U.S. TAKES TOUGH STAND ON GATT FARM ISSUES The United States is prepared to "pull out all the stops" to defend its agricultural trade rights under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), U.S. Ambassador to GATT Michael Samuels said. Those rights are now being challenged by the European Community's (EC) agricultural support policies, he told a conference sponsored by the American Soybean Association. He reiterated Washington's firm intention to retaliate if the EC goes ahead and bans imports of hormone-fed beef without the issue being investigated by a GATT special committee. The U.S. claims the EC directive, due to come into effect on January 1, threatens to cut 100 mln dlrs worth of U.S. meat shipments into the EC. The U.S. also will oppose all EC efforts to impair U.S. trade via the EC oilseeds regime, which supports EC oilseed prices over the current market level and which may be extended to include a hotly disputed oils and fats tax, Samuels said. Reduction of trade-distorting world agricultural subsidies, an aim of most key participants in GATT multilateral trade negotiations, "is meaningless if import barriers continue to be erected," Samuels said. Samuels called the U.S. plan to eliminate world farm subsidies by the year 2000, proposed at GATT in July, "visionary" and "very serious." The EC and Japan have said it is unrealistic. The EC Commission this month announced its draft proposal on farm trade reform, expected to be tabled at GATT formally next week. The EC scheme involves emergency measures to reduce tensions in troubled surplus sectors of cereals and cereals substitutes, dairy and sugar. It also calls for reduction of farm subsidies. The U.S. Is not opposed to short-term measures, as long as they are directly linked to long-term commitments to end major trade distortions, Samuels said. Washington will review the EC proposal when it is formally submitted and respond to it officially then. "We will consider its relation to the Punta del Este declaration to correct trade problems and expand market access," the U.S. Ambassador said. The U.S. can say no to the EC proposal if the EC ignores the U.S. plan when it tables its own proposal, he added. The key difference between the two approaches is that the U.S. wants farm subsidies eliminated, while the EC is pushing only for a reduction in farm suppports, Samuels said. If the EC farm budget were protected by a subsidy freeze, there would be little incentive for the Community to work to correct the international trade situation, he added. Samuels cited the animal hormones complaint, the EC oilseeds regime and an EC regulation concerning meat imports to third countries as three crucial barriers to trade which the U.S. wants to see resolved under the auspices of GATT.