Jackson-Vanik Amendment. Reference. New law on the main thing

In the coming days, the lower house of the US Congress may finally approve the repeal of the so-called Jackson-Vanik amendment, introduced in the 1970s to protect the right of Soviet Jews to emigrate. But cancel the rudiment" cold war", which is no longer used in practice long years, will be along with the introduction of new sanctions against Moscow, much more relevant modern realities: We are talking about the so-called “Magnitsky law”.

American parliamentarians have been saying for a long time that the repeal of the Jackson-Vanik Amendment must be linked with the adoption of a law punishing Russian officials convicted of violating human rights. On Tuesday, November 13, the House Rules Committee gave the go-ahead to combine the two legislative initiatives. It is expected that a similar decision will be made by the entire House on Thursday and a single bill will be put to a vote on Friday.

The notorious amendment to federal law on trade bears the names of two Democratic politicians and staunch fighters against communism - Senator Henry Jackson and Congressman Charles Vanik. It was they who, in 1974, initiated restrictions on trade with countries that prevented their citizens from going abroad. Although the sanctions affected various socialist powers (for example, China), the main target was, of course, the Soviet Union.

By the early 1970s, the Soviet state had largely lost its revolutionary core, which previously constituted the entire meaning of its existence, and began to ossify in Brezhnev's stagnation. Neither the imposition of magnificent rituals like parades on Red Square, nor the naive struggle against imperialism, for the sake of which “progressive” regimes and movements were pumped with money and weapons, could fill the semantic vacuum that arose.

Meanwhile, the relatively young state of Israel was gaining power, turning into a center of power in the Middle East and successfully resisting the superior forces of the Arabs. It is clear that among Soviet Jews there were many who wanted to go to the Promised Land. Many, however, were more attracted by the West, which presented itself because of " iron curtain"a fabulous space of freedom and open possibilities.

Among the potential emigrants there were a considerable number of valuable personnel with whom the Soviet Union did not want to part. In 1972, in the hope of stopping the “brain drain,” the Soviet authorities obliged individuals with higher education, going to permanent place residence abroad, reimburse the state for the funds spent on their education. It was this measure that served as the reason for Senator Jackson's initiative.

According to the Jackson-Vanik Amendment, any state with no market economy, which deprives citizens of the right to emigrate or imposes any unjustified duties on emigration procedures, is deprived of the right to normal trade relations with the United States. In America, where there was a long tradition of foreign policy isolationism, the bill caused serious controversy, but Soviet dissidents perceived it as a precious gesture of support. In particular, such a prominent human rights activist as Andrei Sakharov spoke in favor of the adoption of the amendment.

It is difficult to assess the scale of the actual economic damage that the Jackson-Vanik Amendment caused to the Soviet Union, but its ideological impact turned out to be enormous. Washington's intercession inspired and consolidated anti-Soviet forces, and, following the example of the Jews, other ethnic and religious groups began to speak louder about the infringement of their rights. It is not surprising that freedom of emigration became one of the first provisions of the “perestroika” that began under Mikhail Gorbachev.

Since since the mid-1980s there was no formal reason for applying the amendment to the USSR, its use was frozen: sanctions ceased to apply to the Soviet Union, and after the end of the Cold War, to the CIS states. At first, the extension of the moratorium was agreed upon annually, but since the mid-1990s this has become automatic. Over time, observing the development of democratic trends and guided by various geopolitical considerations, for some republics - Kyrgyzstan, Georgia, Armenia, Ukraine - the amendment was completely canceled.

It is noteworthy that in the case of Ukraine, American human rights activists were skeptical about the repeal of the amendment, and the need to maintain sanctions was explained not by restrictions on freedom of movement, as stated in the original document, but by more global considerations. In particular, the influential Anti-Defamation League said that in Ukraine, Jews are subjected to attacks unthinkable in a democratic society, and the authorities are not doing enough to eradicate anti-Semitism.

This example shows that in the 2000s, the Jackson-Vanik Amendment was viewed not as a “narrow-profile” means of protecting emigrants, but as a universal symbolic instrument of influence on states that do not follow Western standards of civil rights and freedoms. Of course, from this point of view, the amendment was of particular significance in the case of Russia, whose authorities are accused by American critics of authoritarianism, trampling on democratic institutions and persecution of dissidents.

