Jackson Vanik will pass – bipartisan support of congress and interest groups gives momentum



Download 0.68 Mb.
Page13/35
Date28.01.2017
Size0.68 Mb.
#9009
1   ...   9   10   11   12   13   14   15   16   ...   35

Relation Impact – Brink




Rels are on the brink brink- repeal is key to sustain cooperation


Pifer 3-21

(Stephen-, Testimony to House Committee on Foreign Affairs, “The Future Course of the U.S.-Russia Relationship”, http://www.brookings.edu/ testimony/2012/0321_arms_control_pifer.aspx)


The Obama administration’s “reset” policy has improved the U.S.-Russian relationship. By any objective measure, the relationship is stronger today than it was in 2008, the low point in U.S.-Russian relations after the collapse of the Soviet Union. This does not mean the relationship is without problems. Washington and Moscow disagree on issues such as missile defense in Europe, Syria, the post-Soviet space, and democracy and human rights within Russia. On May 7, Vladimir Putin will return to the Russian presidency. This should not entail a change in the strategic course of Russian foreign policy, though the tone and style will likely differ from that of Dmitry Medvedev. Mr. Putin will have to confront domestic political and economic challenges that may affect his foreign policy choices: he could resort to the traditional Russian tactic of depicting a foreign adversary to rally domestic support as during his election campaign, or he could pursue a more accommodating foreign policy so that he can focus on issues at home. We do not yet know. It remains in the U.S. interest to engage Russia where engagement can advance American policy goals. In doing so, the United States will at times have to be prepared to take account of Russian interests if it wishes to secure Moscow’s help on questions that matter to Washington. For example, U.S. readiness to accommodate Russian concerns in negotiating the New START Treaty contributed to Moscow’s decision to open new supply routes for NATO to Afghanistan and to support a UN Security Council resolution that imposed an arms embargo on Iran. Looking forward in its relations with Russia, the United States should pursue further reductions of nuclear arms, including non-strategic nuclear weapons; continue to explore a cooperative NATO-Russia missile defense arrangement; seek to work jointly to deal with the proliferation challenges posed by North Korea and Iran; and consult on steps to bolster security and stability in Central Asia as the NATO coalition prepares to withdraw its military forces from Afghanistan. The United States should explore ways to increase trade and investment relations with Russia, which could help build a foundation for a more sustainable relationship. While Moscow’s decisions about its business and investment climate—for example, to strengthen rule of law and tackle corruption—are the most important factor in this regard, Congress should now graduate Russia from the provisions of the Jackson-Vanik amendment, an action that is long overdue.


Relations Impact – Link Extension




Ending Jackson-Vanik necessary for a full re-set in relations—it has a massive symbolic effect and is the litmus test for relations:


