How the WTO can become relevant again

Posted By Daniel W. Drezner Tuesday, February 24, 2009 - 6:35 PM Share

Anu Bradford is hosting a blog roundtable at the University of Chicago's Law School faculty blog about the future of the World Trade Organization. 

So far, the consensus is not encouraging for fans of an open global economy:

Anu Bradford:  "Trade protectionism is on the rise but the institutional foundations of international trade deals have been shaky for several years."

Daniel Abebe:  "we should see great power competition to be increasingly focused on trade issues and, given the tentative claims here, we should see increasing gridlock in the WTO."

Greg Shaffer:  "As for the Doha Round, it looks pallid in light of the staggering financial crisis that confronts us."

Richard Steinberg:  "As a location for trade negotiation, the WTO is dead." 

Well, that is all cheery news! 

In fairness, both Shaffer and Steinberg point out that the WTO is not irrelevant, because its Dispute Settlement Understanding remains the gold standard of enforcement in economic cooperation.  That said, this is still pretty bleak.  What can the WTO do? 

Read the rest of their posts to see some of their suggestions.  Here's my modest proposal -- the WTO needs to start an ilicit nuclear weapons program. 

Think about the benefits:

  1. If you thought enforcement was good now, imagine what it would look like backed up by a nuclear deterrent.  The Appellate body would become a seriously bad-ass judicial authority.
  2. Trade negotiations would move from page B23 of the business section to page A1.  This would create domestic political pressures for successful negotiations. 
  3. The Obama administration would immediately dispatch a high-level envoy to negotiate with the WTO.
  4. Russia and China would reflexively support the WTO on various policy positions in the U.N. Security Council.
  5. The WTO could likely extract a better set of lunch options for its Geneva-based personnel.  Having just been there, let's describe the current menu of choice as "underwhelming."

A nuclear-armed WTO -- good for trade and good for nonproliferation. 

EXPLORE:NONPROLIFERATION, PROTECTIONISM, SATIRE, TRADE
 
Facebook|Twitter|Reddit

GREGSANDERS

7:42 PM ET

February 24, 2009

The Onion covered a similar idea at the UN

U.N. Acquires Nuclear Weapon on January of 2009. I'm not a consistent reader of that fine publication, but I couldn't resist that headline.

 

TESS

11:49 AM ET

February 25, 2009

Really?

I think that some of my grad classes would have been at least less tedious if you were the prof. Arming the WTO! ok?

Seriously, there are cross national orgs, like the UN, that really do need some level of independent power for significance. Nukes? I would not go there. The UN's hands being tied by the power structure of the security council, especially in cases where members of the council can itself be suspect, well that is telling about the uselessness of its ability to implement policies.

As long as your on this level, why not try defining a new level of social contract? That would give such cross national orgs legitimacy and allow them to raise money directly from the people and be held accountable when their policies work or not. Who is to say that the money they raise cannot raise an army or "buy nukes". Of course, it is silly in the case of the WTO. Religious orgs can and have done so for years.

Seriously, though, given the assumption of Hobbes state of nature as that of the international system. I do wonder if there was an independent org that had power derived from the people over the unruly states, could that work to bring some order? It probably wouldn't.

 

TESS

11:49 AM ET

February 25, 2009

Really?

I think that some of my grad classes would have been at least less tedious if you were the prof. Arming the WTO! ok?

Seriously, there are cross national orgs, like the UN, that really do need some level of independent power for significance. Nukes? I would not go there. The UN's hands being tied by the power structure of the security council, especially in cases where members of the council can itself be suspect, well that is telling about the uselessness of its ability to implement policies.

As long as your on this level, why not try defining a new level of social contract? That would give such cross national orgs legitimacy and allow them to raise money directly from the people and be held accountable when their policies work or not. Who is to say that the money they raise cannot raise an army or "buy nukes". Of course, it is silly in the case of the WTO. Religious orgs can and have done so for years.

Seriously, though, given the assumption of Hobbes state of nature as that of the international system. I do wonder if there was an independent org that had power derived from the people over the unruly states, could that work to bring some order? It probably wouldn't.

 

BRETT

12:43 PM ET

February 25, 2009

I'm all for arming the WTO

I'm all for arming the WTO with nukes.

In all seriousness, though, they need more clout.

 

DON S

5:45 PM ET

February 25, 2009

Are you sure?

Are you sure you don't mean firepower, Brett? ;)

There are many worthy organisations whihc could use the 'clout' of a nuclear weapon. Think of the WWF (the World Wildlife Fund, not the World Wrestling Federatipon).

"Preserve species diversity - Or else!". They could use to nuke to take out the Hoover Dam, or perhaps the Yangtze River Dam, eh?

Think Globally, Nuke Locally. What a great slogan....

 

JJACKSON

3:55 PM ET

February 26, 2009

Too limited

Nuke Globally and give evolution another crack at intelligent life. It might do better next time.

 

Daniel W. Drezner is professor of international politics at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University.

Read More