As U.S. policymakers seek to strengthen ties with the resource-rich nations of Central Asia and the Caucasus, a key impediment revolves around the push to repeal the Jackson-Vanik Amendment and its linkage to granting Permanent Normal Trade Relations (PNTR) for countries in the region.  Congressional repeal of the legislative provision has been problematic for decades.  However, some light was recently cast on this issue during a public hearing on January 15, when U.S. Senator Steve Daines reminded Secretary of State nominee Mark Rubio of the need for increased U.S. engagement in Central Asia.  Daines along with Senator Gary Peters, co-founders of the Central Asia congressional caucus, noted during the hearing the need to increase awareness of the region in the hopes of improving trade and greater engagement with the resource-rich region.  While the recent light shined upon the Jackson-Vanik amendment is a positive sign, congressional focus and action is necessary to its repeal and for a more impactful U.S.-Central Asia trade policy. 

Central Asia is rich in energy reserves such as natural gas, oil, and critical minerals which make it a potential key player in the global race for resources.  To boost its ability to trade more broadly, Kazakhstan became a WTO member in 2015, joining Kyrgyzstan that joined in 1998 and Tajikistan which gained membership in 2013.  Uzbekistan is on track to join in 2026.  Despite the significant improvements in these countries’ transition to market economies, the Jackson-Vanik amendment remains an obstacle for U.S. companies seeking access to Central Asian resources.  The legislation blocks Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan, the two largest economies in Central Asia, as well as Tajikistan, from PNTR with the United States. 

The Jackson-Vanik amendment, often regarded as a relic of the past, is an amendment to the U.S. Trade Act of 1974 limiting U.S. trade relations with non-market economies that restricted Jewish emigration.  It links trade benefits, such as PNTR status, to compliance with freedom-of-emigration requirements.  The amendment, when adopted, applied to the Soviet Union, but now is a millstone for some former-Soviet countries.  Although subsequently lifted for most former Soviet Union countries including Russia, the countries of Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, and Tajikistan still require annual waivers to maintain normal trade relations with the United States.

During his confirmation hearing, now-Secretary of State Rubio called for the repeal of the Jackson-Vanik amendment, though he noted the decision to do so ultimately depends on a congressional vote.  The U.S. Chamber of Commerce issued a primer ten years ago that argued approval of PNTR with Kazakhstan is in the U.S. national interest.  After 10 years, debates on repealing the amendment and approving PNTR are still on the table, but have gained some attention and raised some hopes.  Rubio’s mention of Jackson-Vanik was in response to a question from Sen. Daines.  While Rubio appears to support the repeal, perhaps greater optimism lies in the new congressional caucus and its own awareness raising efforts.

Congress has not yet taken permanent action on this issue, with the president routinely certifying to Congress that most of the countries under the amendment are in compliance and eligible for preferential tariff rates and benefits.  Some U.S. offices have continued to use Jackson-Vanik to raise ongoing concerns about potential human rights challenges in the region, though the legislation was specifically adopted to directly address Soviet Jewish emigration practices.  While there are no reported emigration policy issues in these countries, there do remain questions about human rights in some of the countries that go beyond Jackson-Vanik’s vague rights provisos.  

The Global Magnitsky Act, for instance, which repealed the application of Jackson-Vanik to Russia and normalized trade relations with Russia and Moldova, has effectively rendered the Jackson-Vanik Amendment redundant. By focusing on individual human rights violators, the Magnitsky Act is the “intellectual successor” that replaces the need for Jackson-Vanik's broader approach.

However, action by Congress is necessary for the removal of what many argue is an outdated piece of legislation that inadvertently limits U.S. foreign policy and penalizes U.S. business. Certain actions, such as Senator Daines’ and Senator Peters’ initiative in forming a Central Asia caucus, could be cause for optimism, but it remains to be seen if a preoccupied Congress will make time for the repeal of Jackson-Vanik.