Finlay Lewis, 8/10/2008 (Congressional Quarterly Weekly, http://www.ncsj.org/AuxPages/081009CQ_Jackson-Vanik.shtml, “Russia Longs to Graduate At the Top of Trade Class”)
President Obama has repeatedly stressed that he intends to “reset” the relationship between the United States and Russia. But for that to happen, he first needs to perform a rewind-and-erase task that has eluded his two immediate predecessors: ditching the Jackson-Vanik amendment, a Cold War relic that used trade to punish totalitarian regimes if they denied their citizens emigration rights. The law held out the most-favored-nation trade status (i.e., non-discriminatory access to vast and lucrative U.S. consumer markets) as an inducement to enact more liberal emigration policies. China, another Communist power that fell under the law’s strictures, received annual presidential waivers to bypass its conditions until 2002, when trade relations were formalized after China won entry into the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 2001. But similar progress has been stymied for Russia. The measure was enacted as an amendment to a 1974 trade law under the sponsorship of two Democrats, Sen. Henry M. Jackson of Washington (House 1941-53; Senate 1953-83) and Rep. Charles A. Vanik of Ohio (1951-81), and the Kremlin has been in full compliance since at least 1994, three years after the Soviet Union collapsed. But Congress never managed to get a floor vote for a bill to formalize Russia’s release from the strictures of Jackson-Vanik, a process known as graduation. Bids by Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush to get such a measure on track proved to be poorly timed. The first Clinton effort, in 1999, coincided with a major showdown between Russia and NATO over the Kosovo invasion. Bush tried again in the months after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, but he dropped the plan when Russia angered American farm groups by erecting trade barriers against U.S. poultry products. The idea resurfaced in 2003 but fizzled after U.S. troops discovered Russian military supplies in the hands of Saddam Hussein’s forces following the invasion of Iraq — hardly an optimal time to shop a Russia trade measure in Congress. Bush pledged to push for Russia’s graduation at summits with President Vladimir V. Putin in 2006 and 2008, but alleged unfair Russian trade practices in the marketing of some agricultural products, combined with ongoing violence in the Russian republic of Chechnya, discouraged the administration from trying to persuade a manifestly reluctant Congress. Perhaps mindful of these past miscues, Obama has kept almost entirely quiet — in public, anyway — about any plans for a Jackson- Vanik repeal. However, senior Russian officials have not been shy about putting words in his mouth. After Obama met separately with Putin, now the prime minister, and President Dmitry Medvedev in Russia last month, Sergey Lavrov, Russia’s minister of foreign affairs, told a TV interviewer that Obama “understands the awkwardness of — let’s put it mildly — this situation for the American side and has given an assurance that removal of this amendment will be one of the priorities of his administration.” Still, the status quo clearly rankles — especially since not only China, but also lesser economic powers such as Mongolia and Vietnam got clean Jackson-Vanik bills of health. In January, Putin went out of his way as he spoke at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, to mock U.S. lawmakers who argued to keep Russia under Jackson-Vanik because of Russian trade barriers against American poultry. To underline how little such objections had to do with the amendment’s original intent, Putin quoted former dissident Natan Sharansky, saying that he “had not served time in a Soviet prison for chicken meat.” Sharansky, who eventually emigrated to Israel, has emerged as a high-profile supporter of Russia’s graduation. Symbolic Politics But more than standard trade sniping — or unfortunate timing — has stayed Congress’ hand in lifting the Jackson-Vanik strictures, observers say. The law stands as a landmark in the battle to secure human rights legislation and has compiled a remarkably successful track record. Alan P. Larson, then undersecretary of State for economic, business and agricultural affairs, told lawmakers on the House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Trade in 2002 that about 1 million Russian Jews had made their way to Israel between Jackson-Vanik’s enactment and the date of his testimony. Some 573,000 refugees, including Jews, evangelical Christians and Catholics, had left the old Soviet Union for the United States during the same period. Russia and Israel now authorize visa-free travel between the two nations — an unthinkable development when Jackson-Vanik was signed into law 35 years ago. Indeed, since Russia has long fulfilled the liberalization criteria of the law, the endurance of the trade penalty is not a question of policy, observers say. “Above and beyond anything else, it is symbolic politics,” said James F. Collins, the U.S. ambassador to Russia from 1997 to 2001. “This is seen as a kind of slight of Russia — a treatment of Russia that doesn’t accept its proper international standing . . . that doesn’t recognize that Russia is not the Soviet Union.” During his visit to Russia, Obama affirmed that his administration accords Russia the full respect due a great power and said he looks forward to building a deeper commercial relationship. But Obama’s powerful Russian audience probably won’t take such reassurances to heart until Jackson-Vanik is off the books. As Vladimir Lukin, then-deputy speaker of Russia’s lower house of Parliament, told The Wall Street Journal prior to a 2003 Bush visit to Russia, “This whole history of Jackson-Vanik is already so laughable, it’s legendary.” That perception is precisely why unshackling Russia “has an outsized importance,” said Stephen E. Biegun, executive secretary of Bush’s National Security Council and now Ford Motor Co.’s vice president for international affairs. “This one is low-hanging fruit. It is a tangible sign beyond good wishes and rhetoric that the United States is interested in investing in a constructive relationship with Russia. That makes it bigger than just Jackson-Vanik. There are very few issues we and Russia work on . . . that we can make progress on as dramatic as this.” Sandy Berger, Clinton’s national security adviser, likewise acknowledges that Jackson-Vanik remains freighted with symbolic importance, for better and worse. It has “become the Rorschach test for everything involved in the U.S.-Russia relationship,” he said.

Our link is reverse causal—a vote where we refuse to lift Jackson-Vanik worsens US-Russian relations—sends a signal of displeasure over human rights:


