Any strategist will tell you that the quickest way to end war is
to bring all parties to the table to resolve the causes of conflict.
James Bovard is no strategist. His Oct. 15 editorial-page article
"Our Wheat War With Canada" contained erroneous and misleading
suppositions. I was amazed that Mr. Bovard would call for the
abolition of our existing farm policies rather than address the real
cause of our wheat trade battle with Canada and Europe. He is
calling for a cease-fire in the heat of this trade battle. He might
as well yell, "Surrender!"

Since 1985, U.S. subsidies paid to our wheat farmers have been
reduced 50%. We have cut the cost of our trade battle with Canada
and Europe. If all government programs experienced similar
belt-tightening, taxpayers would not be asked to shell out more to
reduce our bloated deficit. While the U.S. has slashed its wheat
subsidies, Canadian and European price supports have increased.

In my state of South Dakota, agriculture is the number one
industry. Its continued growth is essential to the state's future,
and exports are crucial to that growth. Many exports go to our
neighbors to the north and south. Expanded trade under a North
American Free Trade Agreement would benefit South Dakota and all
states.

If Mr. Bovard is looking for a government bureaucracy to blame
for our wheat trade war, I suggest he visit with the members of the
Canadian Wheat Board, a monopolistic marketing regime. My primary
objective is to achieve price transparency in the complex pricing
tactics of the Canadian Wheat Board and put an end to Canada's
hidden transportation subsidies on the wheat it moves into the U.S.
The lack of price transparency is a "stealth" subsidy, making it
impossible to determine the extent of unfair trade practices in use
by the Canadian Wheat Board.

For example, Canada today has 76% of the Mexican wheat market.
Our nation's exports to Mexico have dropped to below 25% from a high
of 85%. The reason: Canada's "stealth" subsidies. Mr. Bovard leaves
the impression that Canada is a free-trader. Guess again when it
comes to wheat.

U.S. officials have tried to determine what subsidies have been
applied to Canadian wheat exports. They cannot obtain access to
Canadian price support schemes. That is the issue. That is why the
dispute settlement procedures under the U.S.-Canada Free Trade
Agreement (CFTA) recently have come under fire. The binational panel
system established in the CFTA to hear trade disputes is inadequate
and blatantly unfair. Negotiations to correct and strengthen the
dispute settlement process would go a long way toward resolving
North American wheat trade problems.

Ultimately, any free trade agreement must ensure an effective and
enforceable process to resolve trade disputes. The issue Mr. Bovard
failed to grasp is that export subsidies undermine free trading
principles. It is not just a problem in Canada. The European
Community nations have made export subsidies an art form. It is in
the interest of all the Western nations to stop the exorbitant use
of export subsidies. That is what must be achieved through NAFTA,
and the current GATT negotiations.

Sen. Larry Pressler (R., S.D.)

Washington