March 6, 1973
Page 6540
SENATOR MUSKIE AGAINST SOVIET BLACKMAIL
Mr. RIBICOFF. Mr. President, a conference on United States-Soviet trade was recently held here in Washington. As one with a particular interest in this subject, I followed it with some interest.
Two statements in particular made at this conference are deserving of special mention – one for its positive content, the other, unfortunately, for its outrageous nature.
According to a news report in the Washington Post of February 28, Mr. Arbatov, identified in the article as a "leading Soviet official," said that congressional denial of most-favored-nation treatment to the Soviet Union would create a major obstacle to detente, which in turn would, "spur up anti-Semitic feelings in the United States."
I am outraged by this crude, heavy-handed threat delivered by a Russian official at a gathering of 800 American businessmen. Mr. Arbatov, who is head of the Soviet Institute for U.S. Studies, certainly has a great deal to learn about Americans and the U.S. Congress. Americans are not easily blackmailed – particularly at a time when Russia needs trade concessions and American technology because of serious Soviet economic failures. Instead, Mr. Arbatov should have listened carefully to the reasoned, eloquent statement of my colleague, Senator MUSKIE, who addressed the same meeting earlier that day.
Senator MUSKIE, one of the most thoughtful men in this body, described the current situation very accurately when he said that the Soviet leaders would be profoundly mistaken if they underestimated Americans’ feelings on the exit visa question. Senator MUSKIE stated that Americans properly perceive the exorbitant taxes on Jewish emigrants as being in violation of fundamental human rights and freedoms. He warned that should the Soviet Union continue to exact ransoms on those educated persons seeking to leave, most favored nation status is "seriously jeopardized."
I concur in his judgment; more than three-fourths of the Senate, and almost two-thirds of the House have already gone on record on this issue. These include Republicans and Democrats, conservatives and liberals, elected representatives from every region of the United States.
It is not the Congress of the United States, nor as Mr. Arbatov claimed, American Jews, who should be blamed for standing in the way of normalized relations between the two countries – but Mr. Arbatov himself, because of his attempt at intimidation and the discriminatory policies of his own government.
It remains to be seen whose view the participants of the United States-Soviet Trade Conference will follow – Mr. Arbatov's threats of anti-Semitism or Senator MUSKIE's sound analysis of the problem.
I have faith that Mr. Arbatov's twisted views will be repudiated by these businessmen, by all Americans, and ultimately by the Soviet Government itself, whose stake in improved trade relations with our country should convince it of the futility of its present course.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of Senator MUSKIE's remarks before the United States- Soviet Trade Conference be printed in the RECORD at this point along with the article in the Washington Post mentioned earlier.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
REMARKS OF SENATOR EDMUND S. MUSKIE,
UNITED STATES-SOVIET TRADE CONFERENCE
I want to thank the National Association of Manufacturers for asking me to participate in this historic conference. Ever since the late 1960's when I was Chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on International Finance, I have been particularly interested in the whole question of East-West trade. And I warmly welcome this opportunity to discuss the current state of American trading relations with the Soviet Union.
Happily, today's discussion – as well as this entire conference – takes place in an atmosphere different from that which existed during much of the postwar period. At times during that period, municipal ordinances have forbidden the sale of Soviet products, and dock workers have refused to handle goods bound for or coming from communist nations. I remember all too well the difficulties which President Kennedy encountered in trying to complete a wheat deal with the Soviet Union. I also recall the resistance within the U.S. Congress during the 1960's with respect to proposals to grant most favored nation treatment to Eastern European countries.
Today there is strong support for expanded commercial relations with the Soviet Union. Trade between the two nations nearly tripled last year. The relaxation of old export controls and the creation of new credit arrangements have helped enormously to erode the artificial economic barriers that have long stood between us. And since last May's summit meeting in Moscow, we have seen specific new bilateral accords on trade, grain, lend lease and maritime matters – the nuts and bolts of what we must hope are only first steps toward the substantial expansion of economic relations between two great countries.