Anders Åslund, 2011 (November, a leading specialist on postcommunist economic transformation with more than 30 years of experience in the field, “The United States Should Establish Permanent Normal Trade Relations with Russia,” http://www.piie.com/publications/pb/pb11-20.pdf)
The Jackson-Vanik Amendment to the US Trade Act of 1974 was approved at the height of the Cold War, when Russia generated outrage by barring Jews from emigrating. It was sponsored by Senator Henry M. (“Scoop”) Jackson of Washington and Representative Charles Vanik of Ohio. Free emigration for Russian Jews, however, has not been in question since Russia became independent in 1991. The amendment is an outdated remnant of the politics of a distant era, though it remains a major irritant in relations between Washington and Moscow and a political issue in Congress. Many lawmakers, citing a range of disagreements with Russia over human and legal rights in Russia and various foreign policy issues, say that refusal to lift Jackson-Vanik would send a signal of displeasure over these matters. But other tools exist for exerting pressure on Russia that would be more effective and far less destructive to US economic interests. The US government has alternative bilateral and multilateral mechanisms that can be used to engage Russia on human rights questions and political and religious freedoms, such as the US-Russia Bilateral Presidential Commission and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. If necessary, economic sanctions and tailored penalties, including draconian measures, are readily available under other US statutes, such as the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). Originally, Jackson-Vanik applied to almost all communist countries. Over time, nearly all of them were “graduated” when they joined the WTO. Most entered the WTO without having previously secured PNTR from the United States. Only Ukraine, which became a WTO member in 2008, was graduated by Congress in March 2006 in advance of its WTO accession. All but Moldova have eventually been granted PNTR (Pregelj 2005).


Repeal of Jackson-Vanik is the key to relations-outweighs and overwhelms all other issues


Medetsky 2009 (Anatoly, “Putin Links ‘Brave’ U.S. Shift to Trade” Moscow Times, http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/383672.html)
Prime Minister Vladimir Putin said Friday that Washington’s decision to abandon plans to build a missile defense system in Europe give him hope that the United States would take further, trade-related steps to improve ties. Moscow is counting on Washington to remove restrictions on the transfer of high technology to Russia and to assist Russia, Kazakhstan and Belarus in joining the World Trade Organization, Putin said at an economic forum in the Black Sea resort of Sochi. “The latest decision by President Obama … suggests good thoughts, and I very much hope that this very right and brave decision will be followed by others,” Putin said. Obama abruptly announced Thursday that he would scrap plans by former President George W. Bush to install elements of a missile defense shield in Poland and the Czech Republic. Obama said Sunday that Russia’s complaints about the proposed shield had not influenced his decision. (Story Page 4.) President Dmitry Medvedev indicated in comments published Friday that Moscow would now be more receptive to U.S. concerns, but he stopped far short of offering to help Washington in its attempt to dissuade Iran from developing a nuclear program. The Bush administration had maintained that the program represented a threat to the United States and its European allies and that the shield was needed to counter it. “The fact that they are listening to us is an obvious signal that we should also attentively listen to our partners, our American partners,” Medvedev said in an interview with Swiss media. But Russia will not make “primitive compromises,” he added. In an interview aired on CNN on Sunday, Medvedev said Russia would not supply Iran with offensive missile systems. (Story, Page 3.) The military, meanwhile, said Obama’s shift on missile defense meant that it would no longer need to ­deploy Iskander missiles in the Kaliningrad region next to Poland, as Medvedev had threatened to do on Nov. 4, the day Obama won the U.S. presidential election. “Finally, reason has won over ambitions,” Deputy Defense Minister Vladimir Popovkin said Saturday on Ekho Moskvy radio. At the Sochi conference, Putin said Obama could go a long way toward further improving ties by abandoning CoCom lists, which banned high-tech exports to the Soviet Union and its allies during the Cold War. CoCom stands for the Coordinating Committee for Multilateral Export Controls created by NATO after World War II. “This causes damage to Russia’s cooperation with its partners, first of all the United States,” Putin said. “This causes damage to the U.S. businesses as well because it hampers them in developing ties with Russia.” Putin urged U.S. participants of the Sochi forum to try their best to promote eradicating such “vestiges of the past epoch” as soon as possible. U.S. attendees included David Bonderman, founding partner of TPG, one of the world’s largest private equity firms; General Electric chief executive Jeff Immelt; and John Mack, whose term as CEO of Morgan Stanley expires at the start of 2010. In addition to the trade barriers that Putin mentioned, Russia has been urging the United States for years to repeal the Jackson-Vanik amendment, Cold War-era legislation that still prevents Russia from obtaining the status of a country that enjoys “normal trade relations” with the United States. Russia desperately needs investment as it emerges from the economic recession, Putin said. The government will soon begin drafting a crisis-exit strategy that will focus on modernizing the economy by offering investors the “most favorable terms and prospects of growth,” he said. Officials realize that the “era of easy, cheap money is, of course, over” and competition for investment will be “extremely tough,” Putin said. Foreign investors, meanwhile, have not modified their Russia wish list much over the past decade or more, said Torbjörn Becker, director of Stockholm Institute of Transition Economics, a center for research and policy advice in transition economies. At the top of the list is a corruption-free business environment and a strong, independent legal system, he said. “I am not sure we will see it, but that’s certainly what we would like to see,” Becker said. Some of the key industries that will require investment are transportation, energy, telecoms and digital television, Putin said. He talked at more length about the need to manufacture top-of-the-line car parts in Russia, given that some leading global carmakers, including Renault, operate assembly lines here. “It’s time to make the next step,” he said. “It will be economically viable.” Renault is already in talks with Russian car parts makers to create a network of suppliers for itself and partners Nissan and AvtoVAZ, Renault’s chief of Eurasia division said earlier this month in an interview with The Moscow Times. Russia is interested not so much in foreign money as expertise that comes with global investors, Putin said.

