I do not quite understand. though. how this mechanism is supposed to work. The examples of Czechoslovakia and Romania are not entirely reassuring. Among all the cases being made in favor of MFN treatment for the Soviet Union. there is not one that points to assurances being given by the Soviet Union with respect to future emigration policies. The Soviet Union. thus far. has not been willing to give assurances in order to be eligible for the waiver provisions in the JacksonVanik amendment. From their point of view the linkage of trade to emigration issues constitutes an interference with internal matters and is. thus. not negotiable. What. then. has actually been changed since. back in 1974. Gromyko. in a letter to then Secretary of State Kissinger. resolutely declined the interpretation that any pledges or assurances as to the Soviet treatment of prospective emigrants had been or would ever be given to the United States? What has been changed since the Soviet Union. in the context of the JacksonVanik amendment and the letters exchanged between Kissinger and Gromyko thereon. declared the commercial agreements negotiated under the Nixon administration null and void? I do not want to overemphasize the need for assurances.
Keywords matched
emigration emigrants