Jackson-Vanik Testimony  - 04.11.2002

 

 

 

ORAL STATEMENT OF HAROLD PAUL LUKS

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  My name is Harold Luks.  I am the chairman of NCSJ.  We are now known as the Advocates on behalf of Jews in Russia, Ukraine, the Baltic States and Eurasia.  With me today is Mark Levin, our executive director, who has been with us for more than 20 years.

As a former congressional staffer in the House and Senate, I first worked on the waivers from Jackson-Vanik for Eastern European countries in 1978.  And today is a historic hearing.  We represent nearly 50 national Jewish organizations, including the Anti-Defamation League and B’nai B’rith (which have asked to be associated with this testimony), 300 local community councils and federations across the country.  Mr. Chairman, I would like to take this opportunity to summarize our basic points.

First, we support the graduation of Russia from the Jackson-Vanik Amendment, and we believe the Committee should focus on the concept of graduation because it represents a turning point and an important step forward.  We base our position first on the fact that there is free emigration, but, also, that those individuals who are citizens of the Russian Federation have the opportunity now to choose the religion, culture, language, and faith of their forefathers, something that was denied to them during 70 years of Soviet rule.

Secondly, there are problems in the Russian Federation confronting the Jewish community.  There are anti-Semitic incidents, some in more places than in others.  The Russian government has interfered directly in Jewish communal affairs, such as by unilaterally choosing who should be viewed as the Chief Rabbi.  And, police have broken into the central synagogue in Moscow and conducted a search.  There have been confiscatory taxes imposed on Jewish organizations engaged in religious and humanitarian affairs.  Finally, the 1997 law on religion which requires registration continues to be a problem.

Let me make one thing clear: We support graduation.  We have addressed these issues with someone whom we have come to regard as a colleague and a voice of reason, and that is Ambassador Ushakov.  But we look to the future with some trepidation given the uncertainties in the Russian Federation.

The focus of my remarks today is with respect to certain deficiencies which we see, Mr. Crane, in the bill which you have cosponsored, H.R. 3553.

I would like to take a moment to just step back in history.  In his State of the Union message to Congress in 1904, Teddy Roosevelt condemned anti-Semitism in the Russian Empire.  In 1911, the United States critiqued the U.S.-Russian trade treaty that dated from 1832.  And, in 1912, Mr. Crane, the United States abrogated this treaty because of czarist policies against their Jewish minority.

Jackson-Vanik was not the beginning of the U.S. commitment, and Jackson-Vanik is not the end of this commitment.  It is something that preceded us and we hope will live on after us, because it reflects the very best in American values and commitments to human rights and religious freedom.

Therefore, we are asking the Committee for three very specific things, and they are set forth in our testimony: Number one, expand the Findings section; number two, include a Policy section within the bill that builds on the legacy left to us by Teddy Roosevelt so there is no ambiguity as to what the United States stands for; and, number three, in the Committee report, address some of the bilateral mechanisms which were referenced by Mr. Lantos to continue the focus of the Congress and the President on human rights and religious freedom.

I would like to close by noting that, after the Holocaust, Jews who survived still had a memory of Jewish religion and faith because they were able to maintain it even in the camps.  After 73 years of Soviet rule, that memory became barely recognizable.  Jewish life in an organized way had all but ceased.  Jackson-Vanik was an instrument, Mr. Crane, that created an opportunity for Jews in the Soviet Union and now in Russia to rediscover their past.  That is a Jewish issue.

But let me say, the treatment of Jews in the Russian Federation is a reflection of civil society, and when the Jewish minority is treated well, there is a much greater indication that Russia will become a member of the community of nations, engage in trade, welcome foreign investment, buy planes from Boeing, buy American agriculture, and export to us.  We believe the two were never separated, and we believe they continue to work together.

The substantial progress that has been achieved by Jackson-Vanik and by many members of this Committee, in revitalizing Jewish life, has been a success.  But it still reaches a small portion of the population.  We want to make sure that our message – that NCSJ’s message and the message of other Jewish organizations – can continue to be made inside Russia.

Congress can help to secure their future by articulating a clear United States policy: that they should have the freedom to choose their faith and their culture.