Jackson-Vanik repeal key to US-Russia relations and cooperation over major global issues


Carnegie Council Transcripts and Articles, 2-1-12, p. Lexis
At the same time, we are accustomed to seeing a pattern of ebb and flow when it comes to Russia and Russia policy. It has been our consistent position at the Carnegie Council that, for a host of reasons, the relationship with Russia endures as one of the most critical for the United States. Among these reasons are: [1] The nuclear question: the United States and Russia, New START notwithstanding, still possess more than 90 percent of the world's strategic nuclear warheads, along with the lion's share of tactical nukes, which remain largely unconstrained by any treaty; [2] The matter of trade and commerce: Despite Russia's recent accession to WTO, it is still subject to the anomalous and anachronistic Jackson-Vanik amendment (see Jackson-Vanik: Time for Reconsideration? and Jackson-Vanik: A Bridge to the 20th Century) which, if not removed from the books, could put the United States at a disadvantage in trading with a growing Russian market, and could indeed put us in violation of our WTO obligations; and [3] The plain fact of Russia's strategic global position: from a greater Middle East to North Korea, Russia borders virtually every trouble spot on the planet, thus suggesting that a cooperative U.S.-Russia spirit is preferable to that of confrontation.

Repeal failure undermines the reset


Miller 11 [Jacqueline McLaren Miller 8/15/11 The Reset: Down - but not Out, senior associate at the EastWest Institute http://www.ewi.info/reset-down-not-out]
This is far from the only issue bedeviling U.S.-Russia relations. The ongoing application of the Jackson-Vanik amendment to the 1974 Trade Act, which links trade relations to emigration practices, is a long-standing source of Russian ire (see earlier article). Presidents Clinton, Bush, and Obama have been unable to get Congress to graduate Russia from the amendment and grant permanent normal trade relations. Ballistic missile defense also continues to spark controversy. Obama’s decision to move away from Bush’s planned deployment of assets in Poland and the Czech Republic provided just a momentary lull. And the lingering fallout from Russia’s 2008 invasion of Georgia continues to provide ample opportunities for mutual recriminations, including a leaked U.S. intelligence report linking a Russian intelligence official to a bombing near the U.S. embassy in Tbilisi. Despite these contentious issues, the reset has scored some significant successes. To be sure, it was slow to deliver on its initial promises. The negotiations for New START dragged on for over a year, allowing START to expire. After finally concluding negotiations with Russia, the Obama administration had another hard-fought battle in the Senate to get the treaty ratified. But the entry into force of the New START treaty was one of the major foreign policy successes for the Obama administration and its reset policy. There has also been progress in addressing other strategic U.S. concerns, most significantly Iran and Afghanistan. Washington secured Russian agreement on both over-flight rights for lethal cargo and overland transit of non-lethal cargo to resupply the Afghanistan effort. This took pressure off the Pakistan supply route—now estimated to be used for only 35 percent of supply efforts as compared to about 90 percent two years ago. And Russia recently agreed to expand the distribution network by allowing two-way transit and overland shipment of lethal goods. The United States was also able to gain Russian and Chinese support for sanctions against Iran because of that country’s continued intransigence on international inspection of its nuclear enrichment facilities. The benefits of the reset have been mutual, as demonstrated by New START. Moscow also had reason to be particularly pleased when the U. S. implemented the 123 civilian nuclear agreement, laying out the parameters of peaceful nuclear cooperation with Russia that needed to be in place before U.S. and Russian companies could expand commercial collaboration. After the Russian invasion of Georgia, it had been withdrawn from congressional consideration. Another success of the reset is firm U.S. backing for Russia’s World Trade Organization aspirations. It is expected that Russia’s tortured 18-year application process may finally come to an end at this December’s WTO ministerial in Geneva. Russia is the largest economy outside of the organization and Medvedev’s ambitious modernization program needs the benefits of WTO membership What both sides need to understand is that the reset offers the best hope of maintaining cooperation on key areas of mutual concern and keeping inevitable disagreements within reasonable bounds. To that end, leaders in Moscow and Washington should deliver that message to their highly skeptical domestic constituencies more often. The Obama administration needs to undertake a sustained effort with a Congress that is still deeply suspicious of Russia and could still undermine the reset, especially during an election year. And Russian leaders should think twice before they engage in the kind of rhetorical overkill that only fuels Cold War thinking. Angry rhetoric won’t disappear anytime soon, but it needs to be kept in check. Otherwise, both sides are likely to lose out.

