National Interreligious Consultation on Soviet Jewry

National Interreligious Consultation on Soviet Jewry A Project of the National Interreligious Task Force on Soviet Jewry 1307 SOUTH WABASH, CHICAC YOUR INFORMATION Honorary National Chairman October 20, 1972 HON. R. SARGENT SHRIVER jSAIAH TERMAN

National Co-Chairmen TO: Participants in the National Interreligious SISTER MARGARET ELLEN TRAXLER Consultation on Soviet Jewry PROFESSOR ANDRE LaCOCQUE REV. ROBERT G. STEPHANAPOLOUS RABBI MARC H. TANENBAUM FROM: Task Force Co-Chairmen Honorary Sponsors REV. RALPH D. ABERNATHY HON. HERMAN BADILLO SUBJECT: Soviet Ransom Exit Fees LEONARD BERNSTEIN HON. JULIAN BOND HON. EDWARD BROOKE WILLIAM F. BUCKLEY, JR. MISS DOROTHY DAY By now you have all read of the shocking news of HON. CHARLES EVERS HON. GERALD FORD the imposition by the Soviet government of "ransom" ARTHUR GODFREY HON. ARTHUR GOLDBERG fees for exit permits to emigrate from the U.S.S.R. HON. JOHN A. GRONOUSKI GEN. ALFRED M. GRUENTHER HON. FRED HARRIS So that you will more fully understand the problem, MRS. LA DONNA HARRIS HON. PHILIP HART we are enclosing a fact sheet prepared by the W. RANDOLPH HEARST, JR. REV. THEODORE HESBURGH National Conference on Soviet Jewry and copies of RABBI ABRAHAM J. HESCHEL RT. REV. JOHN HINES newsclips from the New York Times. HON. HAROLD HUGHES HIS EMINENCE IAKOVOS HON. DANIEL INOUYE MISS MAHALIA JACKSON* We ask that all participants take the following DR. CLARK KERR actions: TOM LANDRY WILLIE MAYS PROF. HANS J. MORGENTHAU HON. WAYNE MORSE 1. Send firm letters to local newspapers. The HON. RICHARD OGILVIE HON. CHARLES PERCY material from the NCSJ can serve as back- A. PHILIP RANDOLPH JACKIE ROBINSON ground. BAYARD RUSTIN HON. HUGH SCOTT HON. ADLAI STEVENSON III 2. Send telegrams and letters to the White House, ED SULLIVAN THEODORE H. WHITE to the Secretary of State and other U. S. ROY WILKINS officials urging their intercession. Please Task Force note that the targets are the decision makers REV. EDWARD FLANNERY DR. JERALD BRAUER in the Soviet Union, rather than in Washington. MSGR. JOHN GORMAN However, we believe that the administration SR. ADRIAN MARIE HOFSTETTER RICHARD H. LEVIN has a significant role to play. DR. CLYDE MANSCHRECK SR. SUZANNE NOFFKE REV. JOHN PAWLIKOWSKI J. COERT RYLAARSDAM 3. Send letters, etc., to the Soviet authorities DR. JOSEPH SITTLER ELMER WINTER in Washington. DAVID GELLER Chairman, Coordinating Committee 4. Write to U. N. Secretary Kurt Waldheim urging (*) Deceased the use of his office with Soviet U. N. officials in N. Y.

5. Useful addresses: - 2 -

President Richard M. Nixon The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue Washington, D. C. 20500

Secretary of State William P. Rogers 2201 "C" Street, N. W. Washington, D. C. 20520

Ambassador Jacob Malik Soviet Mission to the U. N. 136 East 67th Street New York, N. Y. 10021

Elliott P. Richardson Secretary of Health, Education & Welfare 330 Independence Avenue, S. W. Washington, D. C.

Secretary General Kurt Waldheim United Nations New York, N. Y.

Ambassador George Bush U. S. Mission to the U. N. 799 U. N. Plaza New York, N. Y. 10017

Ambassador Anatoly Dobrynin Soviet Embassy 1125 16th Street, N. W. Washington, D. C. 20036

We hope that you will take an active part in these activities. It is important that a cam- paign of conscience be launched against the Soviet government's policy of extortion.

Please send us copies of your communications and replies, if any, and keep us informed of your activities.

Our sincerest thanks for your cooperation.