Mr. Crane, Mr. Levin, this is a noble cause, and we commend the good work of this Committee and look forward to your good work to perfect the legislation before you.  Thank you very much.  

return to top

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HAROLD PAUL LUKS

Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Representative Levin, and Members of the Subcommittee.  My name is Harold Paul Luks. I am the Chairman of NCSJ: Advocates on behalf of Jews in Russia, Ukraine, the Baltic States & Eurasia, i.e., the Former Soviet Union (“FSU”). With me today is Mark Levin, NCSJ’s Executive Director, who has been with our organization for more than 20 years.

As a former Congressional staffer, I first worked on extending Jackson-Vanik waivers for Eastern European countries in 1978 and have been deeply involved in international trade matters since that time. As member of NCSJ, and Chair of its Jackson-Vanik Committee for many years, I have had the privilege of working on the linkage among international trade, emigration, and religious freedom.   

NCSJ, representing nearly 50 national organizations and more than 300 local community-based federations, community councils, and committees on Jews in the FSU, speaks for the organized American Jewish community on issues affecting the Jewish minority in the FSU. My organization, formerly known as the National Conference on Soviet Jewry, changed its name several years ago to reflect the emergence of independent successor states. We evaluate graduation for each successor state based on a set of country-specific issues, achievements, and challenges. [For an assessment of these issues, a copy of NCSJ’s 2000/01 Country Reports is available upon request by contacting our office in Washington or online at www.ncsj.org.] 

For three decades, NCSJ has mobilized public opinion to oppose human rights violations in the FSU and the successor states, including such efforts as the 1987 March on Washington – “Freedom Sunday for Soviet Jews” – which drew an estimated 250,000. As evidence of our community’s continuing consensus, several major American Jewish organizations have asked to be associated with our testimony today, including the Anti-Defamation League and B'nai B'rith International.

Members of this Subcommittee and the full Committee have earned a place of merit in the struggle to save the Jewish people in the Soviet Union from the concerted policy of the Communist Party to extinguish their religion, culture, and language. Those who met with refuseniks under the eyes of the KGB, delivered Hebrew texts when they were banned and stood for the linkage between human rights and trade policy gave courage to those who struggled for freedom. Jackson-Vanik is a bipartisan issue. Just as former Chairman Bill Archer was an original cosponsor of the Amendment, we wish to acknowledge the work of Representative Tom Lantos who has devoted many hours to advancing the cause of human rights and developing a new Congressional-Executive Branch framework following the graduation of the Russian Federation.

The Position of NCSJ on Graduation

Mr. Chairman, NCSJ supports the graduation of the Russian Federation from Title IV of the Trade Act of 1974 – the Jackson, Vanik, Archer, Mills Amendment (“Jackson-Vanik”). Our position on the graduation of the Russian Federation does not imply that we are prepared, at this time, to support the graduation of the other FSU successor states to which Jackson-Vanik still applies. It is not the position of NCSJ that the terms of Jackson-Vanik should apply in perpetuity to the former republics of the Soviet Union. However, graduation for any successor state must be conditioned upon the development of a legal structure that guarantees internationally recognized human rights for its Jewish citizens, and other religious and national/ethnic minorities. In the absence of such conditions, there is in our opinion no possibility of establishing democratic institutions applicable to all citizens. 

However, the struggle for the freedom of Soviet Jewry contributed to the transformation of the Soviet Union into the Newly Independent States (“NIS”), a process that is not complete. The American diplomatic commitment to secure freedom for Russian Jewry (that first found expression before World War One) has not diminished, and the task before this Committee requires a new legislative formulation, which NCSJ will advocate this morning. The opening of the doors to emigration is not the exclusive factor on which we base our support for graduation. NCSJ’s position on graduation is based on substantial progress toward two factors. These are: 

First, freedom of emigration for all Jews in accordance with the Helsinki Accords and established principles of international law, and

Second, for those who choose remain in Russia, freedom to practice the religion of their forbears, to participate in the unique aspects of Jewish culture and language, unfettered by governmental interference. 

Our support for graduation is not without a reasoned measure of apprehension. 

  • Across the Russian Federation, the severity and frequency of anti-Semitic incidents have been increasing. These have included arson attacks, synagogue and cemetery desecrations, and direct assaults into Jewish institutions.

  • The extent to which anti-Semitic acts are investigated, and perpetrators are prosecuted, requires greater attention from Moscow and local governmental authorities. 