Relations decline kills cooperation with US


Allison and Blackwill 11 [Graham Allison and Robert D. Blackwill October 2011 Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs Harvard University Russia and U.S. National Interests: Why Should Americans Care? A Report of the Task Force on Russia and U.S. National Interest Graham Allison Director of Harvard Kennedy School’s Belfer Assistant Secretary of Defense in the first Clinton Administration Robert D. Blackwill is the Henry A. Kissinger senior fellow for U.S. foreign policy at the Council on Foreign Relations. Deputy national security adviser for strategic planning under President George W. Bush, presidential envoy to Iraq and was the administration’s coordinator for U.S. policies regarding Afghanistan and Iran.]
Just as the United States should expect Russia to adjust many of its policies to achieve a sustainable cooperative relationship, Washington should recognize that Moscow is unlikely to support U.S. policy goals if the U.S.-Russian relationship significantly deteriorates. As a result, the failure to establish an ongoing working relationship with Russia would be quite costly for the United States. As a practical matter, even a stalled relationship could be problematic. The United States and Russia are both motivated to improve relations largely on the basis of hopes for what a stronger relationship could produce. If the prospects for realizing those hopes become too remote, it is uncertain whether what has been accomplished so far is sufficient to prevent our substantial remaining differences from tearing the U.S.-Russian relationship apart. U.S. officials must carefully weigh not only the American national interests in working more closely with Russia, but also the costs and benefits of failing to do so, keeping in mind Moscow’s capacity to act as a spoiler in a number of areas and on a number of issues that are of vital national interest to Washington. In our considered judgment, the choice is clear: the United States should pursue a sustainable cooperative relationship with Russia to advance vital American national interests, but do so without illusions regarding either Moscow’s sometimes neo-imperial ambitions, or the pace of democratic change in Russia.

Failure to repeal collapses relations


Aslund and Bergsten 10 [ANDERS ASLUND and C. FRED BERGSTEN June 21, 2010 Foreign Policy: Let Russia Join the WTO http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=127981016]
The United States still maintains the Jackson-Vanik Amendment, adopted in 1974 denying favorable trade status to Russia, citing its restrictions on the free emigration of Jews from the Soviet Union. The law, a relic of the Cold War, has no practical effect but is a serious irritant in relations between the two countries. And as a practical matter, if Jackson-Vanik remains in force, Russia would simply not apply WTO rules to the United States, perpetuating trade discrimination against American companies. Hence the amendment should be scrapped immediately after Russia joins. Now is the right time for Obama and Medvedev to resolve the last obstacles on the way to Russian entry to the WTO. The resulting encouragement of Russia's modernization is very much in the interest of both countries. Russia urgently needs to modernize, and the United States, bogged down in Afghanistan and facing the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran, needs Russian cooperation more than ever.

Repeal of Jackson-Vanik is the key to relations-outweighs and overwhelms all other issues


