he did not want any private gain from his new job." The paper comments that "as political sensitivity is not one of Schröder's gifts," he now has to drag any false claims about the facts through the courts. The paper argues that he has won this time and he could fight off all attacks with legal means. However, "politically and morally it is not so simple. Gerhard Schröder cannot protect his reputation or prestige using his lawyer or a court. He has to do so himself."

The Financial Times Deutschland writes that Schröder has made it clear in court that as chancellor he never "gave a contract" to his current employer, the consortium led by Gazprom. "That is correct," writes the paper. "It is, however, also correct, that Schröder pushed for the Baltic Sea pipeline in a completely extraordinary manner. Without this political backing the project would not exist today." The fact that he has gone directly from the chancellorship to the supervisory board of his "Russian friends" has left a nasty smell, the paper writes, and one that cannot be dispelled by the court ruling. "On the contrary." The paper argues that the fact that he is using the courts actually damages his credibility further. If it was a case of wanting to push through a project that was politically controversial but in his own eyes correct and important, then he would have changed his jobs in a much more sensitive style. For example, with a longer break between the two positions, and an elder statesman salary rather than one of €250,000 a year, with greater care for the details of the deal (including the loan guarantee) and above all with a "clearly unambivalent recognition of his own role."

The left-wing Berliner Zeitung writes that the statement by the opposition leader of the FDP, Guido Westerwelle, was indeed false. "A chancellor does not give contracts in connection with private business projects." He can only support them politically. "A clear point in favor of Schröder." However, the paper then makes its own statement, echoing Westerwelle's original, but which it claims is correct and legal: "We find it problematic that his government approved a loan guarantee for a company and then a few weeks later, after handing over power, took a job with the same company."

The conservative Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, writes that Schröder can hardly be surprised that the issue is leading to court cases and suggestions for a parliamentary inquiry. The paper argues that he pushed through the project without considering his EU partners and in a manner which has made his appointment as chairman of the consortium questionable. Now "even the suspicion that there was a mingling of private and public interest is embarrassing enough." And this suspicion is not due to a campaign being waged against him, but due to his own actions. The paper also criticizes the pipeline itself as it ties Germany even more closely to Russia, and asks who can now rule out Moscow exploiting this dependency for political ends.