Foreign Relations of the United States, 1981–1988, Volume XLI, Global Issues II

110. Action Memorandum From the Acting Director of the Bureau of Refugee Programs Department of State, (Funseth); the Acting Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs (Thomas); the Legal Adviser of the Department of State (Sofaer); the Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs (Murphy); and the Assistant Secretary of State for Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs (Schifter) to Secretary of State Shultz¹

Washington, July 5, 1988

SUBJECT

• “Direct Flights” of Soviet Jewish Emigrants

ISSUE FOR DECISION

Whether to discuss with the Soviets and/or Austrians ways to preserve the ability of Soviet Jews to come to the United States.

ESSENTIAL FACTORS

As indicated in HA’s Information Memorandum of June 22, 1988 (Tab A),² the Israeli Cabinet has now formally decided to pursue “direct flights” for Soviet Jews as a means of eliminating the high numbers of potential immigrants who currently “drop out” in Vienna en route to Israel. In December 1987 you authorized discussion of this problem within the Department and with the Department of Justice and the INS, as appropriate (Tab B),³ once it was confirmed that direct flights would actually take place. The Israeli Cabinet decision has not yet been implemented, but it would be prudent for us to assume that it will be. Accordingly, this memorandum presents our recommendations.

Soviet law limits eligibility for emigration to persons who are sponsored by “first-degree” relatives (spouse, parent, child or sibling) living abroad. Those with such a sponsor may be granted exit permission for the country of the sponsor. This “first-degree-relative” requirement has been waived for ethnic Germans emigrating to W. Germany, Armenians emigrating to the U.S., and Jews emigrating to Israel. Thus, a Soviet Jew may receive an exit permit if sponsored by an Israeli cousin, but not if sponsored by a U.S. cousin. That is why most Soviet Jews qualify only for emigration to Israel.

Under the Israeli plan, Jewish emigrants who have “vyzovs” (invitations) from Israel would be able to obtain Israeli immigrant visas only if they proceed to Romania. We expect that Israel, in order to implement this plan, will instruct the Dutch to cease issuing visas to Soviet Jews in Moscow, thus leaving Romania as the only feasible location for Soviet Jews to obtain Israeli immigration visas. As a practical matter, it is extremely unlikely that Romania will permit such persons to “drop out” and travel to any destination but Israel.

The Dutch, who represent Israel’s interests in Moscow, currently issue Israeli immigration visas for those Soviet Jews who transit Vienna. Although Israel will soon open a consular affairs office in the USSR, it appears that the Dutch may continue to issue some Israeli visas after that date (i.e., the Soviets may not allow Israeli consular officials in Moscow to issue visas). To date, the Dutch have not received formal instructions reflecting the Israeli Cabinet’s decision. When they do receive such instructions, they will have to decide whether to comply or to stop issuing Israeli visas entirely.

At present, Soviet Jews who have Israeli immigrant visas travel to Austria on an Austrian transit visa. Unless Austria changes its policies, these people will not qualify for Austrian transit visas if they do not have an Israeli immigrant visa. The absence of an Israeli visa will thus eliminate the option for Soviet Jews to travel to Vienna and onward to the United States. Even if Jewish emigrants do possess Austrian transit visas, we do not know if the Soviet authorities would permit them to depart for Vienna if they have Soviet exit documentation for Israel but no Israeli visa.

Under present U.S. law, persons are “firmly resettled” once they arrive in a country that permits them to remain there on some sort of permanent basis. (See current U.S. refugee regulations at Tab C.)⁴ This test is easily met in the case of Soviet Jews arriving in Israel, because the Israeli “law of return” automatically grants any recognized Jew the right to remain there.

The Justice Department has proposed changes to the asylum regulations (Tab D)⁵ which, if adopted, could at some future date be extended to apply to refugees. If the options recommended below are not approved or are not effective, we may at that time consider recommending that the changes in the asylum regulations be extended to the refugee regulations (see Tab E).⁶ [Contrary to the suggestion in a recent Evans and Novak column,⁷ the changes proposed for the asylum regulations were principally motivated by the situation of refugees other than Soviet Jews.]⁸

Given these circumstances, preservation of the ability of Soviet Jews to come to the United States may depend upon a change in Soviet or Austrian visa policies. All Bureaus therefore recommend the following options:

OPTIONS

1. Try to persuade the Soviets to allow Soviet Jews to emigrate to the U.S. if sponsored by someone other than a first-degree relative.

The Soviets allow this kind of flexibility for Jews who receive “vyzovs” from Israel, and for Armenians going to the U.S. and ethnic Germans going to West Germany. We should ask the Soviets to extend the waiver of the “first-degree relative” requirement to Jews sponsored by persons in the United States who are not first-degree relatives.

2. Ask the Soviets to allow those with a Soviet exit permit for Israel to leave the country without an Israeli visa.

The Soviets currently insist that immigrant visas obtained by applicants match their exit permit designations. They may be willing to alter this practice, but it is likely they would insist on some sort of U.S. documentation for such emigrants, comparable to what we now provide Armenian emigrants.

3. Ask the Austrians to continue issuing transit visas in the foregoing cases.

The Austrians may be willing to change their policy and issue transit visas to Soviet Jews who do not have Israeli immigrant visas, on the understanding that these persons would be admissible to the United States. The Austrians may insist that we issue some sort of U.S. documentation first.

RECOMMENDATIONS

1. That we urge the Soviets to accept U.S. invitations for Soviet Jews from sponsors who are not first-degree relatives. (Favored by all Bureaus).⁹

2. That we urge the Soviets to allow Jews who have exit permits for Israel to leave even without an Israeli visa. (Favored by all Bureaus).¹⁰

3. That we ask the Austrians to issue transit visas to Soviet Jews who are not in possession of Israeli immigrant visas. (Favored by all Bureaus).¹¹

1. Source: Department of State, Correspondence File—Ambassador Richard Schifter CHRON and Subject Files, 1984–1991, Lot 94D411, R. Schifter’s Monthly Chron–July 1988. Confidential. Drafted by Burgess and cleared in RP/RAP, L/HRR, EUR/SOV, NEA/IAI, and L. A stamped notation on the memorandum indicates Shultz saw it.
2. Tab A is attached but not printed.
3. Tab B, dated December 7, 1987, is attached but not printed.
4. Tab C, undated, is attached but not printed.
5. Tab D, dated April 6, 1988, and August 28, 1987, is attached but not printed.
6. Tab E, undated, is attached but not printed.
7. Details are available in Rowland Evans and Robert Novak, “Opening the U.S. Door to Soviet Jews,” Washington Post, June 27, 1988, p. A15.
8. Brackets in the original.
9. Shultz marked the disapprove option on July 8.
10. Shultz marked the disapprove option on July 8.
11. Shultz marked the disapprove option on July 8. In the margin below option 3, Shultz’s staff added another option: “4. GPS stated ‘that we urge the Soviets to ease all people who wish to depart, Jews and non-Jews and ask Austrians to ease all bureaucratic obstacles to freedom of movement and choice.’ Actions taken #4, Secto 14020, 7/8/88, M. Haines.” Telegram 14020 from Shultz’s delegation in Bangkok is in the Department of State, Central Foreign Policy File, N880005–0326.