Home Staff Courses Documents Links Contact

 

 

JACKSON-VANIK AMENDMENT – PRAGMATISM PREVAILS
22.02.07
MOSCOW. (Oleg Mityayev for RIA Novosti)


At a new conference in Moscow on January 21, Tom Lantos, a democratic majority representative in the U.S. Congress, made a “sensational statement.” He said it was high time to exempt Russia from the provision of the Jackson-Vanik amendment. The head of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, who has never expressed particular sympathy for Russia, added that he was completely confident that it would be cancelled in the near future.

The authors of the 1974 Jackson-Vanik amendment – Congressmen-Democrats Henry Jackson and Charles Vanik – responded to the Soviet authorities’ decision to compel citizens who wanted to emigrate to pay compensation for the education they had received in the U.S.S.R.. The sum was so large that very few could afford to pay it then. The Soviet government was primarily targeting Jews who were going to leave for Israel.

In its time, this amendment fundamentally changed U.S. trade relations with the socialist countries, or, to use the American term, countries with non-market economies. In practice, it limited supplies of these countries with high-tech equipment, including latest computers, which inflicted heavy damage on American exporters. The Soviet Union obviated these restrictions by buying hardware through third countries, but had to pay through the nose.

During the perestroika the amendment largely became obsolete, and after the Soviet Union’s disintegration it turned into a total archaism. The U.S. Congress has not yet exempted Russia from this provision, although it no longer applies to its biggest trade partner China and some CIS countries like Georgia, Armenia, Kyrgyzstan, and Ukraine. In reality, the notorious amendment is not used against this country, either. Since the 1990s, U.S. presidents have continuously suspended its term for one year to trade with Russia on normal terms.

Much has been said about the need to abrogate this amendment by Congress decision once and for all. The U.S. has acknowledged that Russia has a market economy. When presidents George Bush and Vladimir Putin agreed on Russia’s WTO entry last December, it became clear that the amendment would soon cease to exist. Russia’s WTO entry binds the U.S. to grant it, as any other WTO member, permanent normal trade relations. This is what the U.S. Congressman said in Moscow. Lantos explained that the amendment’s abrogation would facilitate Russia’s WTO entry.

There are grounds to say that the amendment’s fate was preordained when the U.S. and Russia signed a bilateral WTO protocol at the end of 2006. Otherwise, it would be absolutely pointless for Russia to enter the WTO. The amendment allows the Americans to engage in discrimination, for instance, to introduce overrated anti-dumping duties. In the meantime, the WTO membership means a most-favored nation treatment for all participants.

Now Russia is engaged in technicalities of the WTO entry. It will take months to put everything right, and at best our government will achieve the desired objective by the end of this year. One of the necessary steps on Russia’s road to the WTO will be the cancellation of the archaic amendment.

There is one more positive point in Lantos’s “surprise” statement. He made it soon after Vladimir Putin delivered his speech in Munich, which some shortsighted Western observers perceived as a declaration of the new cold war. This statement by the U.S. Congressman shows that, to the contrary, the Western pragmatists want to leave behind the phobias and superstitions of the cold war.

Despite all the problems which we periodically encounter, I expect constructive, growing and invariably positive cooperation between Russia and the U.S., Lantos summed up.

Oleg Mityayev is a commentator with Izvestia, a popular Russian daily.

Opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily coincide with those of the editorial board. -0-