Now on ScienceBlogs: Lives of the Saints of Science: Darwin

Seed Media Group

Collective Imagination

Dispatches from the Culture Wars

Thoughts From the Interface of Science, Religion, Law and Culture

Profile

brayton_headshot_wre_1443.jpg Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of Michigan Citizens for Science and co-founder of The Panda's Thumb. He has written for such publications as The Bard, Skeptic and Reports of the National Center for Science Education, spoken in front of many organizations and conferences, and appeared on nationally syndicated radio shows and on C-SPAN. Ed is also a Fellow with the Center for Independent Media and the host of Declaring Independence, a one hour weekly political talk show on WPRR in Grand Rapids, Michigan.(static)

Search

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Blogroll


Science Blogs Legal Blogs Political Blogs Random Smart and Interesting People Evolution Resources

Archives

Other Information

Ed Brayton also blogs at Positive Liberty and The Panda's Thumb



Ed Brayton is a participant in the Center for Independent Media New Journalism Program. However, all of the statements, opinions, policies, and views expressed on this site are solely Ed Brayton's. This web site is not a production of the Center, and the Center does not support or endorse any of the contents on this site.

Ed's Audio and Video

Declaring Independence podcast feed

YearlyKos 2007

Video of speech on Dover and the Future of the Anti-Evolution Movement

Audio of Greg Raymer Interview

E-mail Policy

Any and all emails that I receive may be reprinted, in part or in full, on this blog with attribution. If this is not acceptable to you, do not send me e-mail - especially if you're going to end up being embarrassed when it's printed publicly for all to see.

Read the Bills Act Coalition

My Ecosystem Details



My Amazon.com Wish List

« Rodda on Mansfield, Part 3 | Main | The Praying Parents Case »

Update on Antigua WTO Gambling Dispute

Posted on: August 30, 2007 9:09 AM, by Ed Brayton

The NY Times had an excellent article the other day about the ongoing dispute between Antigua and the US over online gambling. Quick background: Antigua, which is home to several online gambling companies, filed a WTO complaint against the US and won. The US appealed and Antigua won again. Now the US is refusing to comply with the ruling, despite the fact that we complain when any other country doesn't comply with WTO rules. And this has led to something of a standoff. Here's what compliance would require:

Complying with the W.T.O. ruling, Professor Jackson said, would require Congress and the Bush administration either to reverse course and permit Americans to place bets online legally with offshore casinos or, equally unlikely, impose an across-the-board ban on all forms of Internet gambling -- including the online purchase of lottery tickets, participation in Web-based pro sports fantasy leagues and off-track wagering on horse racing.

And here's what it could mean if we don't comply:

But not complying with the decision presents big problems of its own for Washington. That's because Mr. Mendel, who is claiming $3.4 billion in damages on behalf of Antigua, has asked the trade organization to grant a rare form of compensation if the American government refuses to accept the ruling: permission for Antiguans to violate intellectual property laws by allowing them to distribute copies of American music, movie and software products, among others.

The WTO has only done this once, with Equador, who didn't actually violate any such laws but merely used the threat to get what they wanted from their adversary; that, of course, is exactly what Antigua wants to do as well. But the WTO is in a bit of a bind on how to proceed, for fairly obvious reasons:

For the W.T.O. itself, the decision is equally fraught with peril. It cannot back down because that would undermine its credibility with the rest of the world. But if it actually carries out the penalties, it risks a political backlash in the United States, the most powerful force for free-flowing global trade and the W.T.O.'s biggest backer.

"Think of this from the W.T.O.'s point of view," said Charles R. Nesson, a professor at Harvard Law School. "They're this fledgling organization dominated by a huge monster in the United States. People there must be scared out of their wits at the prospects of enforcing a ruling that would instantly galvanize public opinion in the United States against the W.T.O."

In April 2005, the trade body gave the United States one year to comply with its ruling, but that deadline passed with little more than a statement from Washington that it had reviewed its laws and decided it has been in compliance all along. The case is now before an arbitration body charged with assessing damages.

"The stakes here are enormous," Professor Nesson said.

The only part of the article I find questionable is this:

Yet another reason the fraternity of trade lawyers and experts are so closely watching the case, Mr. Van Den Hende said, is "that the U.S. is not behaving as one would expect."

"One day they're out there saying how scandalous it is that China doesn't respect W.T.O. decisions," he said. "But then the next day there's a dispute that doesn't go their way and their attitude is: The decision is completely wrong, these judges don't know what they're doing, why should we comply?"

