在全球貿易談判上週破裂後﹐世界最大的幾個經濟體被迫尋找降低貿易壁壘的新途徑﹐而世界貿易組織(WTO)是否已準備好肩負起這項重任還遠是個未知數。這個擁有149個成員的組織一直充當著舉行全球貿易談判的論壇。

事實上﹐WTO存在著淪為21世紀版國際聯盟(League of Nations)的危險：原本是一個全球治理方面用意良好的試驗﹐最終卻成了一個無足輕重的機構。

雙語閱讀

• Failed Trade Talks Cloud WTO's Future 全球貿易談判上週陷入了僵局﹐原因是談判各方在削減農產品關稅和農業補貼的幅度問題上產生了爭執。由於無法彌合這些分歧﹐WTO同時進行的服務貿易和工業品貿易談判也陷於停頓。這種持續了近5年的混亂局面迫使WTO總幹事帕斯卡爾•拉米(Pascal Lamy)決定暫停相關談判。

曾在布什總統首個任期內擔任負責國際貿易的商務部副部長的格蘭特•阿爾杜那斯(Grant Aldonas)說：“WTO真的正處在十字路口。”他說﹐多哈回合全球貿易談判除非能夠恢復﹐否則該談判的破裂“將會持續侵蝕WTO作為討論貿易問題以及更廣泛的全球化進程問題主要論壇的地位。”

當WTO的前身關稅及貿易總協定(General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade)在第二次世界大戰後成立之時﹐它主要是被美國(一定程度上還有西歐各主要經濟體)統治的。只要他們相互間達成共識﹐就能夠迫使其他國家就範。因此那時候該組織內部比較容易形成一致。從1948年起經過8輪貿易談判﹐國際間的關稅和貿易壁壘逐步降低。到20世紀末時﹐以跨境交易的貨物價值來衡量的國際貿易額已經達到了1950年時的22倍。

但這種日子已經一去不復返了﹐貿易壁壘不再能像以往那樣迅速降低。隨著其他國家經濟實力的增強﹐他們紛紛要求在制定貿易規則方面獲得發言權。與大國擁有否決權或更多投票權的聯合國和國際貨幣基金組織(IMF)不同﹐WTO 的每個成員都可以阻撓任何一個貿易協議的達成。美國貿易代表蘇珊•施瓦布(Susan Schwab)說：“要在149個成員國達成共識的基礎上開展工作﹐這真是件讓人傷腦筋的事﹐WTO的組織結構十分錯綜複雜。”

令局面更加複雜的是﹐WTO不僅僅是制定國際貿易規則的機構﹐它還是執行國際貿易規則的法庭﹐它在扮演執法者角色方面已經獲得了一些成功。根據1994年成立WTO時所達成的協議﹐關稅及貿易總協定以往那種較少對抗性的執法方式被廢棄﹐因為這一方式使成員國可以無視國際貿易規則。WTO的成員國目前必須遵守該組織的規定。

但這就產生了問題。在關稅及貿易總協定時代﹐成員國間的爭端經常是些無關緊要的小問題。但在WTO時代﹐農業補貼和知識產權等頗具爭議性的問題也開始成為各方爭議的焦點。美國國會對WTO的支持一直都很勉強。

國會的核心成員總是將WTO視為一個支持法治的國際性象徵﹐國會議員們正是因此才支持由WTO推動的一系列全球談判的。但WTO卻在一些美國人口中投下了一枚苦果：在歐盟的投訴下﹐它推翻了美國給予有大量出口業務的美國公司稅收減免待遇的一項國內立法﹐要求美國遵守WTO的相關裁決。而國會是永遠不樂於見到它自己或美國的權力受到外國人壓制的。

多哈回合貿易談判的破裂可能意味著﹐當WTO試圖涉及一些更棘手的爭執時它正在陷入麻煩。這些爭執是WTO自身的爭端解決機制所無力消除的﹐WTO希望多哈回合的外交斡旋能夠解決它們。

以巴西為例﹐它正考慮是否要求WTO允許其向美國徵收10億美元損害賠償﹐以補償美國已被WTO裁定為非法的玉米出口補貼給巴西造成的損害。由於前段時間各方都將關注點放在了議題更廣泛的全球貿易談判上﹐巴西一直沒有採取相應的懲罰行動。

針對美國的玉米、水稻和高糧出口補貼﹐還有一些國家也準備對美國採取懲罰行動。而歐盟對西紅柿、葡萄酒和黃油等產品的補貼也已成為其他國家抱怨的對象。

一旦WTO的規則逼近國家主權的核心問題﹐對該機構的支持度就會下降﹐相應地人們對WTO實現其促進增長、消除貧困這一使命的支持也會下降。美國全國製造商協會(National Association of Manufacturers)的主席約翰•英格勒(John Engler)說：“無疑﹐這是一個很嚴重的問題。”

