> Behalf Of Gautam Mukunda > While I strongly oppose farm subsidies, I find it striking that you choose > to criticize the US in this manner. After all our policies are free trade > compared to those of Europe, for example. Walter Russell Mead, in fact, > memorably commented in the Kennedy School a few months ago that the single > Western policy that does the most harm to the world's poor is the European > Common Agricultural Policy. While I am actually _in agreement_ with you > that the US should end farm subsidies (if Australia is willing to do the > same, of course - are you?) we are very far from the worst offenders. >
Australia doesn't have ANY farm/agricultural subsidies and hasn't for years. Yes, the European CAP is worse than what the US does to our agricultural sector, but what pisses people off here is the duplicity of the US in supporting - requiring, even - fair trade in almost everything else except agriculture. Don't forget, we had to take the US to the WTO to get illegal tariffs that were applied to Australian lamb exports removed. That whole process took years. There are quite a few agricultural exporters that have basically had to go through the same process. And worst, your "export subsidies" in wheat, sugar and other crops are then used in areas where Australia has long had markets to basically dump otherwise far more expensive US products. We always thought we were a close friend and ally of the US, but every so often we find out just how much that counts. Trading with Iran gives Australia some income that we need. It is also something that has a VERY long history in Australia, right back to when Britain controlled Mesopotamia. I sort of like the idea that we've helped keep a few generations of Iranians fed and clothed. > > Gautam: > Well, that's what they _say_ they want to do. But it's kind of convenient > that what they say they want to do also means that they get the > profits from > trading with Iran and access to Iranian oil. Now, maybe that's > all it is - > just convenient. But it seems at least fair to acknowledge that there's > another possibility. We Americans are always told that our foreign policy > is hostage to our business interests. But we cut our businesses off from > trading with Iran, Iraq, North Korea, and Cuba, for example. You > can debate > the wisdom of that (I think it's incredibly dumb in the case of Cuba, for > example) No, keep it going cos we can keep on exporting to Cuba. So can Canada, etc. And a couple of my smoking friends like the occasional Cuban cigar. ;-) > but it's impossible to argue that this is an example of the > American government kowtowing to business interests. When other countries > trade with terrorist governments, I think it's fair to raise the > possibility > that they are doing so because it's a good way to make profits. > It's at least a legitimate question to ask whether trade with Iran or > shutting the door would be the most effective way to encourage > liberalization. Iran is DEFINITELY liberalising. After 20 to 30 years of revolutionary turmoil the population is now starting to demand its freedoms. It would be foolish to cut Iran off from the rest of the world right now. As it is, Iran is the ONLY democratic nation between India and Israel. It has a way to go, but could very easily become a friend of the west if contact is continued and strengthened. There is a very strong chance now for the West to be seen to really help the Islamic world by rebuilding Afghanistan and supporting Iran. And the window is open to help get Pakistan back into the fold of liberal nations, too. Yes, Iran has in the past strongly supported Hamas. I'm yet to be convinced that providing arms to the Palestinean Authority is an act of terrorism - it seems a legitimate transaction to me - but it has clearly been a supporter of terrorism in the past. Today however, I'd be very surprised if funding and support for Hamas, Islamic Jihad etc is not predominantly from Saudi and Egypt - certainly Islamic Jihad seems to have an awful lot of Egyptians in its ranks. >I think that the single most effective thing we > could do to > encourage that is topple Saddam Hussein, because I can't think of > a clearer > way to make sure that everyone in the Middle East knows that the > day of the > dictators and terrorists is over, once and for all, because _we_ will not > permit such behaviour to continue. So long as, in the process, America doesn't itself become the dictator of world events. A little bit of listening would be nice, right now. As for toppling Saddam, antagonising Iran is a pretty dumb thing to start the process with. What are the two main Iraqi opposition groups to Saddam? The southern Shi'ites and the northern Kurds. Jeroen has pointed out the obvious fact that arming and training the Kurds will, unless a resolution to Kurdistan is found, certainly affect the Turks before too long. And Iran, with an area that the Kurds also want incorporated into their desired Kurdistan is involved in that process. Should Saddam go, the US had better get straight into arranging that resolution between the new Iraqi government, Turkey and Iran. It will be much easier if Iran is seen as a friend at that point than if it is an enemy. And where do the southern Shi'ia get their support from? Iran, of course. Again, having good relations with Iran will make it far easier to limit the backflow of arming that group, too. So, there are actually three big reasons for the US NOT to antagonise Iran right now. Brett
