THE WASHINGTON SUMMIT : Coalition of Jewish Groups to Spotlight Emigration Issue : Protesters to Rally in Washington Today Over Soviet Rights Abuses

For the Soviet Union, it has been an impressive display of human rights concessions: political prisoners set free, divided spouses reunited in the West, Jewish emigration allowed to soar.

Yet by Western standards, Moscow’s human rights record remains dismal.

Despite the release since February of 200 political prisoners--the most since tens of thousands of dissidents returned from labor camps shortly after the death of Josef Stalin--more than two-thirds of the political prisoners whose names are known in the West are still in custody.

Although the Soviets have resolved 60% of divided spouses cases by permitting husbands, wives and fiances to join their loved ones in the West, Soviet leader Mikhail S. Gorbachev has declared that he will never give Soviet citizens the right to leave the country whenever they wish.

And although Jews are being allowed to emigrate at the rate of 700 to 900 a month--compared to 914 for all of last year--the rate is still far short of what prevailed in the 1970s. And for those who remain in the Soviet Union, the government still imposes severe limits on religion and expression.

Reagan to Stress Rights

Gorbachev will come to Washington on Monday for his third summit meeting, and President Reagan has promised to give human rights equal priority in their discussions with the more high-profile issue of arms control. “Political, religious and economic oppression remains a solemn concern of the United States,” Reagan said in his Saturday radio address. “So I will raise human rights forcefully during our meetings.”

Demonstrators, expected to total tens of thousands, plan to march on the Capitol Mall today in support of Reagan’s position that the Soviet human rights glass is mostly empty, not partly full. The demonstration, organized by a coalition of Jewish groups, is intended to spotlight the Soviet government’s refusal to permit Jewish citizens either to practice their religion freely or to emigrate to another country, such as Israel or the United States, where they would be allowed to do so.

Referring to Gorbachev’s program of openness, Morris B. Abram, chairman of the National Conference on Soviet Jewry, said, “Of course, all people welcome the idea of glasnost, but it has not yet been applied to the Jewish question.”

A coalition of Christian groups plans to stage a much smaller protest Monday against Soviet persecution of Christians. According to Rep. Christopher H. Smith (R-N.J.), more than 200 Christians are in prison or psychiatric institutions for reasons of faith. In addition, he said, the government severely restricts Christian religious practices, especially by sects other than the Russian Orthodox Church, which is widely believed to be infiltrated by the KGB.

“This is not an attempt to detract from the harassment that Soviet Jews are under,” Smith said, “but it is intended to remind everyone that the Soviets are not selective in their religious persecution.”

Urged to Keep Up Pressure

Administration officials agree with the Jewish and Christian activists that Washington should keep the pressure on Moscow. Reagan himself said in a speech Thursday that trust between the superpowers can flourish only “when prisoners are released . . . the instruments of repression are dismantled and repressive laws and practices are abolished.”

But some non-government experts warned that the Soviets would have to change their entire system to meet that standard, something they are unlikely to do. The danger, according to these specialists, is that Moscow may decide that because it can never satisfy the Americans, there is no point in doing anything.

Although a relaxed human rights policy might be popular among Soviet intellectuals, the non-government experts said, it would almost certainly be opposed by old-line political leaders, including some influential members of the ruling Politburo.

“Domestic pressures will restrain Gorbachev where human rights and emigration are concerned,” said Thane Gustafson, a Georgetown University expert on Soviet policy. “Gorbachev can’t afford domestically to be seen to give in to U.S. or congressional pressure on human rights or emigration.”

In his interview with NBC News last Monday, Gorbachev was categorical in his refusal even to consider easier emigration policies. He accused the United States of trying to organize “a brain drain” by encouraging educated Soviets to leave the country.

‘We’re Protecting Ourselves’

“Of course, we’re protecting ourselves,” he said. “We will never accept a condition when the people are being exhorted from outside to leave their country.”

U.S. critics of Soviet emigration policy scoff at the “brain drain” charge because almost all Soviets who apply for exit visas automatically lose their jobs and, thus, their usefulness to the Soviet economy.

Under Soviet law, people who know “state secrets” are barred from emigration. This rule has been applied to block the departure of individuals who held government jobs or even served in the army decades ago. Moreover, would-be emigrants--regardless of age--must receive permission from their parents before they can depart, a situation that allows an 80-year-old father to prevent the exit of a 50-year-old son.

At the current pace, about 10,000 Soviet Jews will be allowed to leave the Soviet Union this year. In addition, the Soviets announced Thursday that several families that had been denied permission to leave for a decade or more would be permitted to move to Israel or the United States.

Human rights activists dismiss the increases as tokenism.

“How upsetting is the cynicism with which the Soviet Union is making these releases,” Natan Sharansky, perhaps the best-known former refusenik, said. “You can’t have a summit meeting every week.”

There seems to be no support, either in the Administration or among human rights groups, to reward Moscow for increased emigration or other measures to ease repressive policies. Abram, of the National Conference on Soviet Jewry, said his group opposes any relaxation in the so-called Jackson-Vanik amendment, which prohibits trade concessions to the Soviet Union until Moscow allows free emigration.

Abram said the pace of emigration, despite this year’s tenfold increase, was insignificant compared to the 51,000 Jews who were allowed to leave in 1979.

However, Moscow received no rewards for its 1979 performance either.

“In 1979, it would have been advisable to have had a one-year waiver of Jackson-Vanik, but that year the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan, so there was no waiver,” Abram said. “If 51,000 came out next year, without any question, we would regard that as a good performance.”

Since August, the Soviets have resolved 11 of 18 “divided spouse and blocked marriage” cases, permitting Soviet citizens to leave the country to join husbands, wives or fiances in the United States.

About 90 Americans marry Soviet citizens every year, and most of these couples hope to live in the United States. U.S. officials say Moscow usually permits Soviet citizens to join spouses abroad within about six months of marriage. But there are always some refusals.

If a couple is turned down twice, it can be included on the list of cases the State Department regularly raises with Soviet authorities. It is that list that has declined from 18 to seven in less than four months.

The Jackson-Vanik amendment and a companion measure denying U.S. government credits to the Soviet Union unless Moscow eases its emigration policy are the only two formal sanctions that Washington has tried to apply as a result of human rights abuses.

Administration officials say the United States will not attempt to “link” human rights to arms control or other matters on the U.S.-Soviet agenda. Nevertheless, Reagan has said that the atmosphere of Washington-Moscow relations will remain chilly as long as the Soviets oppress their own people.