U.S. TAKES TOUGH STAND ON GATT FARM ISSUES
  The United States is prepared to "pull out
  all the stops" to defend its agricultural trade rights under the
  General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), U.S. Ambassador
  to GATT Michael Samuels said.
      Those rights are now being challenged by the European
  Community's (EC) agricultural support policies, he told a
  conference sponsored by the American Soybean Association.
      He reiterated Washington's firm intention to retaliate if
  the EC goes ahead and bans imports of hormone-fed beef without
  the issue being investigated by a GATT special committee.
      The U.S. claims the EC directive, due to come into effect
  on January 1, threatens to cut 100 mln dlrs worth of U.S. meat
  shipments into the EC.
      The U.S. also will oppose all EC efforts to impair U.S.
  trade via the EC oilseeds regime, which supports EC oilseed
  prices over the current market level and which may be extended
  to include a hotly disputed oils and fats tax, Samuels said.
      Reduction of trade-distorting world agricultural subsidies,
  an aim of most key participants in GATT multilateral trade
  negotiations, "is meaningless if import barriers continue to be
  erected," Samuels said.
      Samuels called the U.S. plan to eliminate world farm
  subsidies by the year 2000, proposed at GATT in July, "visionary"
  and "very serious."  The EC and Japan have said it is
  unrealistic.
      The EC Commission this month announced its draft proposal
  on farm trade reform, expected to be tabled at GATT formally
  next week.
      The EC scheme involves emergency measures to reduce
  tensions in troubled surplus sectors of cereals and cereals
  substitutes, dairy and sugar. It also calls for reduction of
  farm subsidies.
      The U.S. Is not opposed to short-term measures, as long as
  they are directly linked to long-term commitments to end major
  trade distortions, Samuels said.
      Washington will review the EC proposal when it is formally
  submitted and respond to it officially then.
      "We will consider its relation to the Punta del Este
  declaration to correct trade problems and expand market access,"
  the U.S. Ambassador said.
      The U.S. can say no to the EC proposal if the EC ignores
  the U.S. plan when it tables its own proposal, he added.
      The key difference between the two approaches is that the
  U.S. wants farm subsidies eliminated, while the EC is pushing
  only for a reduction in farm suppports, Samuels said.
      If the EC farm budget were protected by a subsidy freeze,
  there would be little incentive for the Community to work to
  correct the international trade situation, he added.
      Samuels cited the animal hormones complaint, the EC
  oilseeds regime and an EC regulation concerning meat imports to
  third countries as three crucial barriers to trade which the
  U.S. wants to see resolved under the auspices of GATT.
  