  • Kremlin officials have either tolerated or actively promoted government interference in Jewish intra-communal affairs. This has manifested itself in (1) pressuring individuals to decline leadership positions in specific Jewish organizations, (2) threats to withhold entry visas to guests of the community, (3) unilaterally replacing the Chief Rabbi of Russia in official fora, refusing to re-register the Moscow Jewish Community, and (4) interference in intra-communal disputes as a means to solidify Kremlin influence and control.

  • At times, governmental interference has become outright intimidation, such as the illegal search of the Choral Synagogue, the main synagogue in Moscow. 

  • Unreasonable, and at times confiscatory taxes have been imposed on the donations provided to organizations dedicated to performing humanitarian tasks.

In prior position papers, NCSJ has drawn attention to the dichotomies inherent in Russian President Vladimir Putin’s rise to power. He has clearly demonstrated his support for the revival of Jewish life. He has visited the Jewish Community Center in Moscow, participated in lighting the Chanukah menorah, issued statements condemning anti-Semitism, spoken positively about supporting Jewish renewal, and developed warm relations with successive Israeli governments. But seemingly contradicting these actions are the past use of anti-Semitism in promoting Mr. Putin’s candidacy for President, the election rhetoric of his political allies in elections for the Duma, and the difficulties posed by Russia’s restrictive Law on Religion.

In our meeting with President Putin on November 13th in Washington, he spoke very personally and firmly about his government’s, and his own personal, commitment to promoting Jewish communal life and to combating popular anti-Semitism and xenophobia. As impressed as my fellow community leaders and I were with Mr. Putin’s remarks, it is Russia’s formal statements and assurances, and the legislative context in which Russia may be graduated, that best assure “the continued dedication of the United States to fundamental human rights,” which are the opening words of the Jackson-Vanik Amendment (22 U.S.C. 2431).

The Position of NCSJ on H.R. 3553

With respect to the present legislation before the Subcommittee, NCSJ wishes to express its appreciation to Members and their personal and Committee staffs, both majority and minority, who have consulted with us on the graduation of Russia and the future status of the other FSU states under Jackson-Vanik.

Mr. Chairman, as noted above, we believe that the Committee on Ways and Means has a historic opportunity to restate the American commitment to securing the future for Jews in the Russian Federation and the NIS. Before and after the President’s announcement on the graduation of Russia, we have heard that Jackson-Vanik is: a relic of the Cold War; an impediment to normalizing U.S.-Russia trade relations; a mechanism that never achieved its objectives; and a statute that speaks only of emigration. These are the statements of those who are not familiar with or choose to ignore American diplomatic history, the Amendment’s legislative history, and most importantly, the profound effect it has had on those who struggled to reassert their Jewish identity either by emigration or the restoration of organized Jewish communal life.

A. Additional “Findings” Should be Included in H.R. 3553

H.R. 3553, as introduced, contains a number of positive “Findings” that reflect the language adopted by the Committee and Congress in graduating Georgia. However, there are certain additional provisions that should be incorporated into H.R. 3553. Before reviewing these, Mr. Chairman, permit me to summarize the basis for our request.

In his Annual Message to Congress of 1904, President Theodore Roosevelt denounced Czarist persecution of the Jews. In 1911, the United States critiqued the U.S.-Russian trade treaty that dated from 1832.  And, in 1912, the United States abrogated this treaty because of the Russian government’s treatment of its Jewish minority. Thus, the enactment of Title IV in the Trade Act of 1974 was not a departure for Congress and American diplomacy, but a continuation of a longstanding commitment. The voluminous record of resolutions, letters, appeals and meetings by Members of this Committee relating to this struggle will continue to have meaning if H.R. 3553 is expanded to include the following points:

Russia has continued to return religious and communal properties confiscated from national and religious minorities during the Soviet period, facilitating the reemergence of these communities in the national life of the Russian Federation; and has committed, including through an exchange of letters, to continue its efforts toward the restitution of such properties in accordance with existing Russian laws. [This would replace Section 1, paragraph 7, in H.R. 3553.]

Russia is committed to addressing issues related to its national and religious minorities as a member of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), and to adopt measures for ensuring that persons belonging to national minorities have full equality individually, as well as in community with other members of their group.

Russia is committed to the 1990 Copenhagen Document of the OSCE affirming the right of national minorities to establish and maintain their own educational, cultural and religious institutions, organizations or associations and to establish and maintain unimpeded contacts among themselves within their country as well as contacts across frontiers.

