The US Congress is not yet ready to repeal the Jackson-Vanik amendment, so Susan Schwab, the US President's official representative in trade talks, has declared. In addition, Schwab believes that "not yet" must also be considered the response to Russia's desire to join the WTO. At the same time no specific complaints were made against Russia. Experts questioned by Izvestiya are certain that these statements have nothing whatever to do with economics.

Schwab's statements surprised many people. First, the Americans have repeatedly declared in public that it is up to Congress to repeal the amendment. From a formal viewpoint the trade representative cannot answer for Congress. In addition, Schwab's words are stridently at variance with those of her immediate colleague.

US Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez, who came to Moscow last week, tried to convince us that Washington will help Russia to join the WTO before the end of the year. He promised that the Jackson-Vanik amendment will be repealed. "Russia is at a high degree of readiness to join the WTO, but if this amendment is not repealed, then our country's participation in this organization becomes impossible," Vladimir Pekhtin, the State Duma's vice speaker from
United Russia, declared yesterday. "Accordingly, the conclusion should be drawn from this that the United States is restricting Russia's potential for joining the WTO, and this cannot fail to concern us."

BOTh Moscow and Washington have long regarded the Jackson-Vanik amendment merely as an instrument of pressure, which is unpleasant for one side and correspondingly very convenient for the other. There are no real grounds for the amendment remaining: It was adopted back in 1974 in order
to punish the USSR for problems with the emigration of Jews. The amendment provides for limitations on the market status of those countries in respect of which it operates, and this is why, despite all its archaic nature, it is an obstacle to Russia's WTO accession.

There is another curious aspect to the trade representative's statement. You would think that Susan Schwab personally, if anyone, should not speak of the emergence of new obstacles, since it was she who signed the bilateral Russian-US protocol on WTO accession in Hanoi last fall. This document, signed in the presence of the two countries' presidents, essentially means that the United States has no objections to Russia joining the WTO. What, then, has changed?
"Our relations are steadily deteriorating, and the actions of one country give rise to actions of the other" -- Aleksey Arbatov, leader of the International Security Center of the Russian Academy of Sciences World Economy and International Relations Institute, expressed this view. "The Munich speech (of President Putin) was a response to all the unjust and lawless things which the United States has done recently and which it is not customary to speak of directly.

Since then there has been a wave of US criticism of Russia over democracy, its conduct in the post-Soviet area, and its policies on Iran and the DPRK. These tendencies are being inflamed by the fact that we have ended up on different sides of the barricades in respect of Ukraine." Jackson-Vanik really has turned out to be not the only symptom. Let us recall that last Friday (6 April) the US Department of State published the report "Supporting Human Rights and Democracy," which Moscow saw as direct interference in another state's affairs (see Izvestiya 10 April 2007). It said, in particular, that the United States will "help" Russia to hold "honest and free elections" in 2007-2008.

"The US State Department report speaks of funding for parties which may accede to power in the future," Vyacheslav Volodin, secretary of the United Russia General Council Presidium, declared. "Any country will undoubtedly oppose such 'help' imposed from outside." Deputies are certain that this is precisely what Washington understands by "honest and free elections."

"The report proclaims a virtual offensive upon the development of democracy in our country and displays double standards, which is simply inadmissible," State Duma Speaker Boris Gryzlov declared yesterday. He promised that this Friday
(13 April) the deputies will consider their draft statement, in which they will rate this report.

"Schwab's words should not be taken as the final verdict, for we will still witness an active debate in Congress over Russia's WTO accession," Katrina vanden Heuvel, chief editor of the US magazine The Nation, told Izvestiya. "On the whole, her statement is one more sign of the worsening of relations between the United States and Russia. As for the State Department report, I would not link it to Susan Schwab's statement. It is a document that is issued once a year.

Democracy in the United States itself today is not at such a level that we also ave the right to lecture other countries. Each state must itself investigate human rights at home."

Izvestia