Medetsky 2009 (Anatoly, “Putin Links ‘Brave’ U.S. Shift to Trade” Moscow Times, http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/383672.html)
Prime Minister Vladimir Putin said Friday that Washington’s decision to abandon plans to build a missile defense system in Europe give him hope that the United States would take further, trade-related steps to improve ties. Moscow is counting on Washington to remove restrictions on the transfer of high technology to Russia and to assist Russia, Kazakhstan and Belarus in joining the World Trade Organization, Putin said at an economic forum in the Black Sea resort of Sochi. “The latest decision by President Obama … suggests good thoughts, and I very much hope that this very right and brave decision will be followed by others,” Putin said. Obama abruptly announced Thursday that he would scrap plans by former President George W. Bush to install elements of a missile defense shield in Poland and the Czech Republic. Obama said Sunday that Russia’s complaints about the proposed shield had not influenced his decision. (Story Page 4.) President Dmitry Medvedev indicated in comments published Friday that Moscow would now be more receptive to U.S. concerns, but he stopped far short of offering to help Washington in its attempt to dissuade Iran from developing a nuclear program. The Bush administration had maintained that the program represented a threat to the United States and its European allies and that the shield was needed to counter it. “The fact that they are listening to us is an obvious signal that we should also attentively listen to our partners, our American partners,” Medvedev said in an interview with Swiss media. But Russia will not make “primitive compromises,” he added. In an interview aired on CNN on Sunday, Medvedev said Russia would not supply Iran with offensive missile systems. (Story, Page 3.) The military, meanwhile, said Obama’s shift on missile defense meant that it would no longer need to ­deploy Iskander missiles in the Kaliningrad region next to Poland, as Medvedev had threatened to do on Nov. 4, the day Obama won the U.S. presidential election. “Finally, reason has won over ambitions,” Deputy Defense Minister Vladimir Popovkin said Saturday on Ekho Moskvy radio. At the Sochi conference, Putin said Obama could go a long way toward further improving ties by abandoning CoCom lists, which banned high-tech exports to the Soviet Union and its allies during the Cold War. CoCom stands for the Coordinating Committee for Multilateral Export Controls created by NATO after World War II. “This causes damage to Russia’s cooperation with its partners, first of all the United States,” Putin said. “This causes damage to the U.S. businesses as well because it hampers them in developing ties with Russia.” Putin urged U.S. participants of the Sochi forum to try their best to promote eradicating such “vestiges of the past epoch” as soon as possible. U.S. attendees included David Bonderman, founding partner of TPG, one of the world’s largest private equity firms; General Electric chief executive Jeff Immelt; and John Mack, whose term as CEO of Morgan Stanley expires at the start of 2010. In addition to the trade barriers that Putin mentioned, Russia has been urging the United States for years to repeal the Jackson-Vanik amendment, Cold War-era legislation that still prevents Russia from obtaining the status of a country that enjoys “normal trade relations” with the United States. Russia desperately needs investment as it emerges from the economic recession, Putin said. The government will soon begin drafting a crisis-exit strategy that will focus on modernizing the economy by offering investors the “most favorable terms and prospects of growth,” he said. Officials realize that the “era of easy, cheap money is, of course, over” and competition for investment will be “extremely tough,” Putin said. Foreign investors, meanwhile, have not modified their Russia wish list much over the past decade or more, said Torbjörn Becker, director of Stockholm Institute of Transition Economics, a center for research and policy advice in transition economies. At the top of the list is a corruption-free business environment and a strong, independent legal system, he said. “I am not sure we will see it, but that’s certainly what we would like to see,” Becker said. Some of the key industries that will require investment are transportation, energy, telecoms and digital television, Putin said. He talked at more length about the need to manufacture top-of-the-line car parts in Russia, given that some leading global carmakers, including Renault, operate assembly lines here. “It’s time to make the next step,” he said. “It will be economically viable.” Renault is already in talks with Russian car parts makers to create a network of suppliers for itself and partners Nissan and AvtoVAZ, Renault’s chief of Eurasia division said earlier this month in an interview with The Moscow Times. Russia is interested not so much in foreign money as expertise that comes with global investors, Putin said.

Repeal key to relations reset strategy-failure would infuriate the Russians


Korea Times 10/16 (Hurting US relations with Russia, http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/opinon/2011/10/137_96741.html)
Two influential Democratic members of Congress, Scoop Jackson of Washington and Charles Vanik, responded with an amendment to a major trade law that denied the Soviet Union and its satellites the trade relations normally extended to other countries, and restricted loans, trade credits and guarantees.The amendment put a great crimp in Soviet trade with both the U.S. and the West. Seismic changes were taking place in the Soviet Union, and the emigration restrictions were gradually lifted and became moot with the fall of the Iron Curtain. Any Jews who wanted to leave, could, and not surprisingly given Russia's long history of anti-Semitism, most did.The Jackson-Vanik amendment, however, continued as a matter of U.S. law and as a great irritant to the Russian government. Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., the senior Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and no Cold War softie, recommended its repeal as long ago as 2003.The amendment has survived, however, with the support of some senior Republicans who want to keep it in reserve for future leverage against Russia on other issues. This, of course, infuriates the Russians. It bars them from permanent normal trade relations with the United States, what used to be called most favored nation status.Mike McFaul, the senior director for Russia on the White House National Security Council, this week urged Congress to repeal Jackson-Vanik as both an antiquated law and an impediment to President Barack Obama's efforts to "reset" relations with Russia.

In the context of US security concessions, Putin has explicitly dismissed them as insufficient and asked instead for trade-related benefits. Trade concessions are key to investment in Russia, which they desperately need to recover from the economic crisis.