PoS. Enclosed is a belated report of the March 1972 consultation. The recommendations for follow-up action on many levels - on pages 15 through 19 - are still very much in order. NATIONAL CONFERENCE ON SOVIET JEWRY 11 WEST 42nd STREET NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10036

"SOVIET EXIT FEES - THE RANSOM OF JEWS"

On August 3rd of this year the Soviet Union took a dramatic and, in the eyes of many, a crass and materialistic step, to halt the in- creasing demands of Jews to emigrate to Israel or elsewhere. These demands reflected the frustration of many Soviet Jews who have re- peatedly expressed their desire to leave--to be reunited with families, or to emigrate--in order to live as Jews. A new law, number 572, was considered by the powerful Council of Ministers on that date and put into force on August 14th.

• • The most notorious aspect of the decree is that a schedule of fees was set up for "reimbursement for education" from Soviet citizens who leave the USSR, especially those who, as in the case of Jews, have been forced to renounce their citizenship. While the new decree has not yet been widely publicized in the Soviet Union, local OVIR (Office of Visas and Registration) officials now have a printed schedule of the fees. In addition to a fee of 5400R for high school, the lowest single fee is 4500 rubles (5400) for a teacher's degree. The highest is 12,200R for a doctorate. The fees are incremental. Thus, a holder of the first degree (equivalent of Baccalaureate) would have to pay 5500R for that degree, plus the 5500R for high school. A candidate of Sciences, such as Dr. Benyamin Levich, would have to pay 12,200R plus 5500R (first degree) plus another 5500R (for high school) equalling 23,200R or approximately $25,000. There is also evidence that a fee of 72OOR is to be charged for anyone who defended his thesis, making the total about 33,000 dollars for Levich.

It remains unclear how thorough the application of the law will be. What is apparent at the moment is that the section on high school education applies to all types of secondary education: technical, vocational and academic. There is even the possibility that the fees will be pro-rated, which would mean that a 15 year old child would be charged for the two years or so of high school that he had already completed. The inclusion of a fee for high school thus means that the new tax is applicable to virtually every Jewish family who applied to emigrate. There are few people in the Soviet Union who are without a high school education.

First rumors of the decision, which went into effect on August 14, reached the NCSJ on that same day. But the world was appraised of the actual situation when ten Jewish scientists called a press conference on August 15. Decrying the levying of the fees, Prof. Benyamin Levich, a corresponding member of the Academy of Sciences and the only person of that rank known to have applied to emigrate, - 2 -

called them a form of "twentieth century slavery." Among the others commenting at the highly ususual news conference was Vladimir Zaslavsky who said that with this new tactic Soviet authorities were oppressing intellectual Jews and that it would deeply affect general movement.

It must be recognized that the average Soviet Jew does not have the required money which in reality represents more than several times his yearly salary. For example, a teacher would probably earn 80-100 rubles per month. An engineer might begin working at 120-140R per month and then go to 200R, with seniority, while an MD would start at 120-130R per month and then increase with seniority. Only in the case of the scientists is there the beginning of a truly decent salary of 200-250R per month as a base. A few in the highest echelons of research could earn as much as 500R, but this is rare. To inten- sify the severity of the decree, the applicant cannot, under the regulations of the law, offer personal property in lieu of money. Only money will be accepted.

It is our understanding at this time that the new law is to be applied primarily, but not only, to those who renounce Soviet citizenship upon leaving the Soviet Union. For some time, Soviet authorities have been forcing Jews who emigrate to Israel to go through this process. Until last week, the practice made Soviet Jews liable for a 500R fee under a 1942 law, in addition to "costs" of 400R, for a total 900 ruble exit fee. Originally, it was applicable to persons residing in the Soviet Union who intended afterwards to go to a "capitalist country." As conceived during the war period, this tax was not directed at Soviet citizens. At the moment it is unclear as to whether the new law applies only to those who apply to go to Israel or whether it extends to Jews going to other countries as well. However, there is at least one known case of a woman who had a visa for the United States who was billed for her educational degrees this past week.

The apparent reasons for the move are several. It reflects in many ways the sense of despair on the part of Soviet authorities. To this date, no matter how they have tried to intimidate Jews, the movement has grown and flourished and the number who apply to emigrate continues to increase. Moreover, the number of highly skilled scientists who apply has also grown. Some observers believe that the Soviet move may well represent an attempt to stem this trend. In very subtle ways it may be an attempt to limit the number of Jews who seek higher education. Knowing that he may be charged exorbitant fees if he ever decides to leave, a Soviet Jew might opt not to continue his education at all. Finally, this tactic may be a deliberate effort on the part of the Soviet Union - 3 - to obtain much needed hard currency--if they assume that the American Jewish community will pay "ransom" for their brethren. This is especially significant in light of the need for Moscow to expand its hard currency reserves for cash purchases of Western goods, especially wheat from the United States.

