&host=rt.com&uri=/usa/news/jackson-vanick-poultry-congress/comments/&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
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.
This will really be "CS" legislation if Congress keeps it. If Russian trade is being held hostage over a chicken deal, what next? Congress will use the Jackson-Vanik amendment to blackmail Russia over Khodorkovsky, or getting "reparations" over the Yukos deal? God forbid we actually produce chicken that people can safely eat! Congress is making USA foreign relations such an embarrassment. I guess I shouldn't be surprised any more.
“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). I could, of course, paraphrase the Congressman Gallegly's announcement and call senators Jackson and Vanik stooges of special interests in the United States. Leaving that aside, the United States uses this kind of impediments to normal relations to extract additional bilateral concessions from its partners. This has been the case in the process of China's accession to the WTO as well as Vietnam's. This kind of behavior is tolerated no more in the civilized world. Why can't the United States rise to the ethical standards of other countries is beyond comprehension. Or is it? The rule of special interests, that is the answer. The United States is not run by the people, but by special interests. This is the absolute truth and everybody knows it. Russia should never give in to any unreasonable demand by the United States to become member of the WTO. It is time to put an end to American arrogance and exclusivism. And this, by the Americans themselves.
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.
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.
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.
Americans,they yet to get educated,well foriegn policy anyway,The planet has moved on,times have changed,the only threat is ignorance.They should analysis their foriegn policy,most people who the Americans have called friends have been deposed and thrown out by their subjects as being corrupt.It would be better to assess who their freinds were .