On this planet, where a stubborn pursuit of self-sufficiency can only mean a future of stagnation, we must advance all the policies that bring two giant neighbors onto common ground. But we must be realistic about those obstacles that still exist between the goal of improved Soviet- American commercial relations and its realization.
And while I want to accentuate the positive aspects of this exchange, I must balance those considerations against two problems which are of concern to me and which would seriously damage Soviet-American trade. One problem – the treatment of Jews seeking to leave Russia – is already high on the Congressional agenda. The other issue – disruption of American transport facilities – is assuming new and potentially serious dimensions.
The first of these issues arises from the current Soviet policy of charging prohibitive fees to would-be emigrants. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the United Nations over 24 years ago says specifically, in Article 13, Point 2: "Everyone has a right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country." That declaration is further confirmed in the international convention on the elimination of all forms of racial discrimination, ratified by the Supreme Soviet on January 22, 1969. Further, Article 129 of the "Principles of Civil Legislation of the U.S.S.R. and Union Republics" establishes that international agreements to which Russia is a party override any conflicting domestic legislation.
For more than two million Soviet Jews, however, those provisions of international and domestic law are dead letters. Despite substantial recent increases in the number of Jews allowed to emigrate, the Soviet Government is, in fact, barring the free departure of many professional, skilled Jews who seek to build new lives for themselves in Israel. To the extent that such a policy is continued, another high Moscow priority – most favored Nation status for trade with America – is seriously jeopardized.
Soviet leaders would be profoundly mistaken if they under-estimated American feelings on the exit visa question. The concern is not limited to the American Jewish community. It is shared widely throughout our country, and its impact on Congress is heavy. Americans properly perceive the exorbitant taxes on Jewish emigrants from the Soviet Union as being in violation of fundamental human rights and freedoms.
That perception of the tax is the direct source of today's widespread objections to liberalizing trade arrangements with the Soviet Union. Until the head tax is eliminated, the objections will persist, and the Congress will respond to them.
In November of last year, the Joint Economic Committee of the U.S. Congress made a study trip to the Soviet Union. The avowed purpose of the trip was to discuss with Soviet leaders the problems and prospects of expanded East-West trade. In Moscow, members of the study group met with Premier Kosygin and Minister Patolichev. In its official report on the trip, which was issued barely two weeks ago, the Committee noted that Soviet leadership did not seem to sense the concern of the U.S. Congress on the matter of Soviet exit fees. If this is true, it is regrettable.
Earlier this month, Representative Wilbur Mills, Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, and Representative Charles Vanik, a Member of that Committee, jointly introduced legislation, "The Freedom of Emigration Act of 1973." The bill is designed "to restrain trading privileges or Most Favored Nation treatment with any nation until that country ceases its discriminatory emigration policies." And in introducing this legislation, the Congressmen explicitly referred to current Soviet exit visa policy. The Mills-Vanik Bill now has over 260 co-sponsors and the list is growing longer daily.
In the Senate, eighteen of my colleagues are currently circulating a letter asking support for legislation with intent identical to the House's Mills-Vanik Bill. As many of you know, when similar legislation was introduced last year, it received my support and the bipartisan backing of 75 other Senators, or more than three-quarters of the Membership.
Thus, the issue of Soviet exit visa policy is a matter of major concern to Congress and to the American people. And it would truly be a shame if Soviet persistence in this policy acted as a roadblock in the way of broadened commercial relations between the Soviet Union and the United States.
A second, quite different problem related to expanded Soviet-American trade is the potential disruption which such trade may cause for our domestic marketing capabilities. I am particularly concerned at present about the impact of the recent grain agreement on domestic shipping.
Poultry and dairy farmers in my own region of New England are currently experiencing economically disastrous delays in receiving grains for their own use, as a result of a nationwide freight car shortage. The shortage, although not wholly or even largely due to the Russian grain shipments, is in part a consequence of such shipments.