Russia has enacted statutory provisions to provide protection against incitement to violence against persons or groups based on national, racial, ethnic or religious discrimination, hostility or hatred, including anti-Semitism, and has adopted a four-year national program for preventing extremism and promoting tolerance in Russian society.

Recognition that the exchange of letters between the Governments of Russia and the United States, and related assurances, are viewed by Congress as binding obligations by the Russian Federation. 

NCSJ believes that any legislation to graduate successor states from the Jackson-Vanik Amendment should acknowledge assurances from the respective governments regarding freedom of emigration and other human rights. In other words, there should be an assurance provided to the United States regarding these matters. I would also suggest that this Subcommittee, in consultation with other appropriate bodies within the United States Congress, use the opportunity of graduating Russia to review an inventory of remaining bilateral and unilateral mechanisms and commitments available to our Legislative and Executive Branches for addressing and resolving concerns relating to human rights and religious freedom in Russia.

The trade aspects of Jackson-Vanik, intended to advance a decidedly non-trade agenda, have tied human rights criteria to bilateral commercial trade relations. This has now afforded the Subcommittee on Trade a historic opportunity to formulate and adopt a new framework that acknowledges Russia’s considerable progress, and creates a new paradigm for continuing America’s century-long commitment to religious freedom in Russia. 

For over two decades, our advocacy of Jackson-Vanik has led some in the business community to express the view that we were concerned with a religious issue that should be divorced from the business of international trade. To be sure, for NCSJ and its constituent organizations, Jackson-Vanik is a religious issue – a Jewish issue. Despite the collapse of the Soviet Union and substantial emigration, Russia remains home for the world’s third-largest Jewish population. These people now have the potential to reenter the Jewish world.

We have always regarded Russia’s treatment of its Jewish minority as a barometer of its potential to reenter the community of nations and to become integrated into the economic lifeline of world trade. Without question, a vibrant, revitalized Jewish community is a reflection of an emerging civil society. Such a society, based on laws and implementing regulations, is a prerequisite for long-term, sustained economic growth, trade, and foreign investment. 

B. H.R. 3553 Should Include a New Section on U.S. Policy Objectives

The current bill acknowledges some of Russia’s commitments which formed the basis for NCSJ’s support of graduation from Jackson-Vanik. However, the current bill does not set forth U.S. policy objectives post graduation. For this reason, we urge that the Committee adopt a “Policy” subsection reflecting Administration assurances and based on the following:

(1) Urging the Russian Federation to

(A) continue its current policy regarding the free emigration of its citizens;

(B) safeguard religious liberty throughout the Russian Federation;

(C) prevent the requirement that religious organizations be registered from  being abused to curtail activities of religious organizations;

(D) enforce existing Russian laws at the national and local level to combat ethnic, religious, and racial discrimination and violence; and

(E) expand the restitution of religious and communal properties, including establishing a legal framework for completion of restitution in the future; and

(2) Continuing rigorous U.S. monitoring of human rights issues in the Russian Federation, including the issues described in paragraph (1), providing assistance to nongovernmental organizations and human rights groups involved in human rights activities in the Russian Federation, and establishing ongoing discussions with the Russian Federation regarding such issues, including the participation of U.S. and Russian non-governmental organizations in such discussions.

Incorporation of such language will provide a firm basis for continuing the longstanding commitment of successive administrations and Congress to securing religious freedom in Russia, which is a multi-ethnic and multi-religious state. 

The Ways and Means Committee made clear its policy when Jackson-Vanik was adopted. As noted above, former Representative Archer was an original sponsor of the “Freedom of Emigration Act,” the initiative which became the Jackson-Vanik Amendment. In his floor statement of February 7, 1973, he said, in part:

“By taking this action we call upon the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics to cease persecution of these people on the basis of religious belief.

“We also call upon the Soviet Union to release all prisoners, those already sentenced and those due to stand trial, arrested as a result of their attempt to exercise their religious beliefs and to study their religious heritage and culture.”

