Pressure tool? The U.S. is in no rush to lift the Jackson-Vanik amendment concerning Uzbekistan.

The Jackson-Vanik amendment, enacted by the U.S. Congress in 1974, imposed trade restrictions on the USSR. However, even after the country's dissolution, it continued to apply to the post-Soviet republics, including Uzbekistan. International lawyer Saidaziz Alimov discussed its actual impact on Uzbek-American trade relations with Kun.uz. He believes that the amendment should be repealed if the U.S. views Uzbekistan as a strategic partner.

https://kun.uz/ru/news/2025/01/23/instrument-davleniya-ssha-ne-speshat-otmenyat-popravku-djyeksona-venika-v-otnoshenii-uzbekistana2025-01-24 08:52:13

The new American administration under Donald Trump views the retention of the amendment in relations with the Central Asian republics as a relic of the past.

“Listen, this is a remnant of a bygone era. There are those who insist on keeping the amendment as a leverage to extract concessions in human rights or to pressure Central Asian countries to align more decisively with us rather than with Russia and its ilk. But I think, in some cases, it is an absurd relic of the past,” stated U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio.

Why does this legal norm still exist, despite the dissolution of the USSR?

Alimov explained that in the U.S. there is a trade law regulating export and import issues, including customs duties. The Jackson-Vanik amendment modifies this law by prohibiting the granting of most-favored-nation status in trade to countries with non-market economies.

The expert noted that this provision was primarily implemented against the Soviet Union due to the immigration issues of certain population groups. However, it continued to be in effect even after the USSR's collapse. Despite these countries gaining sovereignty, Uzbekistan still remains among those to which this amendment applies. However, as practice has shown, the consequences of this limitation are not as significant, according to Alimov.

Examples can be seen in Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan, which also remain under the amendment's jurisdiction but are actively developing trade relations with the U.S. American businesses operate in these countries.

In Alimov's opinion, the Jackson-Vanik amendment does not significantly impact bilateral relations with the U.S. If Uzbekistan is a strategic partner for the U.S., then there is no point in continuing the application of this amendment. It would be more important to sign an agreement on avoiding double taxation, which could substantially increase the flow of American investments into the country.

The Jackson-Vanik amendment does not directly mention the Soviet Union but refers to countries with non-market economies. Therefore, even after the USSR's dissolution, countries like Uzbekistan continue to fall under its purview, despite their declaration of transitioning to a market economy. The issue of excluding it from application regarding Central Asian countries has already been raised, for example, in a report presented to the U.S. Congress in 2012. At that time, the need to reconsider the application of this norm was discussed, as Central Asia now represents a market with a market economy, and immigration issues have lost their relevance.

Nevertheless, the process of excluding a country from the Jackson-Vanik amendment requires the approval of the U.S. Congress, which is a complex political process.