The simple conclusion is that the scheme will bring neither peace nor prosperity, but will institutionalize devastation.
Nathan J. Brown
{
"authors": [],
"type": "pressRelease",
"centerAffiliationAll": "",
"centers": [
"Carnegie Endowment for International Peace"
],
"collections": [],
"englishNewsletterAll": "",
"nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
"primaryCenter": "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
"programAffiliation": "",
"programs": [],
"projects": [],
"regions": [
"United States",
"North America"
],
"topics": [
"Economy",
"Trade"
]
}REQUIRED IMAGE
The languishing Doha Round of global trade talks elicits questions about the limitations of the World Trade Organization, just as economic crisis and burgeoning protectionist pressures demonstrate the urgency of strengthening trade rules.
WASHINGTON, Sept 16—The languishing Doha Round of global trade talks elicits questions about the limitations of the World Trade Organization, just as economic crisis and burgeoning protectionist pressures demonstrate the urgency of strengthening trade rules. In a new policy brief, Uri Dadush explains why the WTO needs to be reformed to be effective and to remain relevant.
The WTO is increasingly bypassed in trade reform by unilateral, bilateral, and regional processes, and no new liberalization of trade in goods has come from multilateral negotiations since the institution was founded in 1995. Dadush examines the calls for change and outlines the questions that must be resolved for a successful reform process that will safeguard world trade.
Key Conclusions
“Since its inception in 1995, the World Trade Organization has been the guardian of stability and predictability in world trade, but it has failed to fulfill its promise as a source of new trade rules and liberalization,” writes Dadush. “Urgent issues have come to the fore with the crisis, including government procurement and financial regulation, and these are issues on which the WTO could be making major contributions. However, it is unrealistic to ask an organization to tackle major new challenges when its ability to deliver on such a large part of its core mission is unproven.”
###
NOTES
Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.
The simple conclusion is that the scheme will bring neither peace nor prosperity, but will institutionalize devastation.
Nathan J. Brown
In an interview, Roger Diwan discusses where the global economy may be going in the third week of the U.S.-Israeli war with Iran.
Nur Arafeh
In an interview, Andrew Leber discusses the impact the U.S. and Israeli war against Iran is having on Arab Gulf states.
Michael Young
In an interview, Sergei Melkonian discusses Armenia’s and Azerbaijan’s careful balancing act among the United States, Israel, and Iran.
Armenak Tokmajyan
In an interview, Kheder Khaddour explains that Damascus is trying to stabilize its borders, but avoiding war isn’t guaranteed.
Michael Young