Representative Archer concluded his statement with the following credo: “We do not need foreign trade enough to do business with countries that practice religious discrimination and this form of bondage.” The Report of the Committee on Finance for the Trade Reform Act of 1974 (H.R. 10710) emphasized that Jackson-Vanik extended beyond emigration policy. The Report states an ultimate motivation beyond that of emigration: “The Committee believes that it is equally reasonable to establish conditions on all basic human rights, including the right to emigrate as well as basic property rights, before extending broad concessions to communist countries.” Writing in 1980, the late Senator Henry M. “Scoop” Jackson reiterated that this law “has long been the principal hope of thousands of Soviet Jews and others who have struggled to obtain visas so that they might emigrate to Israel, the United States, or other countries where they are free to live and worship according to their faith – a freedom denied them in the Soviet Union.” Now, the time has come to develop a new formulation that will continue to focus the attention of Congress and the Executive Branch on the issues that led to the enactment of the Jackson-Vanik Amendment. 

Background to Jackson-Vanik

The Jackson-Vanik Amendment in Title IV of the Trade Act of 1974 (P.L. 93-618, 19 U.S.C. 2432) was enacted to “assure the continued dedication of the United States to fundamental human rights,” and in so doing sought to eliminate barriers to emigration, an internationally recognized human right. Congress has recognized that Jackson-Vanik has become an instrument of U.S. policy for assessing certain countries’ observance of basic human rights and the protection of minorities. These principles were reflected in the graduation of Georgia from Jackson-Vanik in 2000, as well as previous examples (e.g., the Kyrgyz Republic).

Since before the enactment of the Trade Act of 1974, NCSJ has worked for free emigration from the Soviet Union and now from the successor states of the FSU. Numerous Congressional resolutions and Presidential statements confirm that Jackson-Vanik encouraged the Soviet Union and its successor states to liberalize emigration policy and, ultimately, to permit a mass emigration to Israel and other countries. Today, many take for granted free emigration from the FSU. For NCSJ and the Jewish community, of course, free emigration can never be taken for granted. For us, it is celebrated. The Passover festival, which we concluded last week, reenacts the Biblical exodus of the Jewish people from Egyptian bondage. The Passover observances hosted at the United States Embassy in Moscow in the 1980s provided moral support to thousands of refuseniks and Prisoners of Zion, such as Natan (Anatoly) Sharansky. It is for these reasons, and the unprecedented mobilization by American Jews and other human rights advocates, that we do not take unrestricted emigration for granted. Unfortunately, we must acknowledge that there remains an undercurrent of anti-Semitic violence within the Russian Federation. For that reason, the United States needs to be on record, in legislation approved by Congress and signed into law by the President, that the United States will not stand aside if political circumstances should turn against the Russian Jewish community. 

NCSJ believes that economic growth in Russia is in the strategic interest of the United States. We devoted considerable resources to support enactment of the 1992 Freedom Support Act, and continue to support the current assistance package as we have advised every Member of Congress. NCSJ is an active participant in a broad-based coalition of business, public interest and ethnic organizations that supports full funding for U.S. foreign assistance through the Function 150 account. As with freedom of emigration, building democratic societies in the wake of Soviet tyranny is hardly something we can afford to take for granted.

Beginning in 1989, the NCSJ Board of Governors endorsed annual waivers of the Jackson-Vanik Amendment for the Soviet Union and its successor states. This support was contingent on (1) the President’s affirmation that waivers would encourage emigration and progress on other humanitarian issues; and (2) assurances concerning a commitment of further progress in connection with these concerns. Since 1994, NCSJ has supported semi-annual findings by the President that Russia, and most of the successor states, are in compliance with Jackson-Vanik’s emigration provisions and have demonstrated progress on protection of minority rights. 

We have never lost sight of the original motivation for Jackson-Vanik. Representative Archer’s words, like those of so many of his colleagues, underscore the emphasis on religious freedom. In 1974, emigration constituted the only vehicle for ensuring that Soviet Jews could live freely as Jews. Dr. William Korey, a leading scholar on human rights, has noted that the late Andrei Sakharov endorsed Jackson-Vanik not only as an emigration tool. Dr. Sakharov foresaw that freer emigration would compel the Soviet regime to observe human rights generally or risk losing valuable citizens to other countries.   

Graduation from Jackson-Vanik was never restricted to narrow questions of emigration. Terminating application of the Amendment to a successor state necessarily takes into account a set of broad human rights considerations that evolved since implementation of the Trade Act. Especially in the post-Soviet landscape, emigration, the ability of Jews and other minorities to identify with their cultural heritage, restitution of communal property, governmental responses to anti-Semitism and xenophobia as well as commitments on implementation of laws and practices ensuring minority protection have become part of the test for graduation. These are reasonable standards and, in effect, confirm the transition from the legacy of communism to the development of a civil society. 

