Right in the Breadbasket

Bowing to domestic pressure, Reagan ends the grain embargo

The limit on grain sales to the Soviet Union, imposed by President Carter 16 months ago in response to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, was never very popular in the U.S., especially among farmers and other voters in the breadbasket states of the Midwest. Ronald Reagan, who as a candidate called for lifting the partial embargo,* did so last week, asserting that "American farmers had been unfairly singled out to bear the burden of this ineffective national policy."

The embargo had been the subject of a fierce debate within the Reagan Administration since it took office. Secretary of State Alexander Haig argued that lifting it would send the wrong signal to the Soviets at a time when their troops were ominously poised on the Polish border and America was trying to project a harder line. Yet political pressures, particularly from farm state Senators such as Robert Dole of Kansas and Jesse Helms of North Carolina, continued to mount. There were even warnings that the Administration's pending farm bill, which cuts back on agricultural subsidies and regulations, would not be passed unless the embargo was lifted. Two weeks ago, as the threat to Poland seemed to ease and Haig's influence within the White House waned a little, Reagan decided to end the grain restrictions.

The embargo had forced the Soviets to hustle for more expensive grain on the world market, but a number of nations, notably Argentina, supplied about 90% of the 37 million metric tons of imported grain needed to meet Soviet needs. In addition, American farmers had little trouble selling their harvest last year at decent prices. With a potentially vast new market opening up in China, U.S. grain exports have never been higher. So the embargo had little practical impact: for a few months it created mild shortages of milk and meat in the Soviet Union and weakened U.S. grain prices, but the world market quickly adjusted.

But the embargo--and its elimination--had immense symbolic value. "To farmers exports are something sacred," said John Schnittker, a former Under Secretary of Agriculture. Current Secretary John Block said that lifting the ban would probably strengthen prices in the short run, but more importantly would "allow farmers to produce for a world market free of impediments."

For America's allies, the message was mixed. While unenthusiastic about supporting a prolonged boycott, many of them considered lifting it to be a craven foreign policy retreat, the same fecklessness that Reagan had accused Carter of displaying. Says one French foreign policy analyst: "It looks bad to lift an embargo when the circumstances haven't changed. It shows that even Ronald Reagan can't resist a lobby." Reagan said last week that his action should not be interpreted as "a weakening of resolve." The U.S., he said, "remains opposed to the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan." But that resolve--and that opposition--is indeed called into question by a decision that clearly sacrificed important foreign policy considerations for domestic political reasons.

*It limited Soviet purchases to the 8 million metric tons per year provided for in an existing five-year agreement, rather than the 25 million metric tons the Soviets sought last year.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so viewer discretion is required.