The New York Times is editorializing today on behalf of the "progressive" line for Russia — be friendly and trade regardless of what awful things they are doing in the mistaken belief that this will in time somehow "make things better."

And once again it is calling for repeal of Jackson-Vanik when this is entirely unnecessary.

Read the text of the law and recall that a) this law does not mention any country, including the Soviet Union or Russia, by name b) this law does not mention any group by name, including Soviet Jewry. Yes, the motivation to pass the law in its day came from the Soviet Union's unconscionable tax on emigrating Jews to strip them of assets or discourage them from leaving. But the law can benefit any group from any country and also benefited  Soviet Pentecostals and Christians leaving Communist Romania, for that matter.

We all get it that this law no longer applies to Russia, as it was designed for non-market economies that restrict emigration, i.e. the Soviet Union, which restricted Jewish emigration as well as other people's right to leave and return.

But as I've written before here and here, there's no need to abolish the entire law and hand Russia an undeserved and unnecessary moral victory. A permanent waiver can be passed, just as was done for Ukraine, once part of the Soviet Union and once part of this problem.

The issue now hinges on Russia's accession to the World Trade Organization, and the mandate for the US not to have legislation that blocks trade for a fellow member. But it's easy enough for either the president or Congress (preferably Congress) to pass a bill that permanently graduates Russia without tampering with Jackson-Vanik itself.

For one, Jackson-Vanik still applies to some countries — Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, North Korea, etc. that still keep blacklists of people and still don't allow them to travel and still don't have what could justifiably be called "market economies".

But more importantly, there's no need to completely wipe out this legacy of the Cold War which was an important lever to change the totalitarian Soviet Union. On the eve of his re-coronation, Vladimir Putin would like nothing more than to say that he removed that legacy of moral opprobrium and legal sanction again

There is absolutely no legal or technical reason why Congress can't pass a resolution to graduate Russia permanently as it no longer applies. Indeed, we should also look into whether continuing an automatic annual waiver would also satisfy WTO requirements.

The reason the work isn't happening in this direction is simply politics — the "progressives" are shrilly demanding absolute abolition of this heritage of the Cold War which they never really found justified, and they are trying to make good on what Obama seems to have rashly promised the Kremlin — total removal of the law. There is no need for that.

The Times concedes that this is a terrible time to be doing Russia favours:

This is not an easy time for President Obama to be arguing on behalf of anything that benefits the Russian government. Prime Minister Vladimir Putin’s autocratic ways are chilling as is his decision to promote his presidential campaign with a particularly scurrilous anti-Americanism. The Kremlin is also the top supporter and arms merchant to President Bashar al-Assad of Syria.

Exactly. And that's why you should not be handing the Kremlin moral victors that are unnecessary when you can permanently graduate Russia and leave the legislation in place. Again, there is no reason except politics for not doing this.

The Times calls Jackson-Vanik "a costly anachronism." What's a costly anachronism is Russia's Soviet-like behaviour, and we should not be removing any moral checks against it. Russia should not have a say on whether legislation is abolished or not, and what was good enough for Ukraine should be applied to Russia — permanent waiver.

As I wrote more than a year ago when a day-long conference was held on this subject:

This simple construct — graduate don't repeal — seemed to be hard to get across, so avid is the desire of some to remove any "legacy of the Cold War," so heavy is the Russian pressure, and so eager are some who remain very, very concerned about human rights in Russia to appear fair and not be appearing to move the goalposts. I quite appreciate the creative ideas for continuing to keep the spotlight on Russian abuses, using all kinds of existing mechanisms, whether hearings at CSCE or reports from the US CIRF. But these activities, while merited, have no legislative action component.

Again, read this post for all the legal fine points

Recently on Twitter, a man named Arkady Dvorkovich who said he was a presidential advisor argued strenuously with me, demanding complete abolition of Jackson-Vanik as Russian officials always do, and failing to grasp that repeal of the law was not necessary to achieve his goals. He kept ranting about the US "harming itself" by facing higher tariffs for cars or whatever — but there is no need to construct the issue in this fashion once Russia is permanently graduated.

It's typical of the hysteria around this law and the pro-Kremlin spinning of it that never is the simple proposition of permanent graduation and passing a resolution to that effect ever discussed.

Those concerned about actual Russian human rights abuses such as the appalling death of Magnitsky in prison try to frame this issue as "repeal Jackson Vanik, but do other things like sanctions against those who killed Magnitsky". That's great, but again, and certainly better than the total capitulation that Obama plans, but there's no need to repeal a law when you can end its application.

A little-noticed maneuver by the "progressives" and supporters of Obama's plan was a gimmick to try to get the Jackson-Vanik amendment to the 1974 Trade Act (which is the form this law came in) repealed by a lawsuit. Edward Lozansky, an emigre who in fact once benefited from the climate of this law in campaigning to get his refuseniks spouse permission to emigrate to the US, and who has long supported the Kremlin's agenda in this regard, filed the lawsuit but it failed — using the dubious gambit of claiming that he suffered loss of income if business between the US and Russia were harmed by its continuation. So it failed for the simple reason that the claim was not convincing and the court lacks jurisdiction. This is a matter for Congress.

Permanent and unconditional normal trade status was granted to Kyrgyzstan and Georgia in 2000; China in 2002; Armenia in January 2005; Ukraine in 2006. The same can be done for Russia.