Statement of
Micah H. Naftalin, National Director,
UCSJ: Union of Councils for Jews in the Former Soviet Union of Councils
Mr. Chairman:
On behalf of our president, Yosef I. Abramowitz and the entire UCSJ Board of Directors, I thank you for this opportunity to comment on the issue of graduating the Russian Federation from the strictures of the Jackson-Vanik Amendment. In the early 1970s, UCSJ was the first NGO to recommend to Scoop Jackson the need to link America’s trade benefits to freedom of emigration – perhaps the most effective piece of human rights legislation ever enacted.
I am providing here for your record an extended discussion of the situation that provides the context for our views and concerns. So let me begin with the bottom line: UCSJ can support graduating Russia from Jackson-Vanik, but only if a bilateral institutionalized mechanism is established to assure periodic review of Russia’s status and efforts to reform its human rights and civil society, including concrete steps to combat antisemitism, xenophobia and manifestations of terrorism. Overall, President Putin is solidly on record as pledging such reforms. What remain to be accomplished are concrete actions that implement those pledges. We seek bilateral mechanisms that, in the words that Ronald Reagan borrowed from Lenin, enable the United States and the human rights community to “trust but verify.”
We have just concluded the observance of the Passover holy days, the Jewish celebration of freedom. At every seder table, worldwide, the participants sing the song “Dayeinu,” which means “it would have been enough.” It is a way of thanking God for each of the step-by-step miracles that led to the Exodus from slavery in Egypt. Thus had God taken us out of Egypt and punished our oppressors, Dayeinu, it would have been enough. Had God parted the Red Sea permitting our escape, Dayeinu. Had God supplied our needs for forty years in the desert, Dayeinu, and so forth.
But, Mr. Chairman, here on the ground, human rights activists can never say Dayeinu. When the U.N. enacted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, it was not enough. We could not say Dayeinu. When the Congress enacted the Jackson-Vanik Amendment, we could not say Dayeinu. When Sakharov, Orlov, Sharansky and all the other Prisoners were released, when the Soviet Jews were released from quarantine, even when President Putin declares war on terrorism and antisemitism, and even if the time to release Russia from Jackson-Vanik has arrived, we must not say Dayeinu. It is not nearly enough.
In partnership with the Moscow Helsinki Group, UCSJ monitors grassroots human rights, antisemitism and xenophobia in each of Russia’s 89 regions. The genius of Jackson-Vanik was to link trade and human rights and that linkage remains. The shortcomings of civil society remain a barrier to economic development and the confidence of foreign investors as long as there is government control of media, severe harassment of Muslims and non-Orthodox Christians, widespread corruption of the civil and criminal justice system. And then, even in the relative absence of Soviet-style official antisemitism, this historic scourge, which is rising across Europe and throughout the Middle East to levels not seen since the defeat of Hitler, is not being effectively combated in Russia’s regions.
One way of explaining this is to say that President Putin and his government must go beyond decrying antisemitism and systematically punish antisemites as well. As fully documented by UCSJ, despite his unprecedented and appreciated strong pledges to combat them, large-scale antisemitic, xenophobic and anti-American incidents and propaganda are nonetheless perpetrated, largely unchallenged, by dedicated Communists, neo-Nazis, Islamic extremists and elements within the Russian Orthodox Church, often in league with local officials and police. Human rights-based civil society reforms must be institutionalized for Russia’s benefit and as a guarantor of a constructive and reliable bilateral relationship. How Russia handles the challenge of grassroots antisemitism is a reasonable indicator of its human rights progress overall.
Mr. Chairman, it is always difficult to keep human rights goals on the regular agenda of bilateral diplomacy. While we view it as integral to America’s national security, it almost invariably is overshadowed by more quantifiable indices like trade or oil or weapons. In the Clinton years, we were critical of the Gore-Chernomyrdin semi-annual meetings because of all the original ten issue categories, only human rights failed to be included for automatic, regular review on each agenda. Indeed, and this is our central concern: it has been only Jackson-Vanik that has compelled Russia and the United States to come together to discuss and negotiate Russia’s human rights progress at least once a year in the context of considering the annual waiver. Accordingly, we are asking the Administration and the Congress – and Russia as well – to replace Jackson-Vanik with an effective venue, a mechanism for continuing, regularly scheduled bilateral oversight for human rights and civil society reform and progress.
