New Soviet Emigration Reform Law May No Go Far Enough, Groups Say

Soviet Jewry advocacy groups are less than enthusiastic about the long-awaited emigration reform bill finally enacted Monday by the Soviet parliament.

They say it does not meet some longstanding concerns about the arbitrariness of Soviet emigration policy.

The Bush administration was more positive about the adoption of the law, but cautioned Monday that it had not yet seen the text of the legislation.

Both the White House and State Department said it was too soon to say whether the legislation meets President Bush’s requirements for providing the Soviets with U.S. trade benefits long barred under the Jackson-Vanik Amendment.

The law, which codifies a number of emigration reforms already in place, was adopted 320-37, with 32 abstentions. Conservative hard-liners had blocked passage of the law three times last week.

Also adopted was the necessary implementation legislation. The step-by-step plans for implementing the law will be announced later.

But the law will not go into effect until Jan. 1, 1993, six months later than originally proposed.

The National Conference on Soviet Jewry issued a statement saying it would “reserve comment” on the new law, until it can be analyzed “to ascertain whether or not it addresses our concerns.”

The group said it would “welcome all Soviet measures toward the fulfillment of that nation’s human rights obligations” under the Helsinki Accords and other international documents.

But Pamela Cohen, president of the Union of Councils for Soviet Jews, said flatly that the new law “does not meet international standards.”

A ‘MAJOR STEP’ TOWARD REFORM

The State Department welcomed the law’s enactment, though spokeswoman Margaret Tutwiler said the United States would have liked to see it implemented sooner.

“We have for almost two decades made the right of Soviet citizens to emigrate an important part of U.S.-Soviet relations,” said Tutwiler. “We regard this as a major step to the overall prospect of reform in the Soviet Union and the fulfillment” of Soviet commitments under the Helsinki Accords.

“The very fact that procedures once subject to the arbitrary implications of unpublished regulations are now established in law, in our view, is a positive development,” she said.

White House spokesman Marlin Fitzwater called the law’s adoption a “hopeful sign,” but added: “We don’t know if it has a lot of conditions in it or other problems.”

The National Conference said the concerns it wants to see addressed by the new law include an elimination of emigration refusals based on alleged access to state secrets, military conscription or outstanding obligations to “poor relatives.”

“We trust that the new legislation will fully address our concerns, especially in light of the fact that the Soviet Union will host the September 1991 Moscow Conference on the Human Dimension,” the group said.

But Cohen of the Union of Councils, who recently saw a draft of the bill while in Moscow, said the law does not address these concerns.

As an example, she said there is no definition of secrecy or the areas deemed secret. Secrecy is increasingly being used to deny exit visas for arbitrary reasons, she said.

“As long as there is no independent judiciary and as long as individuals are still subject to the political interest of the state, human rights are always in question,” she said.

The National Conference, however, said it was more interested in actual Soviet emigration practices than in the policies being codified in legislation.

“In the final analysis, it is Soviet performance that counts,” the group said in its statement. It pledged to continue monitoring Jewish emigration “so that all who wish to exercise their basic human right to leave the USSR will be free to do so.”

Cohen urged Bush not to waive Jackson-Vanik Amendment trade sanctions until the law is implemented and is shown to be working.