ECA's Terms

The U.S. said it, then said it again: ECA could feed Europe without buying a quintal of wheat from Argentina.

What had happened? In Washington last week, a dollarwise businessman, temporarily turned ECA official, looked up from his crop reports and exultantly pointed out some world food facts: wheat fields all over Europe are rich with promise; ECA countries' estimated crop of 30 million metric tons is only 5% under prewar production; the U.S., with the second-largest crop in its history--and some help from Canada--can make up what Europe needs.

Just to make the picture clear where it counted, ECA sent ex-Assistant Secretary of the Navy H. Struve Hensel down to Buenos Aires (with his bride--his second) to pass the word to Juan Peron & Co. "Why should we pour dollars down here," he asked Argentines, "for something we can buy cheaper elsewhere?"

Did that mean that ECA wanted none of the grain from bulging River Plate elevators? Not exactly, answered Hensel, but Argentina would have to "go out and get the market"--i.e., bargain with the U.S. ECA's terms: 1) no more price-gouging (Eire recently paid $6.85 a bushel for Argentine wheat--July futures at Chicago are now $2.31); 2) no more state trading practices such as have throttled U.S. business firms in Argentina; 3) a pledge that Argentina will underwrite some of the costs of feeding Europe.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.