That is why the prospect of formally exempting Russia from the Jackson-Vanik Amendment, despite all its legal obsolescence, was regarded by skeptics in the United States as an outrageous capitulation in the fight for human rights. And that is precisely why the need to replace the amendment with another, more modern measure of education for democracy has become so urgent. This measure is named after the Russian lawyer Sergei Magnitsky, who died in Matrosskaya Tishina.

Magnitsky was involved in auditing for the British consulting firm Firestone Duncan, which, among other companies, served the British investment fund Hermitage Capital Management. In 2007, Russian authorities accused the foundation of tax evasion and effectively expelled it from the country. Conducting his own investigation, Magnitsky found that the pressure on Hermitage Capital and other companies operating in Russia was carried out as part of a large-scale corruption scheme, which allowed the attackers not only to take away assets from foreigners, but also to divert huge funds from the Russian budget.

Magnitsky's revelations, in particular, were directed against the head of the 28th Moscow tax office Olga Stepanova: as the auditor concluded, the official, in collusion with her husband, entrepreneur Vladlen Stepanov, managed to get enormously rich through criminal tax fraud. Subsequently, it was suggested that much more senior officials were involved in criminal schemes, in particular the recently fired Minister of Defense Anatoly Serdyukov.

Interestingly, the Russian Investigative Committee has literally just launched an investigation into Stepanova’s activities. Sources in law enforcement agencies confirm that this happened not without connection with the scandalous corruption case of Oboronservis, which has so far cost Serdyukov his ministerial portfolio.

It is not known for certain how much influential corrupt officials Magnitsky disturbed, but one way or another, in November 2008 he was arrested on charges of tax evasion on a particularly large scale. The investigation alleged that the consultant contributed to the illegal activities of Hermitage Capital. While in prison, Magnitsky's health deteriorated. All complaints that he was created into unbearable living conditions and was not provided with proper medical care did not bring any results, and on November 16, 2009, he died in the prison hospital - either from acute pancreatitis or from heart failure.

Single picket “Against judicial arbitrariness in the Magnitsky case.” Photo Kommersant, Maxim Polyakov

Magnitsky's friends and collaborators did everything possible to make his fate widely publicized in the West. For example, the head of Hermitage Capital, Bill Browder, often appears on television as the main whistleblower Russian corruption- he identifies her with Vladimir Putin, whom he once sympathized with. A list of people allegedly involved in the persecution, torture and death of Magnitsky was compiled: among others, Stepanova was included, as well as judges and employees of various government departments, including the Ministry of Internal Affairs, the FSB and the prosecutor's office.

This list of alleged offenders was introduced into American politics in 2010 by Democratic Senator Benjamin Cardin. Although the “black list” was not supported by any court decisions, the US authorities applied visa sanctions to those involved. They began to actively talk about enshrining the “Magnitsky list” at the legislative level precisely in connection with the need to compensate for the repeal of the Jackson-Vanik amendment, which is demanded by business: corporations doubt that without “permanent normal trade relations” with Russia they will be able to extract all possible benefits from Russia’s accession in the WTO.

Several versions of the proposed “Magnitsky Act,” officially called the Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Act, have emerged during debates in various committees of both houses of Congress. All of them provide for a ban on entry into the United States of Russian officials involved in the death of Magnitsky and the freezing of their assets. In addition, it is also possible to punish in a similar manner other people convicted of violating human rights on Russian territory. The “black list” can be replenished at the initiative of legislators, and the executive branch has the right to keep it secret in the interests of national security.

The latest version of the bill, approved by the House Rules Committee, unlike the earlier Senate version, does not apply to countries other than Russia. However, the ideologists of the “Magnitsky law” clearly view it in the context of the global mission of the United States. “The Jackson-Vanik sanctions, which we are prepared to lift, have long outlived their functionality,” Senator Cardin and fellow Republican Jon Kyl wrote in a joint article, “but there remains an urgent need for additional tools that will help protect voiceless people from despots.” autocrats and dictators - be it in Moscow, Harare or Tehran."

During the development of these additional tools Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs declared them "counterproductive" and called on Washington to " common sense", but the opposition forces, as under Brezhnev, greeted the initiative of American legislators with enthusiasm. Moreover, the oppositionists even conveyed to Congress their wishes to add new faces to the “black list” - in particular, they were talking about the head of the Central Election Commission Vladimir Churov and the head of the Investigative Committee Alexandra Bastrykina. And veteran of the human rights movement Lyudmila Alekseeva advised to include in the list of authors the sensational law on NGOs, which ordered some non-profit organizations have the status of foreign agents.

It would seem, what could be common between them? Don't tell...