Examples of such mechanisms could include, inter alia, scheduled annual reviews by the Congressional Helsinki Commission and the foreign relations committees of the House and Senate; a bilateral commitment to include human rights review on the agenda of summit meetings and annual joint review sessions convened by the Department of State and Ministry of Foreign Affairs which would include full participation by Russia’s Human Rights Ombudsman and by all interested human rights NGOs from both countries. The Congress might also consider extra appropriations for USAID or the National Endowment for Democracy to support US-Russian cooperative human rights and religious freedom monitoring efforts by NGOs and to encourage continuing dialogue among US and Russian business organizations, economic development and trade officials and human rights and environmental NGOs to explore the mutual benefits of improving Russia’s human rights and economic goals.
Concrete steps that President Putin and his government could and should take, consistent with his publicly declared goals, which would provide confidence beyond the generalities already expressed, include the following:
Thanks you, Mr. Chairman. What follows is the policy statement issued by UCSJ in the Fall of 2001.
“Civil Society Reforms Can Replace Jackson-Vanik”
Antisemitism in the Russian provinces is gradually becoming as customary and trivial as foreign made cars on the roads and computers in people’s apartments. Not only Stavropol and Krasnodar Kray, but several other regions are becoming totally pro-fascist given the authorities’ lax attitude or even direct involvement. Izvestiya, May 12, 2000
In sharp contrast to the statements intended to minimize the scope and danger of antisemitism by some Jewish leaders in Russia, President Putin himself has candidly noted the problem and vowed to combat it. If he can make concrete progress here, it will be an indication that civil society, upon which America’s security and Russia’s business environment depend, can be reformed. UCSJ, November 2001
As presidents Bush and Putin prepare for their Texas Summit rendezvous, the headlines will deal with the state of their bilateral coalition for security against terrorism, with America’s hopes for renegotiating the ABM treaty to accommodate domestic missile defense, the possibility of accessing Russia’s vast oil and gas reserves as a counter to our dependence on the Gulf states, and generally with the warming temperature of the relationship itself in what has been called the post-post-cold war era of post-September 11. Only slightly below these headlines will be a sub-headline dealing with the long-held hope of Russia and the American business community that President Bush will move to “graduate” Russia, that is, exempt it permanently, from the strictures of the 1974 Jackson-Vanik Amendment to American trade law, which conditions Russia’s access to competitive tariff treatment to its de jure free emigration and de facto human rights behavior. For a decade, Russia has received an annual waiver; the proposed action therefore is symbolic but, as Russia sees it, negative symbolism has no place between friends. Subject to concrete assurances that would confirm promises already made by President Putin, UCSJ: Union of Councils for Jews in the Former Soviet Union, the initial and strongest supporter of Jackson-Vanik, agrees.
How presidents Bush and Putin resolve the Jackson-Vanik issue will offer an important window for measuring the relative merits of political form and national security substance. Virtually all the political and diplomatic pressures argue for the graduation, seen as a thorn in the relationship at a time when both parties are seeking diplomatic harmony and economic benefits. But not so fast if one believes, as do we, that reliability and shared human and democratic values in a coalition partner are in the best long range interest of promoting America’s national security. A country that lacks the elemental infrastructure of a civil society – e.g., multiple political parties, minimal corruption, independent media, religious freedom, civil and criminal codes and practices that meet reasonable international standards of rule of law – cannot be a secure and reliable partner. One leading indicator of all these issues, including not only the original goals of Jackson-Vanik but also the presence of global terrorism and anti-Americanism, is the rate of antisemitism and the effectiveness of state and local authorities in combating it.
Linking U.S. trade benefits to Soviet antisemitism, emigration policy and thus human rights was the brainchild of Refusenik leaders in Leningrad and Moscow, and brought to the attention of Senator Henry M. “Scoop” Jackson (D-WA) by UCSJ in the early 1970s. Enacted in 1974 over the strong objection of President Nixon and his national security adviser, Henry Kissinger, the Amendment was one of America’s finest hours in the international battle for human rights. The Cold War demanded a stick; today’s increasingly warm bilateral relationship with Russia calls for carrots from the West but also reciprocal concrete accomplishment with respect to reforms in Russia’s civil society. Actions, in other words, must follow the promising rhetoric.
