&host=rt.com&uri=/usa/news/jackson-vanick-poultry-congress/&via=(none)&ua=CCBot/1.0 (+http://www.commoncrawl.org/bot.html))
US Congress could chicken out of repealing Jackson-Vanik amendment
Published: 28 April, 2010, 10:48
Edited: 02 May, 2010, 22:10
TAGS: Russia, Politics, Law, Russia and the global economy, History, USA
US lawmakers are trying to finally put the Cold War to rest by lifting the last obstacle for unlimited trade between Moscow and Washington that prevents Russia from joining the World Trade Organization.
Many American lawmakers believe the time is now to put this relic of the past to rest, but some nagging doubts remain.
US Congress has intensified talks on whether or not to lift sanctions signed 35 years ago which limit trade between Russia and the US – the notorious Jackson-Vanik amendment – remains is, unlike such relics of the Cold War like arms race or space race, is safe and sound.
“The Jackson-Vanik amendment was enacted into law for the intention of protecting the rights of Jews attempting to emigrate from the former Soviet Union in the 1970s,” announced Elton Gallegly, US Congressman, (R-California).
The problem is that the Soviet Union no longer exists and neither do Jewish immigration problems.
“It makes sense to waive the Jackson-Vanik Amendment. It is time for the United States Congress to act,” US Congressman Bill Delahunt (D-MA, Chairman of Committee on Foreign Affairs) demanded.
The US congressional Committee on Foreign Affairs, along with other analysts, is still debating whether or not it should just be repealed.
“The question is to be or not to be. To do or not to do. Do we pass it or we don’t? That’s the question,” told RT US Congressman David Scott (D-Georgia), adding that “My answer to that is, to be!”
“When it comes to Jackson-Vanik, let’s tear down this wall. It is about time that this ancient relic of the Cold War be discarded,” shared his opinion US Congressman Dana Rohrabacher (R-California).
“My advice to you all is do not repeal it. Keep it in the tool bag,” pleaded President of Project Judaica Foundation Mark Talisman.
Click to enlarge
“The Jackson-Vanik amendment has a proud and honorable past, but it has sunk into a state of purposelessness and confusion,” pinpointed Stephen Sestanovich, Fellow at Council on Foreign Relations.
“We believe the Administration and Congress should move forward on graduation for Russia,” demanded Mark B. Levin from National Conference on Soviet Jewry.
To put the controversial piece of legislation to rest has been the question posed throughout the entire hearing. Observers, however, say that the real debate could stem from, of all things, chicken.
If it were not for poultry, there would be almost no problem getting rid of Jackson-Vanik, because apparently the white meat is somehow tied to emigration and human rights.
The founder and President of the World Russia Forum Edward D. Lozansky, Ph.D., revealed that “There were some members of Congress, especially from the states who produce poultry, they raise objections that Russia does not buy enough of American poultry,” he said, adding that it is not just chicken that counts.
“There are many interest groups that don’t like Russia for many reasons.”
28.04.2010, 09:44
1 comment
US puts child soldier on trialA new US law on military trials will be put to the test this week when a long-running case of the Canadian-born terrorist suspect Omar Khadr, who was arrested in Afghanistan in 2002 aged just 15, resumes in Guantanamo. |
28.04.2010, 13:28
3 comments
“Public was so scared that it gave up all its liberties”It will take years to clean up the mess created by George W. Bush and his administration, said rapper Sage Francis, who says he draws his inspiration from conversations he hears around him. |
Honestly - I as russian think that JV amendment should stay. For two reasons only: 1) It makes us looks silly. 2) Its as good leverage for Russia as it is for US. Russia can always pull back from any treaty by pointing on it.
Lets begin at the beginning. America is on the road to empire. It's elected a leader who envisions himself as ruler of the world, not just America. Anything that could be harmful to his agenda, it's unlikely it will pass and visa versa. Russia saw the light of totalitarian government. It prostrated itself before the world and has lived up to its word. Admitedly, it has taken time for Russia to gain trust but it is is happening. Even it's news reporting is far more open than the flow of propaganda from US "news" sources. The Communist wall came down only to be rebuilt around America. My family predates the American Revolution in America but I must accept truth.
The Jackson-Vanik amendment will only remain on the books if it seems that Russia will be likely to revert to behavior such as occurred not only under the Communist regimes more recently but also the later Czarist ones near the beginning of the last century. The repeal argument will be made that a similar amendment can be entered into at any time if it seems Russia[or indeed any country] would take actions offensive or irritating to the sensibilities of Americans be they in the aggregate or in several or even a single group of common ancestral nationality. The key to American foreign policy has always, even under the most officially self-interest focused conservative or most radical interventionist liberal, been the concept in our Declaration of Independence which prompted our effort to explain to the world why the country was revolting against the British. It is in the words "a decent respect to the opinions of mankind" and any action we take that appears to us to mesh with the concept is easily supported and any that appear to go against it are hard to get engaged upon. Note this is "a decent respect to" not an "obligation to follow" such opinion. Another key to our national persona is that we have a slightly schizoid self-perception both as being a large nation ab initio since our inception, when with 3 million citizens we felt sure of securing our eventual independence due to distance from an empire only ostensibly 10 times our size in population but under half ours in geographic extent actoss a major ocean...and yet our perception also has an inherent sympathy and empathy for what we view as the underdog, or smaller nations or states since, militarily at least, we were for most of our history rather weak in the formal trappings of power ourselves...like size of army or navy. But while one of these principles is opposed to another, the USA will always tilt towards the former. And when both are in concert it is almost a given which way will be taken.