Briefly given legislative norm was adopted regarding Soviet Union already in 1974 in order to put pressure on him, since the USSR had the audacity to charge emigrants the cost of free education (well, there was no paid education in the Union, as in the USA, and corresponding educational loans :-). And this amendment prevented the introduction of most favored nation treatment in trade for various “wrong” countries, which, naturally, harmed both us and the Americans themselves: there are two sides trading.

Naturally, no one has charged anything from emigrants for a long time, and since 1989, a one-year moratorium has been imposed on the amendment every year, but it has not been completely canceled until now. Why cancel such a wonderful amendment if you can constantly talk about its cancellation, provided that Russia does this, that, that, and that, oh yes, and also lifts restrictions on the purchase of “Bush legs”? And if the amendment is repealed, then what will you use to put pressure on Russia? But I want to put pressure.

However, even if the Jackson-Vanik amendment is repealed, absolutely nothing prevents Congress from then adopting the Thomson-Broom or Nicholson-Mop amendment, and then conducting many years of conversations about their repeal as soon as Russia becomes good on all issues. But over the years, it was Venik’s amendment that became so familiar and dear to everyone that it’s a pity to part with it...

Okay, that was the story. Now let's move on to modern times. I think you will not be surprised to learn that the US Congress is again discussing the issue of repealing the Jackson-Vanik Amendment. The Republican minority is strongly opposed, and something tells me that, although they are a minority, the amendment will not be repealed in the foreseeable future :-)

Deputy Head of the Republican Minority of the US Senate Jon Kyl listed the numerous sins of Russia, which do not allow the amendment to be repealed until they are all corrected (that is, never :-). It was the usual set of intricately mixed human rights (in Russia, unlike the West, protest rallies are dispersed terribly) and intellectual property protection.

But there was also something new. I quote RIA Novosti:

“Russia is moving further and further away from compliance international obligations, blocks the UN Security Council resolution on Syria, continues to sell weapons to the Assad regime, which is killing its own people,” Kyle said on Thursday at a hearing in the US Senate Finance Committee on the issue of repealing the Jackson-Vanik amendment.”

“blocks UN Security Council resolution on Syria”- Do you understand what's happening? Not the last person in the US legislative branch demands preservation economic sanctions against the country for voting “wrongly” at the UN!

With this one statement, John Kyle crossed out ALL UN resolutions at once! What are all these hundred-plus votes for the resolution against Syria worth, if it is now officially stated that a vote that does not suit the United States could become a reason for introducing specific punitive sanctions against the willful?

If such unprecedentedly brazen pressure can be exerted on a permanent member of the UN Security Council, nuclear power, then some New Guinea will vote at the behest of the United States for anything, without even asking what this “Syria” is and where it is located. Only now this voice is worth nothing...

According to statistics, in 2010, more than half of Americans were born after 1975, the date of passage of the Jackson-Vanik Amendment. And you can bet that even those whose age allows them to remember the then fashionable platform shoes and bell-bottoms are unlikely to be able to speak intelligibly about the details of legislative acts or the reasons that gave rise to them. This is both the strength of the Jackson-Vanik amendment and the need to repeal its effect on Russia.

Let us recall that the authors of the amendments, Senator Henry Jackson and Congressman Charles Vanik, called for putting pressure on the Soviet Union for limiting emigration, especially of Jews, without granting the USSR most favored nation status in trade. At that time, Jews who wanted to leave the country were forced to pay exorbitant compensation for their education, or were denied a visa due to knowledge of state secrets. Undoubtedly, the combination of economic and moral pressure on the Soviet Union contributed greatly to the millions of Jews who managed to leave the country. Many of them settled in Israel.

Today, the Soviet Union has not existed for many years, and Russia and Israel are connected by a visa-free regime and daily flights between the capitals. Many former Soviet emigrants return to Russia to work, albeit without citizenship. But the Jackson-Vanik amendment has not gone away; all American administrations each time extend its effect in relation to Russia. Thus, for two decades now, this law has been a relic of the Cold War, which is alive only because of the inertia of legislators. Apart from periodic outcries from Moscow, this amendment did not have a serious economic impact on relations with Russia after the end of the Cold War. That's why no one bothered to cancel it.

