We live in a grey, gray world

Our little WTO session goes to show that we live in a grey world. There are no black and whites (even for China!). People who speak the same language can’t even come to a consensus on how to spell grey, which doesn’t bode well for finding consensus on subsidies and tariffs.

 

Honestly, I wonder how much of what goes on at the WTO is affected by non-trade issues – the extent to which action at the WTO is dependent on some compromise made between countries for other purposes. As turned out from session, it wasn’t clear cut whether a country should support an initiative or not. Should we abolish all subsidies? China blankly says no, and so too did the US. The African Union was hardly a surprise on the yes side. But what of the EU? In our session the answer was yes, but surely that doesn’t hold up against the light of what the EU does itself. Take the European cows below as an example. But, honestly, what is the EU’s line? The reason why the EU traditionally votes against abolishing subsidies in this form is because of a few – basically France. There is so much outside politics at the WTO that more often than not, I think that trade issues become the scapegoat for issues in other areas.

There are two consequences, that the countries involved at the WTO clearly recognize and act upon, and I think we missed them a little during the session.

 1. Far the majority of trade issues are solved outside of the WTO. Very, very few cases are ever brought fully through the WTO machinery. Even the ascension of new members into the organization is typically handled on bilateral basis, with newcomers dealing directly with those who might oppose it. Accordingly, it is superfluous in an amendment to add that countries should have the chance to figure it out among themselves. They already do. The WTO is a last-resort-kind-of-organization.  

 2. It is customary that transgressions of trade rules can only be punished with measures in the industry in question. So, if China doesn't adhere to copyright rules, the US and others can take measures which can remediate losses, like imposing a special tax on Chinese copyrights etc... The US cannot use the copyright issue as an excuse to close out Chinese agricultural products. Thus, there is no reason to stipulate every time a resolution has to be passed, that "countries can't go crazy" and just use any trade issue as an excuse to punish others for issues not related to that specific type of trade. 

80% of our debate revolved around these, but the member countries have long since moved beyond this impasse. What we should do, in a future session, is to move beyond narrow self-interest (which is really in no-ones interest - it is a tragedy of the commons if I've ever seen one) and far beyond judicial jibber-jabber which has no real bearing on the ability or function of the WTO. We should, in other words, get real. And by we, I don't just mean people in class, but commentators on the WTO and "trade wars" which don't exist.  

My point is, it is so difficult to sit down at the table and have a real conversation when the focus is entirely on figuring out what to expect, rather than figure out how to navigate amongst opposing opinions. We spend more time trying to figure out what the next person’s move is, rather than be open about our position from the get-go and then get on with the negotiation. Misunderstood concern with procedure only serves to invalidate the process, even if it eventually turns out a result.