Thailand was notified last week that the United States is concerned about the government's rice-buying project. Washington has no evidence, but plans to complain to the World Trade Organisation (WTO). The main reason the US Trade Representative (USTR) is upset is because the government is buying rice from farmers at above-market prices. The question the US wants answered is whether Thailand will then sell _ "dump" is the legal word _ that rice on world markets at lower prices.
The charge is a red herring. The USTR has no more evidence that Thailand will dump rice than any other product. In theory, Thailand might dump chili peppers, pickup trucks or blue jeans.
Of course, the US might dump its own agricultural products. It certainly has done so in the past. Many argue it is still doing that. The European Union is continuing to pursue a case that the US has already lost once at the WTO, that Washington is complicit in providing huge subsidies to the Boeing company to sell its jets well below their market value.
Agricultural subsidies are a tricky business. Governments in general have policies to benefit their farmers, who, as Thailand knows, are the backbone of the nation. The US certainly understands this. In the 1970s, when the US was the world's biggest rice exporter, the country was accused in serial trade complaints of dumping rice on foreign markets. And just months ago, Argentina charged the US at the WTO with protectionism of lemons.
Agricultural "dumping" differs from most other cases. Nations, including the US and Thailand, legally may be convicted of dumping. But in reality, they are providing help, loans, subsidies and other help to an industry which is one of the hardest to maintain. Farmers, including agribusiness, are subject to more market disruptions and problems than any other sector.
In this case, the US has taken its protectionist policies far past logical or acceptable limits. It cannot be Thailand's fault if the USTR is "concerned" about what Thailand might do with rice exports in the future. Courts, including the world trade courts, can only deal with hard evidence. So long as the US has no evidence of dumping rice _ which Washington admits _ there is no case to pursue.
When US President Barack Obama arrives on Sunday, Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra should put this case to him. Thailand is helping farmers, just as the US has hundreds of programmes to help and subsidise its farm industry. Specific programmes in Thailand are not Washington's concern. The prime minister should ask Mr Obama to hold off his threatened trade war _ at least until there is some hard evidence in the case.
Clearly, the US is no more concerned about the effects of Ms Yingluck's populist rice-purchase scheme than Thais themselves. The government, just as Washington says, has provided nothing but airy answers to the question of how it can buy at a high price and still compete in the world market.
But none of this, Ms Yingluck should make clear to Mr Obama, is an excuse for a fishing or witch-hunting expedition at the WTO by Washington bureaucrats. The US should drop this impractical case for lack of evidence.