WTO coming up - World Trade Organization - On The Right - Column

National Review, Sept 12, 1994 by William F. Buckely, Jr.

The crime bill and the health bill have sheltered the GATT/WTO bill. To crawl out of the acronymic mud, we are talking about the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and the World Trade Organization. Last November, Congress voted to endorse GATT. That was a pretty close call--it made it through Congress only by Republican heft. But it got through and presents us now with a World Trade Organization. It comes to us on a "fast track," which means that Congress, as was the case with NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement), cannot change its provisions; it is all or nothing at all.

Once again there is a curious coalition opposing the WTO. Ralph Nader is very conspicuous on the scene, as also Pat Buchanan. Ralph Nader, the Closest Friend of the American consumer, finds himself on an awkward side of the question given that free trade is the most consumer-oriented thing in town. Mr. Nader opposes the WTO, one suspects, because the labor unions are protracting their quarrel against free trade. Pat Buchanan protracts his own quarrel against free trade by raising the question of sovereignty. But so does Congressman Newt Gingrich, a profoundly committed free trader. And the cat is now among the pigeons, because if Newt nixes WTO, it is nixed, period. The Clinton vote is not enough. Here are the questions:

1. If the WTO is going to supersede any U.S. laws that contravene it, why is it a matter for Congress to decide by a majority vote? Shouldn't it be subjected to the treaty process, requiring approval by two-thirds of the Senate? There is considerable opinion to that effect, including that of Laurence Tribe of Harvard and Bruce Fein of the Washington Times. Others argue that the House of Representatives is the most logical body to weigh in on what is after all a covenant that has to do with getting and spending. It is, moreover, a world trade agreement whose particulars have been formed by intense negotiation over three Administrations: Reagan, Bush, and Clinton.

2. The question of sovereignty is not easily dealt with. The WTO gives all 117 signatories an equal vote, which is another way of saying that United States parliamentary leverage is approximately zero. But what the WTO would be called upon to decide is whether a member nation was violating the terms of GATT. Inasmuch as the United States has been the primary plaintiff in the trade wars of the past generation, we have to suppose we'd have more to gain than to lose by submitting to a panel of WTO judges on whether the rules for free trade were being violated. If we are creating an organization that can bring muscle to free up trade, we will be the outstanding beneficiaries.

On the other hand, we have in prospect an international organization which will have the authority to rule that the United States has violated provision XYZ of the GATT agreement, that the United States must instantly comply. If the U.S. refuses to do so, then the WTO can levy a compensatory judgment or impose trade sanctions.

It is all but inconceivable that foreign nations would gang up to force trade sanctions against the United States for the obvious reason that it would hurt the disciplinarians more than it would hurt us. If Grenada decides not to export to the U.S., we can struggle along with three fewer pineapples. If France decides not to export to the U.S., France will drown in its own grapes. As a realistic matter, it is unlikely that trade sanctions will be used against the major economic powers.

What pricks the curiosity of Newt Gingrich is the kind of thing Mickey Kantor, Mr. Clinton's trade representative, goes in for. He is a lightning rod for idealistic and ideological interventions of the kind the environmentalists specialize in. We don't want a situation in which we are dictated to on matters of ecological hygiene. And as a matter of fact, we don't want a situation in which we dictate to others on these questions.

That is what the debate should center on. Are we encouraging the birth of a pestiferous bureaucracy that gets into the act, when all we want is a free flow of goods from here to there, and from there to here? It is good that Mr. Gingrich is the captain of the Republican team on this question, since his instincts are well-marshalled. He is for free trade, and for American sovereignty over its own affairs.