The speedbump at Seattle

Journal of International Economic Law

Volumn 3, Issue 1, 2000, Pages 167-172

  Horlick, Gary ^a  

^a O'Melveny and Myers LLP   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0034403984     PISSN: 13693034     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/jiel/3.1.167     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (6)

1. By contrast, the blow-ups at Ministerials in 1982 (the first attempt to launch what became the Uruguay Round) and 1990 (an attempt to complete it) reflected more fundamental differences between negotiators.
2. It is noteworthy that many protestors claimed that the WTO is not democratic because individuals do not have a direct vote (more than 80% of WTO Member governments are democratically elected). It is unclear how the (overwhelmingly US) protestors would react to an equal vote for each of the more than 1 billion Indian and Chinese adults.
3. There appeared to be consensus on the three-year deadline. While that deadline would have been a political decision, and thus extendable, it would have been backed up by a relatively short extension with 'real teeth' on 31 December 2003, when the key exemptions in the Uruguay Round Agreement on Agriculture which protect the export and domestic subsidies which underlie the European Union's Common Agriculture Policy expire on a legally bound basis. While complex arguments can be thrown up to claim that the subsidies may not be completely prohibited, the risk of a disastrous panel ruling against the CAP will focus EU minds well enough to ensure either a completed negotiation by 31 December 2003, or at least significant concessions from the EU to buy an extension of the peace clause - and that will have turned into enough leverage for a pretty good deal.
4. Analysis by the Institute for International Economics supports that claim. A poll by the Institute for Management Development lists the US as the 23rd most open economy.
5. Numerous developing country delegates pointed out that the protesters seeking enforcement of labor rights by trade sanctions were often from industries which also sought to block imports from those countries. As the Egyptian negotiator stated: 'The question is why all of a sudden, when third-world labor has proved to be competitive, why do industrial countries start feeling concerned about our workers? When all of a sudden there is a concern about the welfare of our workers, it is suspicious.'
6. This would leave plenty of time to finish. While there is much criticism that the Uruguay Round lasted for almost eight years, less than three years was spent in serious negotiations. The Uruguay Round would have lasted much less time if the US had not insisted - correctly, to this author - on the inclusion of agriculture and services. In any event, the Uruguay Round did not have the benefit of a real deadline such as 31 December 2003.