The recent ruling by the WTO Appellate Body regarding the case brought by Brazil against the U.S. may hold significant ramifications for agricultural programs in the U.S. House Ag Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte notes the problematic nature of employing "constructive ambiguity" during WTO negotiations.
"In the WTO, countries seem to reach decisions in the course of negotiations or in other matters that reflect a general, yet ambiguous, consensus. Later, these general agreements come under scrutiny and are found to violate WTO rules, such as the recent decision by the WTO Appellate Body in the case brought by Brazil against the U.S," Goodlatte says.
Goodlatte called it a classic case of bait and switch by turning the common understanding of the Uruguay Round and turning it on its head. Goodlatte and other members of the House ag committee met Wednesday with Dr. Supachai Panitchpakdi, Director General of the World Trade Organization (WTO) and Ambassador Stuart Harbinson, Chief of Staff to the Director General of the WTO to discuss the ongoing trade negotiations of the Doha Development Round. Committee Members met with the Director General a year ago to discuss the WTO agricultural negotiations.
Goodlatte reminded Supachai that non-tariff trade barriers continue to present roadblocks beyond the negotiations. With non-tariff trade barriers in place—such as those barring U.S. beef and biotechnology products—the terms of any trade agreement are essentially worthless. "Even if all agricultural subsidies are reduced to zero, some countries will still ban U.S. agricultural products based on these non-scientific barriers. These matters must be considered as well," says Chairman Goodlatte.
Members of the committee voiced their concerns about maintaining free and fair trade policies, including eliminating non-tariff trade barriers, to the Director General.