And, we’ll isolate multiple other warrants:

A. Equal partnership: Putin thinks US trade restrictions are a symbol of US colonialism that prevent partnership


Skrin 2009 (Market & Corporate News , 1-30, “West should perceive Russia as equal partner: Putin,” Lexis)
Russia’s Prime Minister Vladimir Putin has urged Western companies to leave behind the colonial thinking in their relations with Moscow. It is necessary to work in a civilized and honest manner and get rid of colonial ideology, Putin told a meeting of the International Business Council at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland on Thursday. Russia wants to be perceived in the West as an equal partner without any exemptions or exclusions, the Russian Premier underlines. At present, we are going through tough times amid the unfolding financial and economical meltdown, Putin complains. Even so, he adds, Russia has no intention of restricting capital flows despite a large rise in capital outflow that saw a whopping 130 billion dollars leave the country last year. We have deliberately made this move, Putin explains, bearing in mind that these actions by the Russian authorities should give a clear signal that we will be seeking to stick to all our obligations. For that to happen, we will try to make our economy and our country open and we have already achieved a lot in this direction lately, Putin maintains.Saying that Russia was not allowed to buy certain technologies and even finished products in the West Putin said that apart from the limitations inherited from the past, new ones were being imposed - in Europe to a lesser extent, while in the United States many of them remained. Above all the Jackson-Vanik Amendment to the US- Soviet Trade Bill, which the Russian Premier said was an "anachronism that has nothing to do with common sense". "The problem of the Jews' departure from the Soviet Union no longer exists, neither does the USSR against which the discriminatory amendment was enacted," Putin stressed. He said the main limitations remain in people’s minds, and we should get rid of them. "We are not disabled people, we do not need help, we want to be an equal and reliable partner," Putin stressed. "The world has changed in the sense that it is necessary to be self-critical and listen more to what is happening on our planet as a whole. This is exactly what we need if we want to have long-term partnership between us," he said, the ruvr.ru website said.

B. Psychology: Economic cooperation is key to positive framing of the overall relationship, integrating Russian markets, and the Russian economy


The Commission on U.S. Policy toward Russia 2009 (joint project of The Nixon Center and the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, a research center within Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government, “The Right Direction for U.S. Policy toward Russia,” March, http://www.nixoncenter.org/RussiaReport09.pdf)
Though Russia’s economy remains one-tenth the size of America’s ,managing the global economic crisis is a top issue and a clear common interest for Washington and Moscow. Notwithstanding its serious challenges, the crisis is also an important opportunity for the United States in dealing with Russia because it has changed the psychology of the relationship and can contribute to framing U.S.-Russian relations in positive and cooperative terms. Despite holding the world’s third-largest currency reserves, Russian officials now realize that their country’s economic future depends significantly on both the global economy and the United States and they look to Washington for solutions. The crisis has also exposed many of Russia’s continuing economic and financial weaknesses, including its failures to diversify or encourage foreign investment. The United States finally has a chance to integrate Russia fully into the international economy and to take an important step toward addressing broader concerns of other major developing economies like China, India, and Brazil that their voices are not sufficiently respected in global economic matters. The G-8 and the G-20 could be useful vehicles for this. Russian accession to the World Trade Organization is a key step in this process and would bind Moscow to WTO rules and protect American companies. More narrowly, the United States and Russia have not thus far developed extensive bilateral trade and investment. Some of this is a result of geography, but much is due to insufficient effort, an inability to overcome the Jackson-Vanik Amendment either substantively or symbolically, and under appreciation of the important economic interests at stake. Russia will become only more important to the global economy over time.

C. Cold War thinking: Even after security concessions, Putin cited trade restrictions as the most important relics of the Cold War


Prime-Tass 2009 (Prime-Tass English-language Business Newswire, 9-18, Putin urges West to take further steps to improve ties with Russia,” Lexis)
Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin on Friday urged the West to take further steps to improve relations with Russia. He was speaking at the Kuban Economic Forum in the city of Sochi. Putin welcomed the U.S. President Barack Obama's decision to abandon a plan to deploy land-based missiles as part of a missile defense system in Poland and called on Western countries to make further conciliatory steps. The plan has been opposed by Russia. Putin urged the West to abolish restrictions on technology transfers to Russia and to facilitate the country's accession into the World Trade Organization (WTO). He also proposed abolishing Western restrictions on Russian exports, restrictions of which were inherited from the Coordinating Committee for Multilateral Export Controls (CoCom), which was established in 1947 to introduce a partial embargo on Soviet bloc exports. Putin also said he was unhappy with some Western governments' opposition to Russian investments and added that he hoped such "remnants" of the Cold War would soon be overcome. "Russian companies acquiring foreign assets often face so-called national egoism," he said. "I'm sure that these are 'birthmarks' of the Cold War that we still can't get rid of." Putin went on to say foreign energy companies investing in Russia and Russian energy companies investing abroad should be subject to the same regulatory treatment

