PDA

View Full Version : Next, the wheat wars


a_unique_person
6th May 2003, 12:11 AM
Now that the US and Australia have beaten Iraq, the question of who gets to sell their wheat to the country is on the agenda. For all Dubyas praise of the Australian PM, John Howard as being a "man of steel", his own wheat farmers have already got Iraq lined up for their product.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0305050181may05,1,7878019.story?coll=chi%2Dnewsnat ionworld%2Dhed



While American farmers wait for the Iraqi market to emerge, they are suspiciously eyeing their international competitors.

The U.S. Wheat Associates has sent a letter to American officials warning that Australia should not be allowed to shape the new Iraqi market to block U.S. wheat.

"Australia aims, we suspect, to control the wheat-purchasing decisions in Iraq," the trade organization said.

Alan Tracy, the group's president, said, "I think there was a danger if we had simply allowed Australia to simply go over and take over agriculture for the transition in Iraq."

Tracy said he is now confident that U.S. officials are paying attention to the issue.



Now we wait and see who Dubya feels his true friends are. It looks like they can't both win.

Badger
6th May 2003, 01:12 AM
This is interesting as these same guys just put additional tarriffs on Canadian wheat being imported into the States as well.

Jon_in_london
6th May 2003, 01:21 AM
Originally posted by Badger
This is interesting as these same guys just put additional tarriffs on Canadian wheat being imported into the States as well.

Oh yes! the USA- paragon and prophet (profit?) of free trade.

By the way AUP- nobody is going to get anything from the rebuilding of Iraq (specially not non-Americans), unless you have some serious connections in the Bush Administration (eg. Haliburton)

corplinx
6th May 2003, 02:00 AM
Whatever happened to buying whatever wheat was most cost effective? I dont see the logic of trying to lock a country that is mostly rubble into buying one trade groups' wheat.

Baker
6th May 2003, 02:21 AM
Originally posted by a_unique_person
Now that the US and Australia have beaten Iraq, the question of who gets to sell their wheat to the country is on the agenda. For all Dubyas praise of the Australian PM, John Howard as being a "man of steel", his own wheat farmers have already got Iraq lined up for their product.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0305050181may05,1,7878019.story?coll=chi%2Dnewsnat ionworld%2Dhed



Now we wait and see who Dubya feels his true friends are. It looks like they can't both win.

All of this time the ant-side thought it was just about oil and it turns out it was just for more land to grow wheat j/k

a_unique_person
6th May 2003, 04:12 PM
Originally posted by Baker


All of this time the ant-side thought it was just about oil and it turns out it was just for more land to grow wheat j/k

It not about growing it there, it is about selling it to them. The US used to regard Iraq as being their turf, then they dropped out during the post Gulf War era. Australia took up the slack, and now regard it as being their turf.

Australia actually made a big deal about sending all this wheat over there post war as aid. Only there was no way to mill it, due to the loss of infrastructure, and it had to be taken away again.

peptoabysmal
6th May 2003, 10:34 PM
HAMISH ROBERTSON: Well the Iraqi Government has expressed its thanks to Australian farmers and protestors by deciding to resume its 800-million dollar wheat trade.

The long-standing and lucrative trade relationship was crippled in November last year, when Iraq decided to cancel half its orders in protest at the Howard Government's position on a possible war.

But now, as Tanya Nolan reports, it seems that Australian anti-war protestors have been the reason for the turnaround.


full story (http://www.abc.net.au/am/s790536.htm)

a_unique_person
6th May 2003, 10:38 PM
Originally posted by peptoabysmal


full story (http://www.abc.net.au/am/s790536.htm)

That was from before the war. We are talking post war now. I don't think Iraq has a trade minister any more.

reprise
6th May 2003, 10:49 PM
Originally posted by peptoabysmal


full story (http://www.abc.net.au/am/s790536.htm)

That "am" story is from February. The Iraqi government which vowed to reinstate the wheat contracts no longer exists and I don't think anyone knows at this stage which contracts will be honoured by the new Iraqi administration and which will be thrown open for negotiation or tender.