In our consultations with the Government of the Russian Federation, discussions with Executive Branch officials and contacts with so many Members of the House and Senate, we have communicated our support for Russia’s graduation. We know that President Putin, his government, members of the Duma and members of the Russian intelligentsia will carefully review the legislation approved by this Committee and ultimately passed by the United States Congress. In simple terms, Mr. Chairman, you have the ability to send an important message that will be reviewed by multiple audiences in the United States, Russia, and the FSU. 

Support for Permanent Normal Trade Relations

Graduation of any successor state from the terms of Jackson-Vanik must be based upon an assessment of emigration policies as reflected in law and fact, and, no less importantly, other national policies that affect the status of ethnic and religious minorities, such as the Jewish community. Virtually every Member of Congress has subscribed to this formulation. Therefore, graduation should be conditioned upon Congressional consideration of the following standards and conditions that provide the basis for the language we propose be incorporated into H.R. 3553:

An unrestricted right of emigration, protection of minority rights, including legislation to provide protection against incitement to violence against persons or groups based on various criteria, including religion (e.g., anti-Semitism), and the exercise of freedom of religion;

The incorporation of human rights standards (including freedom of emigration and religion) into the country’s constitutional and legal structure, their protection by the judiciary, and the implementation of administrative practices that do not detract from such rights; and

Participation in bilateral and multilateral mechanisms related to the observance of religious freedom and basic human rights, demonstrating a commitment to these freedoms and rights.

Mr. Chairman, Russian Jewish life has increasingly flourished since the Soviet collapse. Thousands of students – young and old – across the country now study their Jewish heritage. Welfare activities proceed generally uninhibited by official interference. Jews everywhere are forming congregations and cultural groups. Jewish communities are forming in places where we believed Jewish life had been crushed by the Soviets in the 1920s, as a consequence of the Holocaust, or through Stalinist persecutions. Russia’s friendship with Israel is largely a testament to over one million Soviet émigrés who have become Israeli citizens since Jackson-Vanik was enacted. Russia’s evolving relationship with the United States offers potential for progress in ways we did not imagine just over a decade ago. Although it is unrelated to Jackson-Vanik, I must also recognize the critical support and cooperation that Russia provides to our ongoing collective struggle against international terror. 

Additional Protections for Religious Freedom

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, we encourage the Congress to approve Russia’s graduation from Jackson-Vanik, and to do so through legislation that reflects and acknowledges the accomplishments of Title IV with respect to the Russian Federation. As we have reiterated throughout our testimony, we believe that Congress and the President must continue to focus attention on Jackson-Vanik-related issues. Paraphrasing Jackson-Vanik, to assure the continued dedication of the United States to human rights in Russia, Congress should consider the following measures so as to make certain that there is an unambiguous record documenting the objectives of U.S. policy and the standards to which the United States expects the Russian Federation’s adherence. The Committee’s report should reference the following items:

Executive Branch prerogatives such as the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (“IEEPA”) and the resources at the disposal of the Ambassador at Large for International Religious Freedom;

Legislative oversight of human rights and matters involving linking of religious freedom to U.S. assistance to Russia. This can be accomplished through Legislative-Executive Branch partnerships, such as Congressional participation in multilateral fora including the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly;

The Department of State’s Annual Report on Human Rights Practices and the Report on International Religious Freedom, which include sections that address specifically matters affecting the Jewish community;

Official bodies such as the U.S. Commission for International Religious Freedom and the U.S. Commission for the Preservation of America’s Heritage Abroad, which have opened new avenues for communication with FSU successor governments and local administrators on minority rights issues and the preservation of communal properties (e.g., synagogues, schools, cemeteries and mass-murder sites dating from the Holocaust). 

U.S. Government initiatives to convene meetings of Congressional, Administration and non-governmental organizations (“NGOs”), both American and Russian, including the Roundtable on Religious Freedom in Russia;

The exchange of letters on religious freedom between the Russian and U.S. governments, related assurances, communications between the Administration and Congress, and the multilateral treaties and agreements to which Russia is a party, including the Helsinki Final Act and subsequent OSCE documents. 

