Brett: 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. Me: So your argument is that we have a better policy than Europe in all respects. We subsidize our farmers less, and we have free trade in all other areas. But it's the _US_ you denounce constantly, but not a word of criticism for Europe and Japan - against whom the US has constantly sided _with_ Australia in attempting to lower subsidies on a global level. In fact, according to the BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/special_report/1999/11/99/battle_for_free_ trade/newsid_532000/532470.stm) that was a major issue in the last trade talks. If you represented the Australian government, Brett, I think my response would be to subsidize my farmers to a fare-thee-well, if this is the response we get. Our subsidies are created to respond to those of Europe and Japan. When theirs are dropped, ours will as well. But it's _us_ that you attack. Gee, I wonder why Americans _might not_ be receptive to your sorts of criticism. The United States was Iran's major trading partner until 1979, when some important things happened. You know, an attack on our embassy, holding our diplomats hostage, things like that. Since that time Iran has launched multiple terrorist attacks on the US. I could flip it around. American soldiers and sailors died in the Second World War to protect Australia. The United States has spent astonishing sums of money protecting Australia ever since. But you still trade with our enemies. I always thought Austalia was a close friend and ally of the US, but every so often we find out how much that counts. Sound familiar? Brett: 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. Me: Brett, you never fail to attribute malign motives to the United States. You've referred to us as bullies on more than one occassion. Why in the case of nations like Iran are you so eager to give them the benefit of the doubt? Describing Iran as a democracy is, generously, a misnomer. Some relatively powerless elected officials do not a democracy make. After all, it's the Ayatollahs who have total control of the society. Iranian dissidents are regularly arrested, tortured, and executed. The democratic forces have little or no real power in their society. That doesn't meet any sort of definition of democracy that _I'm_ aware of. Iran is in the process of liberalizing, yes. Nowhere in the above three paragraphs have you made an argument as to why President Bush's careful rhetorical distinguishment between the Iranian theocrats and reformers will not serve to strengthen the reformers. See, the _current_ Iranian government has killed a large number of my fellow citizens. I tend to get upset about that. Rafsanjani in Iran just proclaimed that when Iran gets a nuclear bomb that will change the entire Middle East because it will allow it to destroy Israel with one bomb. Jews have some experiences that suggest that people who say it's their goal to destroy them might actually mean it. So maybe the present Iranian government isn't such a nice bunch of people after all. I hope the reformers win. But - as I've argued repeatedly - the Middle East isn't filled with people who believe that when you are nice to them they should compromise with you. Arafat, Hussein, and the Iranian theocrats think that appeasing them is a sign of weakness. If we point them out _as what they are_ - evil dictators suppressing the just desires for freedom of their people - we are far more likely to strengthen the liberals than we are if we _strengthen_ the current Iranian dictatorship. Brett: 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 Me: I'll listen to people if they have good arguments. But I'm not going to listen to appeasers and people whose ideas have been completely discredited by world events. We've tried your way of doing things for far too long. Now it's time to do things differently. As for the Turkish issue - it is worth noting that the Turkish government _supports_ the United States in its efforts to topple Saddam, and has publicly stated that it will back us. Now, I think that the Turkish government is more capable of assessing its Kurdish problem than Jeroen is. The southern Shi'ites get their support from Iran now. When we're in the game, they won't need that any more, will they? Why on earth do you think that a government that has, in the past, killed hundreds, if not thousands, of civilians around the world in terrorist acts will somehow decide that it's time to be nice? If you viewed the Iranian government as suspiciously as you viewed the American government, Brett, you wouldn't be advocating this. The _current_ Iranian government is arming Afghan warlords in an attempt to topple Hamid Karzai. The _current_ Iranian government killed American servicemen in the Khobar Towers. The _current_ Iranian government is sponsoring terrorism in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. The _current_ Iranian government is shipping arms to the Palestinian Authority in violation of the Oslo Accords. It seems reasonable to me to believe that this government is going to make trouble unless it is convinced to do otherwise. The way to do that is to show it that there are consequences - real ones - for sponsoring terrorism and interfering with us in our current actions. In fact we _already_ have results - the Iranian government has rounded up hundreds of members of Al Qa'eda, as has been reported publicly. So President Bush's way of doing things seems to be working. We're not antagonizing Iran. We're making it very clear that the rules of the game have changed, and we will not allow what before we did. 3000 dead Americans have taught us the dangers of ignoring attacks on Americans. The Iranian theocrats don't have the option of acting as they have in the past. The knowledge of _that_ fact is what will allow the reformers to triumph in Iran in the end, if anything can. Gautam