I can't imagine why they would not expect such behavior from the US government. All governments engage in such behavior, using loopholes to gain financial and political advantage. Anyone surprised by that behavior just doesn't understand the nature of governments (or human beings) very well. If the WTO does approve retaliatory sanctions, that's when things will start to change here. As Greg Raymer pointed out during our radio interview the other day, the anti-gambling lobby may have pull, but Microsoft and Hollywood have a lot more. If their profits are threatened by massive violations of its copyrights coming from Antigua, they'll put major pressure on Congress to fix the problem.

Share this: Stumbleupon Reddit Email + More

Comments

1

Is this really being driven by the anti-gambling lobby, or is it just good old-fashioned protectionism? Surely if it were based on a principled opposition to gambling per se, then it would apply to all forms of on-line gambling and hence the issue would never have arisen.

Personally, I suspect it the pro-(US-based)-gambling lobby that's behind this.

What I really don't understand is why Europe, and the UK in particular, have been so quiet on this up to now. We have a huge, well-connected gambling lobby of our own...

Posted by: Dunc | August 30, 2007 9:58 AM

2

--What I really don't understand is why Europe, and the UK in --particular, have been so quiet on this up to now.

Oh please. If the USA wants something, these lapdogs are sure to comply as fast as they can.

You don't really expect any resistance from those governments against American acts?

Just look at all those things in the last few years, Airplane information transfers, SWIFT, secret detentions, etc. Did those wussies protest? No sir, no.

Posted by: student_b | August 30, 2007 11:34 AM

3

Is this really being driven by the anti-gambling lobby, or is it just good old-fashioned protectionism?
I think it's a combination. Many of the casino operators don't like the idea of Internet competition, partly because they got into it late and weakly, so were having trouble competing directly. And of course, those who believe that gambling is evil are in bed with the casinos on this subject - once again protecting others from the occasion of sin. At least that's what I've gotten my infrequent looks at pro-gambling blogs.
In my personal opinion, though, Europe's gambling lobby is letting Antigua take the lead on this to avoid pissing off their big ally and trading partner - but the European casinos and sites will be happy to jump into the market once the island nations crowbar it open.

Posted by: BobApril | August 30, 2007 11:44 AM

4

I second that it is not any suprise that the USA would turn on an organization as soon as they are found to be in the wrong.... can anyone say 'softwood lumber'? Between that and the grains disputes in the Canadian/US praries, the US has been screwing around with it's largest trading partner for decades... why would this be any different (and please note that it *has* been for decades, so it's not a partisan issue... it's a power issue)

Posted by: kate | August 30, 2007 11:53 AM

5

Dunc wrote:

Is this really being driven by the anti-gambling lobby, or is it just good old-fashioned protectionism? Surely if it were based on a principled opposition to gambling per se, then it would apply to all forms of on-line gambling and hence the issue would never have arisen.

Personally, I suspect it the pro-(US-based)-gambling lobby that's behind this.

No, it's the religious right that's behind this. The only reason they haven't succeeded in their goal of wiping out all forms of gambling is because there is a powerful, long-standing lobby that prevents it. The brick and mortar casinos have not tried to kill online gambling because they know that online gambling helps them rather than hurts them. The American Gaming Association, which represents those folks, was opposed to the bill and is in favor of legalizing online gambling completely.

Posted by: Ed Brayton | August 30, 2007 12:30 PM

6

I agree Ed; the only reason this would be surprising is the fact that these lawyers, like most academics, live in a rather rarefied world that ignores much that actually happens in favor of strengthening certain useful theories they have.

Hell, you don't even need to look out of the WTO to see examples of similar action by the U.S. in general, and the current admin in particular. After all, U.S. refusal to drop its crop subsides as it was demanding the South Americans to do contributed heavily to the failure of the DOHA round, and the round of trade talks immediately preceding it.

Posted by: Julian | August 30, 2007 1:20 PM

Post a Comment

(Email is required for authentication purposes only. On some blogs, comments are moderated for spam, so your comment may not appear immediately.)





ScienceBlogs

Search ScienceBlogs:

Go to:

Advertisement
Enter to win a free copy of The Monty Hall Problem
Visit the Collective Imagination blog
Advertisement
Collective Imagination

© 2006-2009 Seed Media Group LLC. ScienceBlogs is a registered trademark of Seed Media Group. All rights reserved.

Sites by Seed Media Group: Seed Media Group | ScienceBlogs | SEEDMAGAZINE.COM