The human drama of the new situation is illustrated by the fact that at this moment in Moscow there are at least 5 Jewish families with visas in hand who cannot raise the newly imposed tax, and whose exit visas will therefore expire shortly. They are: Konstantin Katrov, Lev Syrkin, Yuri Putilyansky, Vladimir Elyapin and Naum Fayzik. The ultimate effect of the new law is the addition of a virtually insur- mountable obstacle in the path of Jews who desire to emigrate to Israel. The drawn out, often humiliating, procedure for filing a visa application, including the necessary character references, must still be followed. Now, however, in addition to the existing fee of approximately 1100 dollars per person over 16, there is the addi- tional schedule of fees, or "ransom" which could effectively halt what the Soviet Union has been unable to do through harassment and imprisonment.

October 1972 72-700-51 THE AMERICAN JEWISH COMMITTEE Institute of Human Relations 165 East 56 Street New York, N.Y. 10022

THE SOVIET "HEAD TAX" AND INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS

World attention has focused in recent weeks on the Soviet policy ob- ligating citizens seeking to emigrate to reimburse the government for the free education they received. This "head tax," particular- ly burdensome for the large numbers of Jews eager to leave for Israel, and amounting to many thousands of dollars for those with university training, has been justified by Soviet spokesmen as a debt owed by citizens educated at state expense, however long they may have worked in the vocation for which they were trained. It has also been defended as a measure to prevent a Soviet "brain drain"—that is, ex- cessive loss of professional and other skilled personnel through emigration.

In presenting these arguments, Soviet officials have cited a 1970 UNESCO resolution which declared that "the growth of higher education and the raising of its standard in the different countries, especially in the developing countries, are incompatible with the emigration of talent," and which called on "member states to take appropriate measures to restrict encouragement of foreign scientists to leave, or not return to, their country."

As is indicated in the wording of the resolution, UNESCO was primarily concerned with the brain-drain problems of developing countries and not with highly industrialized and powerful countries, a high proportion of whose citizens are skilled and educated. Soviet spokesmen ignore, of course, other international agreements which fail to support their position, most notably Article 13 (2) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which states: "Everyonj has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country."

In June 1972, in Uppsala, Sweden, legal and human rights experts from some 25 countries joined in a colloquium to examine the meaning and implications of this article in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Brought together under the auspices of the Law Faculty of Uppsala University, the Ren! Cassin International Institute for Human Rights, in France, and the Jacob Blaustein Institute for fhe Advance- ment of Human Rights, in New York, the participants reviewed current policies and practices around the world related to the right, to leave and to return. Taking as their springboard a group of drai. prin- ciples approved in 1963 by the UN Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities, they adopted a Declara- tion on the subject.

Many of the points in the Uppsala Declaration have direct bearing on the Soviet education tax, and it is clear that the restrictions -2-

imposed by the Soviet Union run directly counter to the views of outstanding leaders in the democratic world.

For example, Article 4(a) of the Declaration states that no state "shall subject a person or his family to reprisals, sanctions, pen- alties or harassment, for seeking to exercise or for exercising the right to leave a country."

Article 5(c) declares, "No special fees, taxes or other exactions shall be imposed for exercising the right to leave a country."

Article 6 reads, "A person's right to leave a country shall be subject only to such reasonable limitations as are necessary to prevent a clear and present danger to the national security of public order, or to comply with international health regulations; and only if such limitations are provided for by law, are clear and specific, are not subject to arbitrary application and do not destroy the substance of the rights."

Article 17 states, "The limitations permitted under this Declaration shall be applied without regard to race, colour, sex, language, re- ligion, political or other opinion, national or ethnic minority, education, profession, skill, property, birth, marriage or other status, and shall not be applied for any purpose other than for which they are permitted."

Clearly the Soviet education tax does not pass these tests.

It is also clear that the professed aim of the tax as a measure to prevent the brain drain is a subterfuge. For at the same time that would-be emigrants are "discouraged" from leaving the Soviet Union on the ground that their skills are needed in the country, they are punished for requesting permission to depart by dismissal from their posts. In such a context the claim that the tax is intended to re- duce the brain drain can hardly be said to carry much credibility.

It has also been pointed out that many other, non-coercive methods exist to discourage the departure of skilled citizens, including offers of career security, higher salaries, opportunities for promo- tion, budgetary support for research and opportunities for contact with professional counterparts abroad, and similar measures that would make it attractive for scientists, technicians and other persons with needed skills to remain in their native country.

