The United States and the World Trade Organization

    Recently there has been large debates regarding the implications regarding the possibility of the United States potentially pulling out of the World Trade Organization. While some politicians and economists supported this idea and have argued that it would be beneficial for the US to leave this organization, the US would have to face some serious consequences that would be hard to bounce back from, not only domestically, but globally since other countries could potentially be positively affected if this deal were to go into effect. The debate is still ongoing, but the consequences and risks of this action, especially during an economic crisis from the covid-19 pandemic, are too great to ignore and continue to be in pursuit of departing from the World Trade Organization. 

    There are several strong arguments that support my claims that leaving would present more bad than good. First, the US being involved in the world trade organization adds greater legitimacy to the organization itself as it had been the main developer of the institution, and it is more likely that the institution itself will disassemble without the leadership of the US involved. Since the US has maintained a top economy and leadership role within the global economy, pulling out would cause more chaos within the global spectrum. Leaving would set back the power status and prestige that that the US currently holds (Johnson, K. 2020). Other powerful member states from the European Union as well as China would hold a majority of the power if the US leaves. This creates problems for us because these nations would be in the position of higher power, leaving them to create the rules and regulations for the future economy, resulting in the US having to follow suit from competitor countries. China has especially been a target for the US economy as it has continued to grow and pose as a threat as it climbs the ranks as the second largest and leading economy. The last thing the US market wants is for it to be “China dominated.” (Johnson, K. 2020)

    The World Trade Organization helps our country by providing efficient trade markets both domestically as well as internationally, which keeps the supply chain and export chains moving through the economy as efficiently as possible. One of the largest issue regarding the US’s departure from the WTO would be that countries could freely raise tariffs on the US trade market, meaning that there would be a rise in prices for consumers, as well as undercut competitions and profit that companies selling products are dependent on to stay in business. There would be no limitations to discriminations on goods and services from the US from other countries, meaning that export markets would most likely shrink if tariffs went up. 

Work Cited:  Johnson, K. (2020, May 27). U.S. effort to depart WTO gathers momentum. Foreign Policy. Retrieved March 23, 2022, from https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/05/27/world-trade-organization-united-states-departure-china/

Comments

  1. Madison McCormackMarch 28, 2022 at 9:51 AM

    After reading your blog, I really like how clear your argument is, and how easy it is to follow throughout your writing. You start off by quickly explaining the situation surrounding the U.S.'s possible departure from the WTO, and than immediately state how that would be a bad idea and have negative impacts on the U.S. and the system as a whole. This made your blog flow nicely, and it was easy to follow. Also, I felt that you included a good bit of cited information that supported your claims, but still allowed for you to argue your point in your own words. My only possible critique would be surrounding the grammar, as some words that should be capitalized aren't. But overall, I think this was a great blog.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Kyle LionettiMarch 28, 2022 at 10:17 AM

    The World Trade Organization is extremely important to the average consumer of The United States, irregardless of what pulling out of the WTO would do for the United States internationally. Being part of the WTO allows The United States consumers to purchase international goods on lower tariff rates, and creates more competition for US industries. Overall, leaving the WTO would cause the fates of consumers to be in the hands of private corporations in The United States, meaning almost definitely the price of goods would rise. Now, when you look at it from an international standpoint, The United States would definitely lose a lot of power and influence on the global stage. Due to all of these points, I agree with your argument that The United States should stay in the WTO.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Chris KMarch 28, 2022 at 1:14 PM

    I agree with your main idea which is that the United States needs to stay in the WTO. We talked earlier in the semester about soft power and I think that is relevant to this discussion. The United States needs to maintain an ability to trade globally to not only keep the economy running, but also as a way to influence the rest of the world. The United States views itself as a global power that is responsible for keeping the world economy moving and pulling out of a global organization that oversees trade would not be a good idea. I do have a question about China because China is often brought up in discussions of world power and trade. Do you think China has already surpassed the United States as the global economic top power?

    ReplyDelete
  4. James NespoleMarch 29, 2022 at 1:08 PM

    I liked how you clearly stated your argument and I thought the structure of the blog post was very easy to follow. I wrote about the WTO as well and I thought your arguments were spot on and well supported. For me, one of the biggest issues I think would come out of the US leaving the WTO would be extremely high tariffs on US goods, so I liked the fact that you talked about this in your blog post. Furthermore, I thought the quotes you used to support your argument related really well to the arguments you were making.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Kevin KlukowiczMarch 29, 2022 at 3:55 PM

    One aspect of your blog that was well thought out and appreciated were the negative consequential and environmental factors that would occur if the United States were to leave the organization. I completely agree with your view that the United States should remain a part of the WTO. Remaining a part of the WTO cements America's international outside view as a homogenous country. Leaving the organization and allowing an economic competitor, such as China, would create a new standard international currency, limiting American exportation ultimately affecting the domestic American market. I also really like the hypothetical interpretation of America's absence from the WTO. Allowing another actor to replace America as the leader of the WTO would leave American markets to be regulated by trading partners, limiting the growth of multiple sectors that encompass the totality of the economy.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

How is Climate Change Reshaping International Relations Among Countries

  How is Climate Change Reshaping International Relations Among Countries Climate change, a modern day issue only first being recognized in 1896, has played a large role in how modern nations view and create relations with other actors. The initial theories of international relations and the growing disciplines were created upon the issues of war and security threats amongst citizens of nations, these theories and ideologies excluded the environmental threats in regards to security (Vogler, 2018).  While most global issues have revolved around other interests such as economic and financial stabilities, or peace and stability among other nations, in order to maintain a better understanding of climate changes occurring, it is imperative to acknowledge that climate change has created a vast change on how international actors work with one another. Prior to what we now know as the climate crisis, stability such as financial, power, military and status were much more crucial to sta...
Read more

"Human Rights"

     I wrote in my previous blog post about how the word “terrorism” is used as a political tool. Another term that is seen as a very important issue but is used more as a political tool than something real is “human rights”. There is a difference between how terrorism and human rights are used as political tools. Terrorism is an abstract idea that is applied to violence when it is helpful politically. On the other hand, human rights is not an abstract idea, but something very real and very important. The way that human rights are used as a political tool is by people in power creating a narrow definition of human rights and selecting certain situations where human rights are a concern and allowing it to be ignored when that is more politically convenient. One way to understand the first part of creating a narrow definition of human rights is to look at how Nhina Le explores the difference in how the west and the non-west view human rights. Human rights are often r...
Read more

ICC articles

When it comes to the arguments on the International Crimes Court, I think the article presented by Daniel Abebe is the most convincing to me. After reading the article presented right before it, (the article by Anne Marie Gotez), it seemed that maybe the best way to fix the problems within the ICC would be to give them more funding and allow them to give more financial aid to the victims of these war crimes. Furthermore, she said that the funding for this program had been below a million and it was not enough for the ICC to function effectively. However, after reading the article presented by Abebe it stated that since 2002, the ICC has spent over a billion dollars. If in 20 years they were able to spend this mass amount of money, then there is no way that they are being underfunded. Moreover, Abebe states that the funding for the ICC is over 100 millions dollars a year, which is an incredible quantity of money for people to be asking for more money to be pumped into the system. Abeb...
Read more