UCSJ favors graduation but pursuant to the Bush Administration obtaining some concrete actions indicative of a commitment to actual reform. These include: (1) Breaking up alliances between local officials and antisemitic groups, and directing regional prosecutors to prosecute perpetrators of criminal incitement to antisemitic hate crimes, physical or through publishing, under Article 282. Virtually no cases have been brought in the past five years. (2) Giving rhetorical support to independent human rights NGOs such as MHG and Memorial. (3) Providing explicit endorsement of the work of the Human Rights Ombudsman, Oleg Mironov, and support for the appointment of regional HR ombudsmen.
UCSJ’s chief adversary in the decades-long controversy over Jackson-Vanik has been the U.S.- Russia Business Council. Today, the policy differences are slight. They, and their Moscow-based counterpart American Chamber of Commerce in Russia, like UCSJ, seek “to develop a market environment in Russia attractive to investment and long-term business operations.” Among their policy recommendations to the Bush Administration last March was the following, with which UCSJ agrees: “A bilateral agenda exclusively focused on security issues [to the detriment of our economic and commercial relations] is not in our national interest, as it does not accurately reflect the challenges and opportunities associated with engaging Russia.” UCSJ has similarly recommended that the bilateral agenda should go beyond traditional national security concerns to embrace human rights and civil society reforms that both make Russia a more reliable security partner and improve its attractiveness to foreign investment.
Accordingly, we are urging the Bush Administration to recognize that reform of the civil society, including fighting antisemitism, human rights, corruption, the justice system, civil and contract law, etc , is an important strategy for making Russia a more attractive venue for foreign business and investment that will make positive contributions to the Russian economy. We want our Commerce Department, the American business community and appropriate Russian economic planners and ministries, to work with the human rights NGO community in a strategic alliance to improve civil society and Russia's economy together.
Antisemitism is by no means the most important failure of Russia’s civil society; but it is a leading indicator. And how Jews are treated, in politics, in the media, and in the courts is a leading indicator of how Russian authorities respond to messengers of problems generally, including barriers to commerce. So far, the record is not good. Alexander Nikitin was tried for treason simply for working for a Norwegian foundation in documenting the public record of dangerous nuclear contamination of the seas from submerged mothballed nuclear submarines. Putin called him a spy; to its credit, after five years of imprisonment, house arrest and several trials, the Supreme Court finally approved his acquittal. The justice system, like the economy, is corrupt; bribes are the best defense in a country where the accused, who can be held without bail and tortured into confession, is presumed guilty until proven innocent. The resulting catastrophically overcrowded prisons are breeding grounds for epidemics of tuberculosis and AIDS, at monumental cost to public health as well as budgets. Legal codes and procedures still mostly date to the Soviet era. Business contracts -- civil and governmental – are corrupt and disputes are often resolved by mafia, not law. These conditions not only contribute to the discontent of a poverty-stricken provincial public, and drain public resources, they contribute to a decidedly negative environment for attracting foreign investment. These are but some of the human rights violations well documented, region by region, by a nationwide network of local human rights NGO monitors coordinated, under a USAID grant, by the prestigious Moscow Helsinki Group, assisted by UCSJ. Now for the good news.
From the inception of his tenure Putin, to his credit, has displayed candor and accuracy in publicly describing the elements of Russia’s problems. He has made genuine efforts to attack the unmanageable drift of authority towards provinces and away from Federal and Constitutional authority. He has addressed problems of taxation and of corruption. He has targeted judicial reform. All, in the early days, with a disconcerting affinity for the methods and colleagues of his basic training, the KGB. Most well known are the mass human rights violations incident to the war in Chechnya and his determination to repress the independent media which, in the absence of true political parties other than the Communists, represented his only serious adversary.
The spotlight of systematic human rights and antisemitism monitoring by experienced and independent NGOs plays two important roles: the inherent protection of the individual that the spotlight provides, and the ability of the public and governments alike to measure abuses and progress both subjectively and objectively
Our belief and hope for the future is that Jewish and other human rights monitors and activists will work constructively with officials and the business community on reforms that would protect Jews and other minorities, improve the rule of law-based civil society and lead to a market economy and attractiveness to foreign investors as well.