Continued from page 1

In each of those rulings the other countries abided by the WTO decision and moved toward compliance. The bottom line is that the U.S. has been the biggest benefactor of WTO rulings. It's no coincidence then that those same countries all opted to sit in on the recent WTO panel as interested third parties, sending a clear signal to the U.S. that if it chooses to ignore the WTO ruling against it, then they may well consider doing the same insofar as past rulings are concerned.

While this may again appear to be a "so what?" issue, it's not at all that simple. Antigua/Barbuda have already indicated that if the U.S. continues to ignore the WTO then they may step away from their agreement to uphold U.S. copyright and intellectual property laws, meaning that U.S. copyrighted software and music could be freely distributed on the internet (for example) so far as they are concerned.

These copyright protections have been vigorously defended by the U.S. at the WTO in the past and it's inconceivable that they've suddenly lost interest in continuing to do so.

So what about those other countries who have abided by WTO law in favour of the U.S.? Might they be thinking along the same lines as Antigua? Is the U.S. prepared to find out? Imagine if countries around the world declared an open market on those U.S. copyrighted goods: the revenue losses to the big U.S. media corporations would be astronomic.

There is also the issue of future WTO rulings to consider. According to Joseph Kelly, a professor of Business Law at SUNY Buffalo, the WTO ruling may have U.S. Congressmen considering the impact of continually ignoring the rulings of an international body.

"Senator Richard Luger of Indiana hates gambling more than (Arizona Senator Jon) Kyl," Kelly said. "But he's very internationally oriented, and I think he might be thinking, 'Gee, if we don't follow the GATS in this area, suppose we beat China on some other issue.' The Chinese might say, 'If the U.S. doesn't follow the WTO, why should we?'"

That would effectively signal the end of GATS, which no one in this administration or any other, is prepared to accept as the future marketplace in which a trade-driven USA would find itself.

At this point it is not at all clear how the U.S. is going to proceed with the Antigua case, but this much is clear: continuing to ignore the WTO and the international trade laws it represents isn't going to serve U.S. trade interests in the long run.

There's a lot more at stake here than a few million dollars in offshore bets. "Antigua led the way, because nobody was sure whether the GATS was applicable to gambling," Prof. Kelly said. "All these jurisdictional issues form the basis of the early decisions. Antigua resolved all these issues, and it's going to be much easier for the next country."

Page 1, 2