<font color="#ffccff">Hey TL...question...did the US sign on to the WTO/GATT with the understanding that there would be some measure taken to prohibit dumping?

And a followup question....so once a deal is signed, the US should stay with it forever? or can it ever decide to reverse its decision? Seems pretty unreasonable to expect a nation with a changing dynamic governing body to be bound in perpetuity by past administrations...are there not legal ways to extricate yourself from bad deals? Im just curious. </font>

<font color="#ffccff">And here i thought you liked our taxation system :D I agree that the government subsidies should be done away with...for all business, and the concurent lowering of taxes......</font>

<font color="#ffccff">Of course, doing away with subsidies can disadvantage a free market system when it goes out to compete with government subsidized foreign interests...such as the french farmers or the japanese steel co's. </font>

I'm not even convinced that dumping is all that big of a deal. If someone wants to sell things to me at below cost, and I need these things, I don't see the downside. Sure, some people end up being having to take vacations until the "dumping" stops, but they should be able to come right back in after the prices return to "normal", and the net result is that the US companies have never had to sell product at a loss, so can now undercut the companies who were "dumping". Remember, by definition, you cannot "dump" forever, and at some point, you will have to recoup your losses.

Seriously, if the Japanese people want to pay for a part of the structural steel that goes into my new home, why should my government tell them they cannot?

MagiK: I'll research anti-dumping in WTO/GATT and let you know. It's been four years since I studied that particular aspect, so I'm fuzzy.

Yes, we should be bound in these agreements, BTW, lest they have no meaning. The non-binding nature of the UN and the ICJ is what has neutered those institutions. Yes, administrations change, but that argument undercuts the constitution as well. A treaty results in the agreement of our Congress (which must ratify it) and the President, and subject to judiciary review. It simply is the will of our country, and we *should* be stuck with it.

As an example, for this reason, Bush ignoring most parts of the climate change treaties just because he didn't like Clinton's politics is simply illegal. (Note: while Kyoto was not ratified the Framework Convention was - Kyoto was just a sub-agreement. Plus, once signed, Kyoto created a duty in the president to push for its passage, by ratification, in Congress -- a committment Clinton and Bush have failed.) I know the issue of climate change is off-topic, but its an example that's fair.

I answered the farm subsidies issue by editing my previous post- there is a national security concern. Plus, your point on subsidies is well-taken. And, while the WTO restricts tarrifs and other trade barriers, it does not stop a nation from spending its money on what it wants. Nor could it likely do so- some nations are just structured that way. In Japan, for instance, the government make private loans to industries - direct subsidies.

Which is why Bush could have subsidized the steel industry but could not have banned/taxed foreign steel.

Simple. Startup costs are much greater than maintaining an existing industry.

<font color="#ffccff">So basicly, what you are saying, is that any agreement entered into is permenent for all time no matter the damage it might do to you later....with no legal recourse?? I think it would be insane to enter into any kind of contract that binds you forever with no way out. </font>

<font color = lightgreen>No, contracts/treaties between nations are not enforceable forever; in fact, one nation cannot force another nation to honor an agreement without military action. However, failure to live up to one's agreements does damage to one's reputation. Yes, administrations may change but the US Government is still the same Government that was instituted back in 1781 with the ratification of the Constitution; treaties into which previous administrations entered should be honored in order to ensure the perpetuity and the intrinsic honor of the Government. If you find that an agreement is faulty, then renegotiate before reneging; it may also be wise to have an "opt-out" clause written into the agreement...just in case. [img]graemlins/petard.gif[/img] </font>

There is no such thing as no way out in absolute terms. Look at our Constitution. There are ways out, secession. It carries a high price.

A governing agreement between nations is of no use without a high price for exiting the group. With WTO right now, the price is that you lose those free trade protections. WTO member nations have no obligation to refrain from placing tariffs on products of non-member nations. That price is not so high if, say, you are running into 400-500 billion dollars in WTO DSB (Dispute Settlement Body) rulings against you.

How can the UN enforce its mandates? Right now it can't. It's way too whimsical as far as leaving/disagreeing/disobeying the UN. SUre, leaving carries a high price - namely you dump about 400 treaties/sub-treaties that you signed. But, the ICJ for instance has VOLUNTARY jurisdiction. Compulsory jurisdiction to the ICJ MUST be a requirement if the UN or any other analog will work. Why create a court to govern member disputes when members can simply choose not to show up for trial and have no repurcussions for doing so?

Azred, my point is that you describe how treaties have worked since ancient Greece. That's just not good enough for trying to build true international systems for addressing specific, complicated international concerns such as humanitarianism, human rights, trade, communications, labor, and the environment.