美國從未加入過國際聯盟。它眼睜睜看著這一機構逐漸變得無關緊要﹐無法應對第二次世界大戰前日益加大的外交和軍事挑戰。直到目前﹐世界仍將WTO視為全球貿易中唯一誠實的仲裁人﹐美國也堅持認為﹐這一機構仍然是全球經濟中的重要一環。

全球貿易談判破裂的光明一面可能是﹐在貿易上相互依賴的各國可能會因此而警醒﹐從而通過加倍努力來達成妥協。這可能足以挽救WTO的命運﹐並使各主要經濟體再度致力於降低貿易壁壘並消除為經濟全球化投下陰影的各種緊張關係。

Failed Trade Talks Cloud WTO's Future

THE COLLAPSE of global trade talks last week forces the world's big economies to seek new ways to pursue their quest for lower barriers to trade. It is far from clear that the World Trade Organization, the 149-nation organization that has been the forum for the talks, is up to the task.

Indeed, the WTO is at risk of becoming a 21st-century version of the League of Nations: a well-intentioned experiment in global governance that slides into irrelevance.

The trade talks reached an impasse last week amid disputes over how deeply to cut tariffs on farm products and farm subsidies. The inability to bridge those differences stalled parallel talks on services and industrial goods. WTO chief Pascal Lamy, faced with a snarl nearly five years in the making, suspended negotiations.

'The WTO really is at a crossroads,' says Grant Aldonas, who was undersecretary of commerce for international trade in President Bush's first term. He says the collapse of the Doha Round of world trade talks, unless they're revived, sets the stage for the 'steady erosion of the WTO's role as the principal forum for addressing not just trade, but the broader process of globalization.'

When the WTO's predecessor, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, was set up after World War II, it was ruled by the U.S. and, to a lesser degree, the major economies of Western Europe. When they agreed, they could bludgeon other nations to follow suit. Consensus was easier to come by. Through eight rounds of negotiations beginning in 1948, tariffs and trade barriers fell steadily. By the end of the 20th century, world trade -- as measured by the value of goods that cross borders -- was 22 times what it had been in 1950.

THAT DAY IS GONE, and trade barriers aren't falling as rapidly. New nations have risen to economic prominence and demand a voice in setting the rules of trade. Unlike the United Nations and International Monetary Fund, where big countries have a veto or more voting power, any single country in the WTO can scotch any deal. 'Operating on the basis of consensus, with 149 countries, is a stretch,' says U.S. Trade Representative Susan Schwab. 'That dynamic is pretty darn complicated.'

A further complication is that the WTO isn't just a body that legislates world trade rules. It is also the court that enforces them, a task at which it has had some success. The deal that created the WTO in 1994 did away with a less-confrontational approach in which countries could ignore trade rulings. Now member nations are bound to follow WTO rulings.

But that has led to problems. Under the WTO's predecessor, disputes were frequently mundane. But the WTO has added such contentious issues as agriculture subsidies and intellectual-property rights. On Capitol Hill, lawmakers have grudgingly supported the WTO.

A core group in Congress has always viewed the WTO as an international expression of support for the rule of law, and that has buttressed the case among lawmakers for talks led by the group. But the WTO left a bad taste in the mouths of some Americans when it overturned a special tax break for U.S. multinational corporations with big export businesses to comply with a ruling on a complaint filed by the European Union; Congress never likes to see its -- or America's -- power constrained by foreigners.

The collapse of the Doha trade talks probably means the WTO is heading for trouble as it approaches more difficult issues, including some touchy disputes that had been kept out of its dispute-resolution mechanism in the hopes that Doha Round diplomacy would solve them.

Brazil, for instance, is considering whether to ask the WTO for permission to impose $1 billion in damages on the U.S., as compensation for cotton subsidies the WTO has ruled are illegal. Action on the penalties had been delayed, amid the focus on the larger talks.

SIMILAR CASES could be brought against the U.S. over corn, rice and sorghum. The EU is exposed to complaints involving tomatoes, wine and butter, among others.

To the degree that the WTO rules on items that are close to the heart of national sovereignty, support for the institution will wither, and with it the WTO's mandate to promote growth and fight poverty. 'There's no question about it: that's very problematic,' says John Engler, president of the National Association of Manufacturers.

The U.S. never joined the League of Nations. It stood by as the institution faded slowly into irrelevance, unable to meet the diplomatic and military challenges gathering ahead of World War II. So far, the world still looks to the WTO as the only honest referee in the global trade game, and the U.S. insists that the organization remains a vital cog in the global economy.

Perhaps the bright side of the collapse of the trade talks is that trade-dependent nations may be jolted into attention and redouble their efforts to reach a compromise. That might be enough to save the WTO and recommit major economies to reducing trade barriers and smoothing the tensions that cast a shadow over a globalizing economy.

Greg Hitt