Free trade is a watershed

The inevitable entry changes everything. The Jackson-Vanik Amendment regained its relevance when, in December last year, the Russian Federation Once again invited to the WTO. This time, the point is not about obstacles to emigrants, but about the fact that such a law is simply impossible under WTO rules. The organization demands the unconditional opening of markets to all participants. If one of the WTO members cannot do this, then he must publicly warn everyone about this. At the same time, a new member joining the organization is not obliged to extend the status of the most favored nation in trade to such a country. This is exactly the case of the USA and Russia, and the situation will remain this way as long as the Jackson-Vanik amendment exists.

If it continues after Russia’s full accession to the WTO, the American one will lose a huge, thriving market. Exports to the Russian Federation have been growing at an average rate of 15% per year over the past 10 years, reaching $8.3 billion in 2011. According to recent research from the Peterson Institute, this figure could double in the next five years as a result of Russia's accession to the WTO. Approximately 50 thousand jobs in the United States are in one way or another related to exports to Russia, which means this figure could double over the same period.

American exports include a variety of products. American consumer products, which have become brands, are very popular among the growing Russian middle class. For several years in a row, the best-selling car has been the Ford Focus. Boeings are so popular that they have managed to greatly displace aging Soviet models in the Russian aviation fleet. Infrastructure projects in Russia will obviously lead to the need for railway locomotives, high-tech power generation, intelligent technology, etc. These are all areas where the US is very competitive and has worked hard to gain market share and a good reputation.

And now America's competitiveness is under threat. Russia is threatening retaliatory measures because the United States notified the WTO that it is impossible to unconditionally extend most favored nation status in trade to Russia. The Foreign Minister stated that Russia will not apply the obligations stipulated by joining the WTO to those countries that do not guarantee Russia most favored nation status in trade (ie the United States). Ironically, all the other 152 WTO members will be able to benefit from the benefits that the United States sought during all these protracted negotiations on Russia's accession to the organization. These benefits include intellectual rights, agricultural product standards, financial services and other regulatory and legal norms, important for American business. Moreover, the United States will not even be able to hold Russia accountable for possible non-compliance with WTO norms.

Political decision

In January, the administration publicly announced that repealing Jackson-Vanik and establishing permanent normal trade relations with Russia was now a top priority. Secretary of State Clinton, Trade Representative Ron Kirk and other officials high rank came out in support of this initiative. Lobbyists became more active, and there was talk of preventing losses of American business and jobs. Many recognize the commercial viability of repealing the law.

However, most senators have reservations on many aspects of domestic and foreign policy Russia. Moreover, they believe, repealing Jackson-Vanik without replacing it with another human rights law would be a concession in the face of violations of these rights and weak rule of law in Russia. Discussions also revolved around the list of persons responsible for this matter.

Congress and the Presidential Administration must decide what to do with the Magnitsky case rather than replace the Jackson-Vanik Amendment. However, for example, in such an association as the Russia-US Council, they believe that without the repeal of the amendment, American business will lose a lot after the Russian Federation joins the WTO. Obviously, this law has no effect on Russian government, but supporters of a hard line towards the United States have grounds for speculation on this topic.

The States cannot afford to lose a market like the Russian one. This means that the amendment must be repealed, and not in the interests of Russia, but in the interests of America.

The Jackson-Vanik Amendment is contained in Chapter IV of the US Trade Act. The amendment was named after its authors - Senator Henry Jackson (member of the US House of Representatives from 1941-1953, member of the Senate from 1953-1983) and member of the House of Representatives Charles Vanik (elected to Congress from 1955-1981). .). Both legislators were members Democratic Party USA.

The amendment linked the provision of loans and most favored nation status to any “communist country” and, in particular, the future of trade and economic agreements between the United States and the USSR with the requirement that these countries respect civil rights and freedoms, including free travel abroad for those wishing to emigrate.

The reason for the adoption of the amendment was, in particular, the practice of restricting the departure of persons of Jewish nationality from the USSR. The terms contained in adopted law, were characterized by the USSR government as interference in the country's internal affairs and rejected, as a result of which the USSR was denied most favored nation treatment.

The Trade Act went into effect when President Ford signed it on January 3, 1975. Due to the lack of favorable treatment, Soviet exports to the United States were subject to tariffs 10 times higher than normal.

After 1985 and in conditions of free exit and emigration of citizens of the USSR (and since 1991 - Russian Federation) the amendment has lost its meaning, but has not been officially repealed, although its effect in the context of the Trade Act may be limited or even repealed on a case-by-case basis by special decision of the President of the United States.

On September 21, 1994, US President Bill Clinton signed and sent a message to Congress notifying legislators of his decision to guarantee Russia an automatic extension of most favored nation trade status. Clinton's decision eliminated the need to annually exempt Russia from the Jackson-Vanik Amendment, which US presidents had decreed for the previous five years.