D. This cooperation spills over: Ending trade restrictions facilitates Russian WTO accession and spurs economic cooperation that affects areas like nonprolif and Iran


Aslund and Kuchins 2009 (Anders, leading specialist on Russia and professor at Georgetown University, and Andrew, senior fellow and director of the Russia and Eurasia Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, professor at Johns Hopkins, “Pressing the “Reset Button” on US-Russia Relations,” Chapter 9, March, CSIS, http://www.piie.com/publications/pb/pb09-6.pdf)
US government engagement with Russia on economic integration presents an opportunity to broaden and deepen their bilateral relationship.30 Economic cooperation will build goodwill and mutual confidence, which can facilitate discussion of other areas of interest such as cooperation on nonproliferation and dealing with Iran’s nuclear program. Yet one of the most underdeveloped areas of the US-Russia relationship is commerce. The two countries’ very limited mutual trade and investment—the United States accounts for only 4 percent of Russian trade and foreign direct investment— indicate a very significant potential to expand bilateral economic relations to the benefit of both Americans and Russians. One reason direct US investment in the Russian economy is so small is that the United States does not have a ratified bilateral investment treaty (BIT) with Russia, unlike 38 other nations that represent most of the major global economies and most members of the European Union. As a consequence, Americans usually invest in Russia through a European subsidiary that enjoys better legal protection. Although Russia did not ratify the 1992 BIT, it has clearly indicated that it welcomes such an agreement— which became part of the bilateral April 2008 Sochi Declaration— but the Bush administration sought to negotiate a new, better BIT only in its final months. A BIT would also encourage Russian investment in the United States. Foreign investment not only provides jobs for Americans but also, as Yale professor of economics Aleh Tsyvinski writes, “foster[s] economic interdependence.” He continues: “By investing in U.S. and European assets, Russia’s government and business elites are buying a stake in the global economy. This should bring better mutual understanding and a more rational and accountable foreign policy.”31 The United States must work with Russia to ensure that openness to foreign investment is reciprocal and that legal protections for investors are guaranteed. A crucial issue in Russia’s standing in world commerce is its WTO accession. Russia suspended its application to join the WTO in anticipation of Western sanctions against its war in Georgia, which never materialized. Hopefully, it will reinstate its application soon. It is the largest economy that remains outside the organization. The United States has consistently favored Russia’s membership in the WTO as well as in other international economic institutions, as such integration would not only boost commerce but also promote rules-based international norms of economic behavior in Russia and thus influence Russian policy. The United States should continue to support Russia’s WTO accession and work with Russia and WTO members to overcome their objections. Russia is already an active and responsible board member of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank. In 2007 Russia showed positive engagement by proposing its own, highly respected candidate for managing director of the IMF. Economic integration will provide additional opportunities for the Russian leadership to further develop its global engagement. In addition, Russia has been a full member of the G-8 since 1997 (although the finance ministers group is still only G-7). The Obama administration should follow the lead of the Bush administration and devote more attention and resources to developing the G-20 (created by the Clinton administration in 1998) rather than the G-8, which seems increasingly unrepresentative and obsolete. Russia shares this view. In his October 2008 speech in Evian, France, President Medvedev expressed a strong interest in reforming the anachronistic system of international financial governance.32 Although Russian proposals have not been very concrete, such efforts should be welcomed in principle. Russia’s interest in engaging in reform of the international financial architecture is a positive development, even if its views may sometimes conflict with those of the United States. Russian accession to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) is also important. Like the WTO, the OECD is a highly legalistic organization that requires new members to adopt many rules before they are granted entry. Membership carries with it obligations such as observance of international standards relating to rule of law, transparency, and property rights, all of which must be adopted in coordination with other members, in particular close European allies. Another roadblock is the Jackson-Vanik Amendment to the Trade Act of 1974. It requires the executive branch to certify to Congress annually that there are no restrictions on the emigration of Jews from Russia; if it were invoked, prohibitive Smoot-Hawley tariffs would apply to all Russian imports to the United States. This Cold War holdover no longer serves any useful purpose and is routinely voided. Presidents Clinton and Bush both promised to graduate Russia from the amendment. The United States should fulfill its promise, which would facilitate Russia’s entry into the WTO.



Download 0.68 Mb.

Share with your friends:
1   ...   9   10   11   12   13   14   15   16   ...   35



The database is protected by copyright ©ininet.org 2024
send message
    Main page
united states
united states is
financial impact
green light
successful development
current economic crisis
security aspects
average performance