U.S. Unilateralism Worries Trade Officials
Top officials at the World Trade Organization say they are worried that the Bush administration's go-it-alone policy is threatening international trade.

In the normally closed, clubby world of the trade organization, envoys and officials said they feared that American moves within the organization and toward a potential war in Iraq would weaken respect for international rules and lead to serious economic consequences.

In the past several months the United States has compiled a long record of violating trade rules and has single-handedly blocked an agreement to provide medicines for the world's poorest nations, a rare occurrence in this institution that painstakingly builds consensus behind closed doors.

Supachai Panitchpakdi, the director general of the W.T.O., said a war could have a devastating practical impact as the world grapples with a trade slowdown, rising oil prices and rising costs for transportation and insurance.

"I can feel the sense of trepidation," Mr. Supachai said in an interview. "Whatever happens, if the U.S. will maintain the way we use multilateral solutions, it will be highly appreciated."

That delicate expression of concern was repeated by some of America's strongest allies. They said they were worried that all international institutions would suffer a loss of credibility if the one superpower appeared to be choosing which rules to obey.

European officials have complained the loudest about the United States breaking trade rules. In one of the largest such judgments, Europe was awarded the right to impose $4 billion worth of trade sanctions against the United States for giving tax breaks to American exporters through foreign sales corporations. European officials say they are tired of waiting for Congress to approve new laws prohibiting these subsidies, and that they may impose 100 percent duties on items like precious stones, sporting goods and agricultural products by the end of the month.

The most glaring example here of going-it-alone tendencies was the United States' last-minute refusal to sign off on an agreement that would help poor nations buy generic medicines through exemptions from trade rules.

Developing nations had pinned their hopes on this agreement to fight AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria and other diseases. But the United States, with the strong approval of the American pharmaceutical industry, exercised the veto that every nation possesses and destroyed the deal.

That upended the timetable for a current round of trade negotiations that is dedicated to helping developing nations. This cause is identified with Mr. Supachai, the former deputy prime minister of Thailand and first director general of the trade agency.

Now he has lost the first battle. "That was a great pity," he said. "It would have sent a powerful message that we talk not only about trade deals but humanitarian deals."

Diplomats said they found it striking that Europe was willing to stand up to its pharmaceutical industries and support the agreement, but that the United States was not.

Sergio Marchi, Canada's permanent representative to the trade organization, said the American position not only put millions of lives at risk, but threatened the organization itself.

As the world's largest trading power, the United States is expected to lead the movement for more liberal trading rules. But after President Bush imposed steel tariffs and approved a dramatic increase in farm subsidies last year, officials here are wondering if the United States is rethinking its role.

"The World Trade Organization is supposed to be about tradeoffs," said Shefali Sharma, the representative of the Institute for Agriculture and Trade, a nonprofit organization based in Minneapolis. "Before, the European Union was the biggest sinner, but the United States is making Europe look good."
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/17/international/17TRAD.html