I see on preview that AUP has raised a similar point.

The US did adjust the tariffs applied to Australian wheat imported into the US in response to our participation in Afghanistan, but it would be naive to assume that if Iraqi wheat contracts are thrown open to tender the US will not use all options available to it (including farm subsidies to US growers) to secure lucrative, ongoing contracts for the US agricultural sector.

peptoabysmal
6th May 2003, 10:59 PM
Originally posted by reprise


That "am" story is from February. The Iraqi government which vowed to reinstate the wheat contracts no longer exists and I don't think anyone knows at this stage which contracts will be honoured by the new Iraqi administration and which will be thrown open for negotiation or tender.

I see on preview that AUP has raised a similar point.

The US did adjust the tariffs applied to Australian wheat imported into the US in response to our participation in Afghanistan, but it would be naive to assume that if Iraqi wheat contracts are thrown open to tender the US will not use all options available to it (including farm subsidies to US growers) to secure lucrative, ongoing contracts for the US agricultural sector.

My post was in response to this bit from AUP:
"It not about growing it there, it is about selling it to them. The US used to regard Iraq as being their turf, then they dropped out during the post Gulf War era. Australia took up the slack, and now regard it as being their turf."

That was pre-war. I was pointing out how they had lost that contract and due to the anti-war protests in Australia, had won it back.

The anti-war protests may have cost some soldiers their lives, but at least it bolstered the Australian economy, eh?

America has gotten a lot of flak about being a greedy country just after the oil. True or not, it is possible to find such acts of greed and corruption throughout the world. Two wrongs don't make a right and don't throw stones if you live in a glass house.

reprise
6th May 2003, 11:17 PM
That was pre-war. I was pointing out how they had lost that contract and due to the anti-war protests in Australia, had won it back.

The anti-war protests may have cost some soldiers their lives, but at least it bolstered the Australian economy, eh?

The contract was "lost" (actually, it wasn't cancelled, the amount of wheat to be purchased was halved) in direct response to Australia joining the "coalition of the willing". The full contract was reinstated when large anti-war protests were held here (AFAIK, those protests weren't organised by either the Australian Wheat Board or our Department of Foreign Affairs) - the "reinstatement" was pretty much seen here for what it was : propoganda from a government which wasn't going to be in power to honour any contracts anyway.

I'm not sure why Australia wanting to compete for wheat contracts in Iraq is seen as "greedy" or "corrupt" - Australia and the US are holding free trade talks at the moment, and while I'm quite sure that some of those discussions will concern the future supply of wheat to Iraq, Australia isn't in a position to supply all of Iraq's wheat needs and also honour its other existing contracts, so the issue of "blocking" US wheat suppliers out of the market doesn't really enter the equation.

a_unique_person
6th May 2003, 11:18 PM
Originally posted by peptoabysmal


My post was in response to this bit from AUP:
"It not about growing it there, it is about selling it to them. The US used to regard Iraq as being their turf, then they dropped out during the post Gulf War era. Australia took up the slack, and now regard it as being their turf."

That was pre-war. I was pointing out how they had lost that contract and due to the anti-war protests in Australia, had won it back.

The anti-war protests may have cost some soldiers their lives, but at least it bolstered the Australian economy, eh?

America has gotten a lot of flak about being a greedy country just after the oil. True or not, it is possible to find such acts of greed and corruption throughout the world. Two wrongs don't make a right and don't throw stones if you live in a glass house.


I wasn't trying to say who was right or wrong in this matter, just observing the conflict of loyalties dubya will have, to the man of steel, or his farmers.

What will probably happen will be that he will share it out 50/50. John Howard will probably console himself with the fact that if he didn't send any troops over, Australia would have got nothing.

I don't recall any Australian casualties in the Second Oil War.