Yesterday I mentioned the BusinessWeek debate on how the U.S. should respond to the WTO Gambling decision. The user comments on the debate continue, and I found one aspect somewhat interesting. One of the comments came from a "G Clark," who I think was one of the original two debate participants, Guy Clark of the National Coalition Against Legalized Gambling. Part of the comment was:
"In the original determination of the GATS by the WTO, the U.S. submitted the category on entertainment, keeping gambling out. The WTO used another schedule for entertainment and slipped gambling into our agreement without our knowledge. We signed the GATS without knowing that they had slipped that in. Gambling on the Internet was never the intent of our trade negotiators. The U.S. tried to work around the mistake, but it was obviously a flawed policy. They should have objected immediately when they found that the WTO had stiffed them, but they were trying to avoid making waves. They have recently applied to get that category corrected to exclude gambling."
Now, this is a clear mis-characterization of what happened in the decision, as anyone familiar with the case knows (and the U.S. would probably acknowledge). The U.S. did not exclude "gambling," they excluded "sporting" services, and argued that gambling fell within that category. They had a credible argument, but it was far from clear that their interpretation was the correct one. And the suggestion that the WTO "used another schedule" and "slipped gambling" in really stretches things. One commenter responded as follows:
"You are grossly misinformed. There was no switching of the U.S. schedules. The original panel found that the U.S. had made a commitment in the remote gaming area. That decision was later upheld by the WTO Appellate Body.
In both instances, it was based on the same schedule the U.S. spent years developing. I'm sure they had hundreds of people look it over. It was no oversight on the part of the U.S. At the time, the U.S. viewed itself as potentially one of the largest exporters of gambling services in the world, so they left it in the schedule. Many other countries opted out. You can be sure every schedule was reviewed by the U.S."
I thought this second comment characterized the finding much better, although I'm not sure it's true that this really was anything more than an oversight on the part of the U.S. (Only a few people probably know for sure what really happened and I'm not one of them.) What I found most interesting about the comment, though, was the author: Jay Cohen. Is this commenter the same Jay Cohen who was a U.S. citizen convicted in the U.S. of running an Antiguan online gambling company, and who, it has been suggested (http://www.therx.com/blog_jay-cohen-used-the-wto-to-exact-his-revenge-on-the-united-states.php), pushed for Antigua's WTO complaint? Seems plausible. This case really makes for some great stories.