I cite this disruption of normal domestic marketing patterns, not as any unusual consequence of foreign trade, but because of its potential political implications. In recent months, I have received countless letters and several visits from persons and companies who have urged me to do all I can to prevent further export ventures with the Soviet Union.
The Equal Export Opportunity Act of 1972 explicitly authorizes export controls to the extent necessary to protect the U.S. economy from an excessive drain of scarce materials and to reduce the serious inflationary impact of abnormal foreign demand. But there is no effective authority being exercised at this time to cushion the impact of abnormal foreign demand on our domestic market capabilities.
This is clearly a problem. And unless the American government better anticipates such potential dislocations in the future and prevents their occurrence, this problem, too, could become a formidable barrier to improved commercial relations between the Soviet Union and the United States.
I raise these two issues not to dampen enthusiasm for expanded Soviet-American trade. Indeed, I welcome such expansion. I have supported legislation to broaden EastWest trade in the past and hope to support similar legislation in the future. However, I think we all gain by being aware of certain current problems surrounding Soviet-American economic relations. For only with awareness and understanding can the problems be overcome.
[From the Washington Post, Feb. 28, 19781
ADMINISTRATION PUSHES SOVIET TRADING BREAK
(By Marilyn Berger)
Administration officials yesterday seized on a U.S. Soviet trade conference to mobilize American business support for favorable tariff treatment for the Soviet Union.
The proposal, which President Nixon is pledged to make under the terms of the Soviet-American trade agreement, has run into heavy criticism on Capitol Hill. Bills have been introduced in both houses to withhold most-favored-nation tariff treatment from the Soviet Union until Moscow lifts the recently imposed exit fees that limit emigration of Soviet Jews.
A leading Soviet official, meanwhile, warned that a denial of "most-favored-nation" (MFN) treatment would create a major obstacle to detente which would in turn "spur up anti-Semitic feeling in the United States." The Jews, warned G. A. Arbatov, head of the Soviet Institute for U.S. Studies, would be blamed for standing in the way of normalized relations between two countries.
Arbatov also warned that Moscow would look elsewhere for trading partners if MFN treatment were not forthcoming. U.S. officials note that such treatment – which would allow Soviet goods to enter the United States at whatever the lowest tariff rates are for similar imports from other nations – would not have a significant financial effect, but Moscow demands it for its symbolic value.
Granting of MFN treatment is linked to payments of the Soviets' lend-lease debt. Unless equal tariff treatment is forthcoming, the Russians would be absolved from lend-lease payments under the arrangements negotiated.
William Casey, under secretary of state for economic affairs, told the 800 businessmen attending the conference at the Shoreham Hotel: "We hope no unusual delays will threaten the implementation of this (Soviet-American trade) agreement" implicitly urging them to lobby their congressmen to oppose any bill that would deny MFN treatment to the Soviet Union. He said the agreement would provide "modest but welcome benefits for the balance of payments," that it would be job-creating" and that it would set commercial relations on a fresh and positive course."
Casey said that failure to implement the MFN provisions of the trade bill "would be seriously detrimental to the whole design."
Presidential aide Peter M. Flanigan raised the spectre of foreign competition for Soviet purchases. During his luncheon address he told the businessmen: "We need your help and the help of Congress and the public at large if we're going to score as well as our competitors."
Noting the opposition to MFN because of the exit fees, he said: "We feel strongly that a solution to this problem ... can best be found through diplomacy."
Casey and Flanigan were stating the administration position that is being urged directly upon congressmen. The trade bill has not yet been sent up to the Hill, but U.S. officials indicate that MFN treatment for the Soviet Union will be included in the overall legislation in which the President is seeking authority to negotiate tariffs with all countries.
Arbatov suggested that the exit fees were being used as a "pretext" to prevent passage of MFN by those who oppose detente generally. He added that if Jews were to be exempted from paying the fees there would be a revival of the anti-Semitism in the Soviet Union that had existed in Czarist days. He added that Soviet citizens might not approve of the treatment of Negroes in the United States, but that Moscow refrained from saying anything about it.