Exchange in American: Jackson-Vanik amendment changed to Magnitsky list
The event occurred last week. The US House of Representatives voted to repeal the Jackson-Vanik amendment by majority vote. Yes, against the very amendment of the 1974 model of the year to the Trade Act. Recall that the authors of the amendment, Henry Jackson and Charles Vanik, proposed a number of restrictive measures on trade with those countries of the world that prevented the free emigration of their citizens. The application of the 70 model of the main legislative blow to the Soviet Union was connected with the fact that Moscow, to put it mildly, was reluctant to emigrate Soviet citizens, including to Israel.
It would seem that after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Jackson-Vanik amendment, which did not allow bilateral trade between Russia and the USA to develop, should have been canceled immediately. After all, the collapse of the USSR marked a new era, which was characterized by the fact that anyone and anywhere could emigrate from Russia. If you want to Israel - please, if you want to Germany - no problem. Although in Zimbabwe, go for permanent residence - no obstacles.
However, even the collapse of the USSR did not become a starting point for American politicians in terms of repealing a very original amendment to the Trade Act. Time passed, and every new American president literally swore that he would do everything so that the unfortunate amendment imposing restrictions on trade operations between the United States and the Russian Federation was canceled. But the presidents were changing, and the amendment remained intact, like a rare beast in the American political reserve. Parliamentarians every time found a lot of reasons to leave the amendment in its rightful place. In this case, the last intelligible reason was expressed that way in the year of 87, no later.
But here is the year 2012, the congressmen from the Lower House of the American Parliament nevertheless were honored and adopted a bill to repeal the Jackson-Vanik amendment. It would seem that both Russians and Americans can gather at one big round table and, opening a bottle of champagne, proceed to celebrate a historic event.
Only now the holiday did not immediately set. Why? Yes, the whole point is that the draft law on the abolition of the amendment was most closely linked to the need to adopt the so-called list (act) of Magnitsky. A sort of act of good American parliamentary will in the range. Well, a typical variant of merchandising: to a poorly sold product (or a product with a short expiration date), store employees use adhesive tape to fasten a more popular product: you want to buy a can of mayonnaise, and there is also a lollipop tied to it - in the load. In this regard, the cancellation of the Jackson-Vanik amendment looks like American political merchandising, when they decided to push the Magnitsky act into the load, which has about the same relation to mutual trade between Russia and the United States as problems with the emigration of the Jewish population from the USSR in the 70s.
The Magnitsky Act itself for the American parliamentarians obviously became the very lifeline that finally allowed the swim of the foul-smelling liquid, which the Jackson-Vanik amendment had become in 38 years of its existence. Like, Russia wanted to get the abolition of this amendment - get the same! But only in conjunction with our "original list". In general, the lifeline brought the American politicians of the House of Representatives from one dirty slurry to another ...
No, regarding the Magnitsky list, no one is going to sprinkle ashes on his head. No one is going to shout at every corner, “Ahh, some Russian prosecutors, judges and prison staff do not get to the United States now!” If these people are somehow involved in the death of lawyer Sergei Magnitsky, then they must suffer a fair punishment. If they are guilty of the fact that the lawyer died in the hospital of the detention facility, then it should not be determined by the overseas “honored guesses” at all.
According to which international law, the authorities of another state declare their ability to judge people as guilty, without any court decisions. But what about the presumption of innocence, which is considered to be the pillar of Western criminal law ... Or is this basic platform for dealing with suspects working only in the United States and exclusively in terms of American citizens? Apparently, such a legal nuance does not bother the American congressmen at all. And now, in general, little confuses. If you believe the data of the US statistical agencies, then only every tenth American trusts the work of the Congress. That is why, even in the United States itself, the current composition of the Congress is perceived by the people as a kind of Kunstkamera, in which amazing individuals are seated in their places, who often make absolutely senseless decisions.
On this occasion, expressed the US Congressman Ron Paul. In an interview with the Voice of Russia radio station, he states that the Lower House of the US Parliament has made a clearly provocative decision, which clearly will not help revitalize bilateral ties between Russia and the United States. Ron Paul is convinced that the law is an attempt to interfere in the internal affairs of Russia and a clear disregard for the laws of a foreign state.
Ron Paul is by no means the only representative of the American Congress who speaks out against linking the repeal of the Jackson-Vanik amendment with the Magnitsky Act. Congressman Dana Rohrabacher called on the American parliamentarians to finally understand that the Soviet Union had long since disappeared from the map of the Earth, and to associate modern Russia with it is a terrible retrograde.
However, neither the opinion of Paul, nor the opinion of Rohrabacher, nor the opinion of his own voters do not care at all those who spoke in favor of linking the two legislative initiatives. Saying this may not at all mean that in the United States someone cares about the observance of anti-corruption legislation in Russia, and certainly not about the fact that Congress is trying in this way to promote the development of Russian legislation. It’s just that there are special forces behind the people who voted with both hands to cancel the obviously outdated Jackson-Vanik amendment with the simultaneous and indispensable adoption of the Magnitsky Act. And these forces will do everything to ensure that Russian-American relations never become partnerships.
At the same time, the Americans themselves are well aware that the deterioration of relations with Russia is not at all included in the plans of American business. Recently, the Jackson-Vanik amendment did not allow the US business community to take advantage of full-fledged trade with Russia. It turns out that even business here is not the main thing for the American authorities. And most importantly - the ghosts of the Cold War, who roam in Congress until now and in no way haunt those who shudder at the mere mention of the word "Russia".
Obviously, even if Magnitsky’s act is once canceled in legislative form in the United States, our transatlantic, forgive, Lord, the partners will still search for internal reserves and will introduce other legal initiatives in his place. The amendment “traffic jams on Moscow roads, preventing American citizens from moving freely in the Russian capital” or the act of “Infringement of LGBT rights - communities”.
In general, if someone has the illusion that from the American government offices we only want good, then it is time to say goodbye to these illusions. Yes, and respond with your "lists" is also meaningless. But to think of an asymmetrical answer is quite possible. To abandon the use of American payment systems, for example ... The main thing is that such an answer does not become ordinary populism, but becomes a complex of well-thought-out measures that would make the US politicians understand that “to roll Vanka” again and again will not work.
Lavrov warned Clinton about the Russian response to the "Magnitsky law"
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov told reporters that he personally warned US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that Russia would adequately respond to "Magnitsky law."
“The case in Washington is practically resolved,” Voice of Russia quotes Lavrov as saying. “Hillary Clinton knows that we will adequately respond.”
Recall that last week the House of Representatives of the US Congress adopted a bill on the introduction of visa sanctions against the Russians and the simultaneous abolition of the restrictive trade amendment Jackson-Vanik.
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation said that this step will have a negative impact on the general atmosphere of Russian-American relations and will not remain without a harsh response from our side.
Russian diplomats advised US lawmakers to look at the ugly picture of respecting human rights in their country.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov told reporters that he personally warned US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that Russia would adequately respond to "Magnitsky law."
“The case in Washington is practically resolved,” Voice of Russia quotes Lavrov as saying. “Hillary Clinton knows that we will adequately respond.”
Recall that last week the House of Representatives of the US Congress adopted a bill on the introduction of visa sanctions against the Russians and the simultaneous abolition of the restrictive trade amendment Jackson-Vanik.
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation said that this step will have a negative impact on the general atmosphere of Russian-American relations and will not remain without a harsh response from our side.
Russian diplomats advised US lawmakers to look at the ugly picture of respecting human rights in their country.
Information