Four US lawmakers -- all of them members of the House International Relations Committee -- have written a letter to those lawmakers opposed to the Indo-US nuclear deal.
The letter, the lawmakers said, was a response to what they argue are 'several erroneous statements that completely represent the intent of this potential partnership.'
Erstwhile critic of India on Capitol Hill for nearly two decades, Congressman Dan Burton, Congressmen Gary Ackerman, Joe Wilson, South Carolina Republican and Joe Crowley, New York Democrat, said in their missive that 'our letter counters these false claims and reaffirms our support for this visionary agreement.'
The lawmakers said, 'We also firmly believe that the facts underlying the decision to enter into the agreement fully warrant the conclusion that its implementation is in the best interest of both the US and India.'
Countering the warning by the detractors that the proposed agreement poses potential negative impacts on nonproliferation, Ackerman and others argued that 'on the contrary, the agreement greatly strengthens the international nonproliferation system.'
They noted that 'India has long been largely outside of international nonproliferation regimes. [But] under this agreement, India will place 14 of its 22 existing and planned nuclear facilities under IAEA safeguards.
'Further, once a reactor has been placed under safeguards, it will be that way permanently and without conditions.'
The legislators also informed their colleagues that 'India has also committed to negotiating and signing an additional protocol with the IAEA. It will also harmonise its export control system with and adhere to the Missile Technology Control Regime and Nuclear Suppliers Group guidelines.'
'India will also continue its unilateral moratorium on nuclear testing and will refrain from transferring enrichment and reprocessing technologies to states that do not have them. This last commitment is a continuation of India's excellent past record of controlling sensitive technologies,' they added.
With regard to the other claim by critics that the proposed agreement was based on 'double-standards' as it treated India's civilian nuclear program differently than those of other countries, the lawmakers argued that 'the fact that the agreement provides unique treatment for India is based on the recognition of the very different factual situation regarding India compared to other countries with a history of proliferation problems.'
They pointed out that 'for 30 years, India has protected its nuclear programs. It has not engaged in or allowed proliferation of its nuclear technology. Simply put, India is treated uniquely because of its history of maintaining a successful nuclear nonproliferation regime.'