Jackson-Vanik Amendment for a long time casts a shadow over relations between Russia and the United States. Nowadays it is one of the symbols of the former confrontation between the two states and the Cold War.

An attempt to repeal the Russia amendment was made by the United States only once - in 2002. Then US President George W. Bush asked Congress to decide this problem. But as soon as the issue reached the “finish line”, Russia banned imports chicken meat from the USA, and the process was stopped.

On February 3, 2011, the head of the Federation Council Committee on International Affairs, Mikhail Margelov, following a meeting with American senators, announced that the US Congress could repeal the Jackson-Vanik Amendment as early as this spring.

Chapter international committee The Federation Council also said that the repeal of the Jackson-Vanik amendment is also actively supported by a large lobbying organization, the American Israel Committee on public relations(AIPAC).

Without the repeal of the Jackson-Vanik amendment, the US delegation formally does not have the right to vote for Russia's admission to the WTO.

The Jackson-Vanik Amendment also applies to Vietnam, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Moldova.

In 2000, the amendment ceased to apply to China. At the same time, trade restrictions were lifted in relation to Georgia, Kyrgyzstan and Albania.

In 2006, the Jackson-Vanik Amendment was repealed in relation to Ukraine.

The Jackson-Vanik Amendment is contained in Chapter IV of the Trade Act of 1974 in the United States.

According to the amendment, most favored nation treatment can be extended only to those countries with a non-market economy whose emigration regime is recognized as liberal. The United States imposed sanctions against violators of international norms, mainly related to restricting the access of goods produced in a given country to the American market.

The reason for the adoption of the amendment was, in particular, the practice of restricting the departure of persons of Jewish nationality from the USSR. The conditions contained in the adopted law were characterized by the USSR government as interference in the internal affairs of the country and rejected, as a result of which the USSR was denied most favored nation treatment.

The Commerce Act took effect when it was signed by President Gerald Ford. Due to the lack of preferential treatment, Soviet exports to the United States were subject to duties ten times higher than usual.

After 1985, in conditions of free travel and emigration of citizens of the USSR (and since 1991 - of the Russian Federation), the amendment lost its meaning. Since 1989, special decisions of the US President have annually imposed a moratorium on the amendment in relation to the USSR and then the CIS countries, but the amendment has not been officially cancelled.

On September 21, 1994, US President Bill Clinton signed and sent a message to Congress notifying legislators of his decision to guarantee Russia an automatic extension of most favored nation trade status. Clinton's decision eliminated the need to annually exempt Russia from the Jackson-Vanik Amendment.

The Jackson-Vanik Amendment has long cast a shadow over relations between Russia and the United States, being one of the symbols of the former confrontation between the two states and the Cold War.

In 2002, the United States officially recognized Russia as a country with a market economy, and from that moment on, all formal reasons preventing the abolition of the amendment were eliminated.

In the same year, an attempt was made to repeal the amendment in relation to Russia. But as soon as the issue reached the “finish line,” first a “steel” and then a “chicken” war broke out between the two countries: in response to the US imposing a 30 percent tariff on the import of foreign steel, Russia introduced a ban on the import of Bush’s chicken legs ". And although this ban was later lifted, and the “steel” tariff regime was somewhat relaxed, the question of repealing the Jackson-Vanik amendment was suspended.

In 2000, the amendment ceased to apply to China. In the early 2000s, trade restrictions were lifted in relation to a number of CIS countries: Kyrgyzstan, Georgia, Armenia. In 2006, the Jackson-Vanik Amendment was repealed in relation to Ukraine.

US President Barack Obama said that repealing the Jackson-Vanik amendment would be one of his administration's priorities.

The US House of Representatives passed a bill to impose visa sanctions against Russians and simultaneously repeal the restrictive Jackson-Vanik trade amendment. The bill was approved by the Senate of the US Congress, and President Barack Obama signed the document on December 14.

Barack Obama signed an executive order to end the Jackson-Vanik trade restriction on goods coming from Russia. The amendment was also canceled in relation to Moldova. The decision to repeal the Jackson-Vanik Amendment was made in conjunction with the law imposing visa sanctions against officials involved in human rights violations (the “Magnitsky List” law).

US trade relations with other former Soviet republics(Azerbaijan, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan) are still formally subject to the amendment, but are subject to a temporary exemption.

The material was prepared based on information from RIA Novosti and open sources