The Soviet Constitution guarantees its citizens an unconditional right to free education at all levels (Article 121), and nowhere suggests an obligation on the part of individual citizens to reimburse the state for that education under particular circumstances. The imposition of such an obligation is clearly a retrogression which runs counter to the worldwide thrust for free universal education. To impose such an obligation retroactively—that is, after the citizens have availed themselves of a right their Constitution assured them was without strings—cannot be defended on any 1

' •-

generally recognized legal grounds, including those embodied in Soviet law. It is true that under Soviet law, graduates of professional schools are required to accept assigned employment in the profession for which they were trained for a period of up to three years. However, the law contains no provision for reimbursement to the state by individuals who forsake the occupation for which they were trained, even during the obligatory three-year period of inden- ture. To impose such taxes on professionals who have worked in their fields for a number of years is to ignore the fact that their efforts have already repaid the state for its investment. Further- more, unlike emigrants from the United States and other Western countries who choose to retire to countries in the Soviet bloc, emigrants who leave the Soviet Union must forfeit the pensions they have earned. Such forfeiture must, of course, be seen as another offset for any alleged educational debt.

Finally, there is even serious question about whether the "head tax" has any standing in Soviet law. According to a 1958 decree of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet, all decrees of the Presidium con- cerning matters of general and normative import—as this surely is—must be published in the records of the Supreme Soviet. Yet, as of Sept- ember 14, 19 72, the records of the Supreme Soviet contain no reference to such a tax. Thus it would seem that a ruling which has the effect of preventing many persons from exercising their fundamental liber- ties has been imposed by administrative fiat in defiance not only of the general international norm, but of Soviet law as well.

Sidney Liskofsky Director, Division of International Organizations

November 19 72

72-570-16 On the Ransom Tax There have been public statements to the effect that while the ransom tax imposed on Jews wishing to leave the U.S.S.R. is exorbitant, the basic principle, namely, a country's wish to prevent a "brain drain" and/or its right to expect repayment for the free higher education it provided, is understandable. In that connection the following points should be kept in mind: 1. In an article in Literaturnaya Gazeta of July 29, 1970, the Soviet statistician B. Urlanis pointed out that after four to five years of productive work any Soviet citizen reimburses the State for all expenses incurred in connection with educational training he may have received. Most of those departing—or wishing to depart—for Israel have worked for 10, 20 and 30 years. On that basis a case could be made that the Soviet state owes money to these departing citizens.

2. Soviet Jews leaving for Israel forfeit not only their government bonds, apart- ments, etc., but also their pensions. Israel will have to support the retirees who have given all of their productive lives to the Soviet state. Relevant, in this connection, is the fact that when a person living in a "capitalist" state moves to a "socialist" state he does not lose any of his pension rights. For example, there are thousands of naturalized Americans who have chosen to live out their remaining years in Poland; their Social Security checks are mailed to themregularly, as are their American trade union pensions. Communist Poland, for its part, is only too happy to get the foreign currency. The same situation prevails in the case of retirees from Western European countries (e.g., France, Belgium) who choose to return to other countries of the Soviet bloc.

3. While the Soviet Jews in question were enjoying the privileges of free higher education, they were also fulfilling all the obligations of Soviet citizenship— e.g., paying taxes and/or serving in the army. Quite a few fathers, brothers and sons of those now leaving for Israel actually gave their lives for the Soviet Union.

4. Soviet Jews leaving for Israel must renounce their Soviet citizenship—a procedure that is not obligatory in the case of persons leaving for other "capitalist" countries—e.g., United States, Canada, etc. (Only Portugal, the Union of South Africa and Rhodesia are in the same category with Israel.) The exit payments for education received implies that the Soviet state views their loss of citizenship as retroactive, which is, of course, opposed to the letter and the spirit of Soviet law. If,'however, these persons are now viewed as never having been citizens, they could, with good basis, demand that the Soviet state compensate them for work while unjustly imprisoned, for loss of health while in Soviet camps, etc.

5. A great deal of the wealth of the Soviet Union has been accrued through the efforts and skills of members of the Jewish community.

6. Under Soviet law the State is supposed to provide various ethnic and cultural groups the means to engage in cultural activities and preserve their cultural traditions. This, of course, has been denied to the Jews as a group with concom- itant financial savings for the State.

BACKGROUND MEMORANDUM David Geller, American Jewish Committee 73-560-2