fbpx
Politics Foreign Affairs Culture Fellows Program

Why There Is No Need to Replace Jackson-Vanik

Dylan Myles-Primakoff makes the case for repealing the Jackson-Vanik amendment and not replacing it with anything: Repealing Jackson-Vanik is simply a boon for the American economy; the law is a tool that is no longer used, designed for a problem that no longer exists. As for the Magnitsky Act, the U.S. government is already taking […]

Dylan Myles-Primakoff makes the case for repealing the Jackson-Vanik amendment and not replacing it with anything:

Repealing Jackson-Vanik is simply a boon for the American economy; the law is a tool that is no longer used, designed for a problem that no longer exists. As for the Magnitsky Act, the U.S. government is already taking action against the perpetrators of the outrage against Sergei Magnitsky. If enacted, the bill would serve only to create a new irritant in the broader U.S.-Russia relationship.

As Myles-Primakoff already guesses, those promoting the Magnitsky Act are mostly interested in “a more confrontational relationship with Moscow as a goal in and of itself,” so the fact that the bill would create a new irritant in the relationship is one of its more attractive features for them. He makes a persuasive case that the Magnitsky Act will not accomplish anything constructive that current sanctions imposed by the State Department aren’t already doing. As he says, conditioning the repeal of Jackson-Vanik on the passage of this other legislation is simply another way to delay the repeal of a Cold War anachronism that will make it impossible for U.S. businesses to benefit from Russian accession to the WTO. Repealing Jackson-Vanik would clearly be in the American interest.

Advertisement

Comments

The American Conservative Memberships
Become a Member today for a growing stake in the conservative movement.
Join here!
Join here