Slashdot Mirror
WTO Again Sides With Antigua Over Online Gambling
TechDirt writes "For some time we've been following the ongoing conflict between the US and the island nation of Antigua surrounding internet gambling. Even before the passage of the most recent anti-gambling law, Antigua had gone to the WTO to complain that the US government's actions against online gambling were de facto protectionist measures, and thus violated international trade law. The WTO ended up siding with Antigua, although, quite predictably, the US did nothing to resolve the issue -- in fact, things have only gotten worse. Now the WTO is speaking out again, slamming the US government for its failure to abide by the decision against it. Once again, it seems likely that the US will ignore the decision, although that would give Antigua the right to retaliate. One possibility that's been thrown out there is that Antigua may turn itself into a haven for free music and software and set up some site like allofmp3.com. Of course, the US put pressure on Russia to crack down on that site, as part of the country's admittance into the WTO, but since Antigua is already part of the organization, the US would have no such leverage. Now, the WTO has spoken out again."
How can the US be slammed for protectionism when we don't let anyone in the US to do online gambling?
This also touches on broader "moral issues". If a country doesn't want something to come in because it objects on moral grounds, who is another country to sue about it? It's like Columbia complaining to the WTO that we ban cocaine.
(Some may argue that regular gambling is legal in parts of the US, but I think online gambling falls into a different realm. Because of the ease of access, it could lead to an major increase in gambling.)
I doubt you'll find many Slashdotters hanging out with your average WTO protester. Sure, they both may be pasty, unwashed, and/or unshaved, but the similarity ends there. I'd bet most Slashdotters understand basic economics and understand there's generally nothing wrong with the WTO. Depending on how protectionist or stupid your leaders may be, your mileage may vary.
The crux of the issue here, is that unlike in the EU where local moral and religious laws get some protection from EU decisions, the WTO frowns on morality-based protectionism. As well they should. What business is it of our government to dictate what someone can do with their money? Gambling restrictions in this country are sold as religion-based. A good portion of Christians think that gambling is immoral. The other portion thinks that gambling is a waste of money and disproportionatly affects the poor. I suspect the real reason is because the state likes having a monopoly on gaming (state lotteries) and doesn't want the free market driving their payout percentages.
Then again, I'm not your "average" Slashdotter. Even though I AM an economist, the internet is full of people who read Atlas Shrugged and think they have a degree from Wharton or something. So I may be wrong about your "average Slashdot user."
The US slapped a tariff on our (Canadian) Softwood lumber exports into your country. Claiming that our Industry is heavily subsided by the government.
These fines have added up to 2 billion dollars. We had gone repeatedly to the WTO about the issue, and they said that we were in the right, and that the US must gives our money back. This has been going over 10 years.
The US knows that it is in the wrong. However they simply won't pay the fine.
So forget about anyone else getting any rulings through the WTO.
I have mod points and I am not afraid to use them.
I don't think there is a single solitary instance where the US has actually kept to a treaty when it did not advantage them. We have no concept of honourable dealing, and a strong interest in commercial advantage. Do you remember us actually charging the Brits for WW2?
on the USA either, UN, WTO, all other "organizations" are powerless and pointless.
tom Oh, okay, so the USA isn't any worse than NK, Iraq, or Iran? That's a stunning endorsement.
It's like the Bush fans who justify his behavior by saying "oh, but Clinton did this stuff too!" Well, when you spend years whining and bitching about how bad the other guy was, you kinda lose the right to use "they did it first" as a defense.
"The nasty letters didn't work on North Korea, Iraq, Iran, etc etc, they certainly won't work
on the USA either, UN, WTO, all other "organizations" are powerless and pointless.
tom"
Oh, okay, so the USA isn't any worse than NK, Iraq, or Iran? That's a stunning endorsement.
We've been in this camp for a long time. When the UN wanted to teach girls about family planning, it was the US and Iran that went to bat against the measure.
"Only one thing, is impossible for god: to find any sense in any copyright law on the planet." Mark Twain
The federal gov't tho, has stated that the internet is a scary scary place and that US citizens don't really know what's good for them when they venture out onto it. They recognize in Congress that States are basically out of their league when dealing with gambling over the internet. It's not enough for a State to decide to do something or nothing about it's citizens gambling on the internet. They have, in the form of the UIGEA and an updated interpretation of the Wire Act (from the 1960's!!!), decided that they have the only say about what people should be spending their money on.
There would be no issue here if the federal gov't had not gotten involved, however it chose the fight, not the other way around. By allowing interstate internet wagering on Fantasy and Horse Racing, it has allowed internet wagering with or without the State's consent. This means that foreign companies (under the WTO agreements) are allowed to compete. If they are not allowed to compete, then it's protectionism. And if you review the debate on just Horse Racing in the US - that's exactly what it is. In fact the Dept. of Justice considers interent horse racing to be illegal, even though a carve-out exists specifically for it in the UIGEA.