Slashdot Mirror
US Faces $100 Billion Fine For Web Gambling Ban
Stony Stevenson writes with the news that the World Trade Organization is seeking billions of dollars in compensation from the United States from their ban on internet gambling. The view of the WTO is that the US has reneged on commitments to the organization. "The disputed concessions arise from Antigua's victory earlier this year when the WTO ruled that the US violated its treaty obligations by excluding online Antiguan gaming operators, while allowing domestic operators to offer various forms of online gaming. Instead of complying with the ruling, the Bush administration withdrew the sizeable gambling industry from its free trade commitments. As a result, all 151 WTO members are considering seeking compensation for the withdrawal equal to the size of the entire US land-based and online gaming market, estimated at nearly US$100 billion."
The Antiguans have formally requested to be allowed to suspend their obligations to the US. If this is granted, they could threaten to sell cheap DVDs & Microsoft software to recover the money. I doubt they would do that, but its more likely a threat to get them to pay.
I am a free slashdotter. I will not be modded, blogged, DRM'd, patented, podcasted or RFID'd. My life is my own.
Huh ?
The WTO isn't trying to override anything - we're simply being asked to honor a commitment made under a treaty which we negotiated. Other nations that didn't want to allow cross border trade in gambling opted out of those provisions, the United States did not. The US has repeatedly argued that it was a mistake the WTO panels have ruled that the record of the treaty negotiation shows that is not the case and the US freely made the commitment. Don't tell me the government didn't have a lawyer read it before they signed.
For further clarification, the US Constitution makes it clear that international treaties ratified by congress become the law of the United States.
As for the meaningless cabal of US bashers - get a grip. We are the WTO. Without our commitment to abide by the treaties there will be no WTO. I really hate the cranks that point to organizations that the US was a key player in founding claiming that they're anti US just because they may disagree once in a while. I'm surprised nobody is claiming the Internet is anti US too.
You don't appear to understand the nature of the dispute. The gambling laws in Antigua (and in most of Europe) are pretty strict, and would conform to or exceed any similar laws on the American books. If the laws to protect gamblers in a country aren't strict enough for the States, I'm pretty sure that they can make an issue out of that (this is an area I'm not too clear on. Feel free to correct).
The problem is that the US allows online gambling internally, but won't allow the same thing from an external source. This is called protectionism and is a no-no under WTO rules. This is a particularly blatant example of it, too (usually it's done through subsidies or unreasonable import taxes so it's not so obvious - see sugar in Europe and wood in the US). Because it's so blatant, and because the US have been really aggressive about it (jailing people who run online gambling sites and requiring payment processors to not allow payments to online gambling firms) it has pissed a load of people off, because the US not only signed the GATS, but basically wrote it and pushed it hard. Suddenly don't like something about it and instead of trying to negotiate or giving in, they unilaterally withdrew an entire section of their economy from the treaty.
This allows all the other signatories with interests in that sector to claim damages ore recompense and if the US don't pay, the WTO can do things like suspend other countries intellectual property obligations to the US. Hint: how much of the US' current exports are IP and how's the trade balance.
The US will have to settle this, and being pig-headed won't be the long-term answer. Most likely, Bush is lining this up for the poor b*stards that are going to follow him giving the probability that the next administration will be democrat. Either that or he doesn't care.
Rational thought is the only true freedom
I'm not a Bush fan much at all, but I do think he got it right when he said essentially that respect for human rights are a fundamental aspect of freedom, and that U.S. policy needs to be dictated thereby. Trouble is, I don't think that the US or other corporations are interested in human rights -- they'd rather have economic slavery and virtual indentured servitude instead.
...Open Source isn't the only answer -- but it's almost always a better value than the alternatives...
The thing is here that the US has been very very aggressive in enforcing WTO rules when they're in its favour. It's all very well saying how terrible the WTO is in this case, but trust me, the rest of the world has been saying pretty much the same thing every time a ruling goes the other way, and the US wins fair trade in something somewhere. The fact here is that the US allows online gambling. But only if the gambling company is based in the US. The justification given is that gaming companies outside the US aren't regulated, but this is a false argument: external companies could easily be required to conform to US regulations when they operate in the US, but the US has chosen to ban them entirely. This is against the rules. Every other country in the world that allows online gambling is forced to allow US online gambling companies to operate in their country. Why should the US be any different? To put it another way, let's apply it to another industry.... let's say.... selling software online. And put the same conditions in place: Now US-based software companies are free to sell in the US, provided they conform to US law, but offshore all software companies are banned from selling in the US, on the grounds that they might not conform to US law. I work for a software house based outside the US that sells software to US-based firms. If we were banned from operating in the US, while our US-based competitors were allowed to operate there, as well as compete with us in our own country, we would be justifiably upset. This is the position that offshore gambling companies are in now. They're happy to comply with US regulation, but that just isn't enough; the US won't allow them to operate. The point is that for fair trade, the same rules must be applied to onshore and offshore companies. If the US did this, there would be no suit.
The Wire Act of 1961 made it illegal to place an interstate or international wager: And more recently they passed the "Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act" as a rider to a must-pass spending bill, which makes financial institutions responsible for policing online wagering: The UIGEA is at the heart of the WTO dispute. The bill is intended to illegalize gambling, not by making gambling illegal (something they cannot do) but my making it illegal to transfer money to and from gambling sites and the banks they work with.
Basically, our goddamned government insists on sticking its nose in a place where it doesn't belong.
Fun with Anagarams! LADS HOST, SHALT DOS. HAS DOLTS. AD SLOTHS, HATS SOLD. ASS HO, LTD.
Domestic vs. international law
The United States takes a different view concerning the relationship between international and domestic law from many other nations, particularly European ones. Unlike nations that view international agreements as always superseding domestic law, the American view is that international agreements become part of the body of U.S. federal law. As a result, Congress can modify or repeal treaties by subsequent legislative action, even if this amounts to a violation of the treaty under international law. The most recent changes will be enforced by U.S. courts entirely independent of whether the international community still considers the old treaty obligations binding upon the U.S. Additionally, an international agreement that is inconsistent with the U.S. Constitution is void under domestic U.S. law, the same as any other federal law in conflict with the Constitution, and the Supreme Court could rule a treaty provision to be unconstitutional and void under domestic law although it has never done so. The constitutional constraints are stronger in the case of CEA and executive agreements, which cannot override the laws of state governments.
The U.S. is not a party to the Vienna Convention. However, the State Department has taken the position that it is still binding, in that the Convention represents established customary law. The U.S. habitually includes in treaty negotiations the reservation that it will assume no obligations that are in violation of the U.S. Constitution a position mandated by the Supreme Court's 1957 ruling in Reid v. Covert. However, the Vienna Convention provides that states are not excused from their treaty obligations on the grounds that they violate the state's constitution, unless the violation is manifestly obvious at the time of contracting the treaty. So for instance, if the US Supreme Court found that a treaty violated the US constitution, it would no longer be binding on the US under US law; but it would still be binding on the US under international law, unless its unconstitutionality was manifestly obvious to the other states at the time the treaty was contracted. It has also been argued by the foreign governments (especially European) and by international human rights advocates that many of these US reservations are both so vague and broad as to be invalid. They also are invalid as being in violation of the Vienna Convention provisions referenced earlier.
If you post it, they will read.