make corrections to agriculture section according to Benjamin's clari…

…fications

Summary of Traders and diplomats by E. Preeg.Rmd

@@ -63,7 +63,7 @@ The EEC crisis implied that the Contracting Parties only have a year and a half
 
 The offers were not considered as satisfactory by any Contacting Party. The United States found the EEC too mild on agriculture. The EEC was hurt that its efforts had not been noticed by the US. One of the problem in the Kennedy-type of negotiation is that withdrawal from a Contracting Party can trigger a chain of withdrawals from the others and therefore reduce the scope of the round. Luckily, the internal disunion of the EEC prevented any possibility of withdrawing the list they submitted. As a consequence, they did not appear as a threat to the negotiation and fostered concessions from other delegations. 
 
-Agriculture stands out as a particular issue. It was at the center of the round as the EEC was developing an aggressive CAP whereas the United States, like usual, and were chasing new markets to prevent sur-production. The USA and the EEC fought to preserve each other's right. Moreover, negotiations in agriculture cannot rely on previous experience, like for industrial products. Indeed, agriculture has been excluded from the previous rounds. Finally, agricultural trade is different from trade in industrial products as countries are not both exporters and importers. Unlike in industrial product where countries who makes concessions benefit by reciprocal concessions in the same sector, agriculture tends to be a polarized market, fostering imbalance. Following unsatisfactory initial offers, the United States waited for the EEC to match its requirements. From this strategy some success resulted. Particular issue were critical. Frist, grain was complicated by the fact that even inside the EEC the price were hard to settle. Three topics were settled: international price, which were too low for the EEC while the US was struggling to keep it low; the food aid program, which was problematic for third countries as well as in its implementation; the access to foreign market, as the EEC was building up barriers thanks to a variable levy. The two first problems were solved whereas the Contracting Parties failed to agree on the third one. 
+Agriculture stands out as a particular issue. It was at the center of the round as the EEC was developing an aggressive CAP whereas the United States, like usual, was looking for new markets into which to expand to avoid over-supply in the markets it currently supplied. The USA and the EEC each fought to preserve its own domestic production. Moreover, negotiations in agriculture cannot rely on previous experience, like for industrial products. Indeed, agriculture has been excluded from the previous rounds. Finally, agricultural trade is different from trade in industrial products as countries are not both exporters and importers. Unlike in industrial product where countries who makes concessions benefit by reciprocal concessions in the same sector, agriculture tends to be a polarized market, fostering imbalance. Following unsatisfactory initial offers, the United States waited for the EEC to match its requirements. From this strategy some success resulted. Particular issue were critical. Frist, grain was complicated by the fact that even inside the EEC the price were hard to settle. Three topics were settled: international price, which were too low for the EEC while the US was struggling to keep it low; the food aid program, which was problematic for third countries as well as in its implementation; the access to foreign market, as the EEC was building up barriers thanks to a variable levy. The two first problems were solved whereas the Contracting Parties failed to agree on the third one. 
 
 ### Finalizing the agreement