Critics say that states that possess nuclear weapons but are not allowed to do so under the Non-Proliferation Treaty have not paid a significant price for their search for weapons. In addition, the NPT has been explicitly weakened by a series of bilateral agreements concluded by NPT signatories, including the United States.  Article 4 provides for general procedures for negotiations with a single nuclear state that becomes a party to the treaty, including deadlines and responsibilities. If that state has eliminated its nuclear weapons before becoming a party to the treaty, an unspecified “competent international authority” will examine this elimination and the State must also enter into a safeguards agreement with the IAEA to credibly ensure that it has not diverted nuclear materials and that it does not have undeclared nuclear materials or undeclared nuclear activities. If that state has not yet destroyed its arsenal, it will have to negotiate with this “competent international authority” a temporary plan for the revision and irreversible abolition of its nuclear weapons programme, which will subject it to the next meeting of the signatory states or to the next review conference, depending on what happens in the first place. On 18 January 2018, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov addressed the UN Security Council, directly referring to the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons as “unbalanced methods that … Are not good at achieving the goal of a world without nuclear weapons. In response to an ICAN appeal, more than eight hundred parliamentarians from around the world expressed support for a ban treaty, called on “all national governments to negotiate a treaty banning nuclear weapons and leading to their total eradication” and calling it “necessary, feasible and increasingly urgent.” Among the countries they represent were members of existing nuclear-weapon-free zones and NATO countries. Of the five permanent nuclear members of the UN Security Council, the United Kingdom was the only one with the support of elected representatives for this initiative.  In January 2011[update], Australia, one of the three largest producers of uranium and home to the world`s largest known reserves, continued its refusal to export uranium to India, despite diplomatic pressure from India.  In November 2011, the Australian Prime Minister announced his intention to allow exports to India, a policy change approved by his party`s national conference in December. On December 4, 2011, Prime Minister Julia Gillard lifted Australia`s ban on the export of uranium to India.  She added: “We should make a decision in the national interest, a decision on strengthening our strategic partnership with India in this Asian century” and stated that any agreement on the sale of uranium to India would include strict security measures to ensure that it will only be used for civilian purposes and that it does not end up in nuclear weapons.  September 05, 2014; Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott has sealed a civil nuclear deal with the sale of uranium to India. “We signed a nuclear cooperation agreement because Australia trusts India to do the right thing in this area, as it has done in other areas,” Abbott told reporters after he and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi signed a pact to sell uranium for peaceful electricity generation.  Article I: Any nuclear-weapon State (NWS) undertakes not to transfer nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices to recipients and not to assist a non-nuclear state in manufacturing or acquiring such weapons or devices.