The Legacy of the Jackson-Vanik Amendment

In the quarter-century since the adoption of Jackson-Vanik, its boldness has contributed to a sea change in U.S. and Russian policies, and in some measure to the roadmap for the 21st century. In announcing his intent to graduate Russia, President George W. Bush underscored the importance of Russian assurances on religious freedom. The President recently wrote to American Jewish organizations about Jackson-Vanik: “The Jewish community has helped write a proud chapter in the history of American foreign policy, but the work is not complete. We need your continued advocacy and support…” (I ask, Mr. Chairman, that the President’s letter to NCSJ of November 19, 2001, be entered into the record of this hearing.) Today, the U.S. Government expects, appreciates and invites public interest in the internal human rights policies of other countries, just as we do at home. 

The continuing force and effect of Jackson-Vanik are reflected in the correspondence between Secretary of State Colin Powell and Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov. Foreign Minister Ivanov’s November 13 letter to Secretary Powell welcomes the Bush administration’s decision to graduate Russia, stresses his country’s commitment to religious freedom and minority rights, and applauds the “genuine renaissance” of Russian Jewish life. As a testament to the reordering of post-Soviet priorities, Mr. Ivanov concludes his historic letter by reaffirming “our commitment to these principles [of religious freedom], which we consider an indispensable condition for Russia’s development as a multiethnic country based on the principles of civil society.”

The purpose of Jackson-Vanik was never to promote trade, but rather to ensure that free trade would never be confused for the ultimate goal of U.S. foreign policy. Thomas Jefferson wrote of America in 1824 that “even should the cloud of barbarism and despotism again obscure the science and liberties of Europe, this country remains to preserve and restore light and liberty to them.” As a result of Jackson-Vanik, never again can critics in either country credibly claim that religious freedom has no substantive place in U.S.-Russian relations or that internal government practices are a solely domestic concern.

To conclude, let me emphasize what graduation of Russia does not mean for the Jewish community. It does not mean Russian anti-Semitism has disappeared, or that the Russian authorities are doing all they could to eradicate racism, xenophobia, and intolerance. Nor does it mean that the gains for Jewish life in Russia are irreversible; this progress remains vulnerable to the voices of darker days, voices that can be heard still in Russian political life and in the Duma. 

When World War Two ended, there remained tens of thousands of Jews in Europe who lost everything – their families, homes, communities, and personal possessions. What remained was an indomitable spirit to survive and to preserve their Jewish heritage. In the FSU, there still are hundreds of thousands of persons who would be welcome members of the Jewish community. However, 73 years of communist rule eviscerated virtually all aspects of Jewish life in the Soviet Union. Rabbis and religious leaders were either expelled or disappeared. Religious and Jewish cultural institutions were closed, their assets seized and properties confiscated. With the passage of generations, memory of Judaism dissipated and became barely recognizable. Although Soviet support was a critical factor in the creation of Israel, expressing Jewish identity in the 1950s was, at times, life-threatening. Through the balance of the 20th century, Soviet policy achieved one of its main objectives regarding its Jewish citizens: a population largely devoid of Jewish identity or fearful of expressing it. Completion of this goal was thwarted because the dissidents, refuseniks and Hebrew teachers could no longer just disappear. This was, in part, due to the spotlight Jackson-Vanik shined on human rights.

Jackson-Vanik was instrumental in creating the opportunity for Soviet Jewry, now Russian Jewry, to find new ways to express their identity. The story of those who will remain in Russia is yet to be written. The substantial progress in revitalizing Jewish life has reached a small percentage of this population. Their future as part of the Jewish People remains tentative.  NCSJ and our member organizations are working to inspire a Jewish revival. Congress can help to secure their future by articulating a clear United States policy that they should have the freedom to choose their faith and culture. This is a noble cause and we look forward to the continued good work of this Committee.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity to share the views of NCSJ and the organized American Jewish community on an issue which has been and continues to be of utmost importance to us, to Jewish communities everywhere, and to our brethren in the FSU.  

return to top

 

 

    

   Home   About   Mission   Links   Interns   Kehilla   Statistics   Donations   Search   Contact

     
  2020 K Street, NW, Suite 7800, Washington, D.C. 20006 
  Phone: (202) 898-2500       Fax: (202) 898-0822  
  Email:  ncsj@ncsj.org       Web site: www.ncsj.org