PDA

View Full Version : Iran and WTO


Michael
Jun 24th 2010, 12:54 PM
Why WTO membership for Iran makes sense

The Congressional Sanctions Agreement making its way through both houses of Congress this week will do little to change the behavior of the Iranian regime. There is, however, a better way to promote lasting and permanent political change in the Islamic Republic of Iran. The United States should strongly encourage and actively negotiate the accession of Iran to the World Trade Organization (WTO).

For years, the U.S. has tirelessly promoted the notion that trade liberalization reforms support greater market freedoms, which in turn pave the way for enhanced political liberalization. Indeed, it was precisely this reasoning that led America to support the WTO applications of China, Saudi Arabia, and Vietnam, three countries with troubling human rights records.

That same argument applies as much, if not more, to Iran. WTO accession can be a catalyst for the liberalization of Iran's economy. WTO reforms would require Iran to broaden and deepen the integration of its economy with the world trading system. It would demand true non-discriminatory treatment through adherence to the most-favored nation (MFN) and national treatment obligations of GATT Articles I and III, and their re-incarnations in other WTO Agreements, plus reductions in tariff and non-tariff barriers. It would necessitate privatization of state-owned and state trading enterprises (SOEs and STEs), which would lead to increased openness to foreign direct investment. And it would impel greater respect for intellectual property rights, specifically patents, trademarks, copyrights, and semi-conductor mask works, pursuant to the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs).

Source: FP Article (http://mideast.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/06/23/iran_and_the_wto)

Indeed. I doubt if there is any single policy initiative out there that can clearly show the hollowness of US policy on Iran. The US government will oppose this and that tells you everything you need to know about US policy and Iran. There is no desire for engagement, reform, negotiation, comprimise. There is only a US desire for sanctions and warmongering. Inviting Iran to join the WTO works in the opposite direction and that would be completely unacceptable to the Washington warhawks.

The US needs enemies. If there are no real ones, fake ones will be manufactured. That's what this WTO thing will be all about - it essentially calls the US government bluff and show that the US isn't interested in any policy on Iran except one that fosters rising tensions and/or increases the probability of war.

This is likely the last you will hear of this policy initiative because of this. There just is no 'market' in the US for a rational policy regarding Iran.

Americano
Jun 27th 2010, 12:19 PM
Source: FP Article (http://mideast.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/06/23/iran_and_the_wto)

Indeed. I doubt if there is any single policy initiative out there that can clearly show the hollowness of US policy on Iran. The US government will oppose this and that tells you everything you need to know about US policy and Iran. There is no desire for engagement, reform, negotiation, comprimise. There is only a US desire for sanctions and warmongering. Inviting Iran to join the WTO works in the opposite direction and that would be completely unacceptable to the Washington warhawks.

The US needs enemies. If there are no real ones, fake ones will be manufactured. That's what this WTO thing will be all about - it essentially calls the US government bluff and show that the US isn't interested in any policy on Iran except one that fosters rising tensions and/or increases the probability of war.

This is likely the last you will hear of this policy initiative because of this. There just is no 'market' in the US for a rational policy regarding Iran.

No, but there is in China and all China has to do is remain patient. China, who is poised to reap the lion's share of oil/gas resources from the US military fiasco in Iraq (and not in USD as envisioned by the US), will eventually be a primary beneficiary of ongoing efforts to isolate Iran by the US military industrial complex.

Michael
Jun 28th 2010, 09:44 AM
No, but there is in China and all China has to do is remain patient. China, who is poised to reap the lion's share of oil/gas resources from the US military fiasco in Iraq (and not in USD as envisioned by the US), will eventually be a primary beneficiary of ongoing efforts to isolate Iran by the US military industrial complex.

I guess the point I was making is that if the USA was really and truly concerned about security in the Middle East and managing Iranian nuclear ambitions, they'd be supporting the idea of drawing Iran into international engagement through WTO as that strategy has a proven track record of moderating regimes.

That the USA will oppose this just shows that the USA is not playing the Iran issue in good faith. The USA isn't actually interested in constructive or productive strategies. The USA apparently wants confrontation and military tension with Iran as that is what their whole strategy serves the purpose of achieving.

Americano
Jun 28th 2010, 10:06 AM
I guess the point I was making is that if the USA was really and truly concerned about security in the Middle East and managing Iranian nuclear ambitions, they'd be supporting the idea of drawing Iran into international engagement through WTO as that strategy has a proven track record of moderating regimes.

That the USA will oppose this just shows that the USA is not playing the Iran issue in good faith. The USA isn't actually interested in constructive or productive strategies. The USA apparently wants confrontation and military tension with Iran as that is what their whole strategy serves the purpose of achieving.

Agreed. I'm trying to remember the last time the US had foreign policy which didn't isolate countries refusing to kiss the US ring.

Michael
Jun 28th 2010, 10:08 AM
Agreed. I'm trying to remember the last time the US had foreign policy which didn't isolate countries refusing to kiss the US ring.

Indeed, US policy on Iran seems obsessed with 'punishing' Iran for over-throwing the US-backed Shah back in 1979.

Sometimes it seems that is the whole of the US policy position on Iran ("how dare you? we will show you!").

evanescence
Jul 7th 2010, 11:06 AM
"Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people.... [There is also an] inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and ... degeneracy of manners and of morals.... No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare."

James Madison

Americano
Jul 7th 2010, 12:19 PM
"Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people.... [There is also an] inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and ... degeneracy of manners and of morals.... No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare."

James Madison

Amazing similarity to the US military industrial complex business plan.

evanescence
Jul 7th 2010, 03:22 PM
Indeed. It is. I'm sure that those in charge are familiar with history.

Michael
Jul 7th 2010, 04:53 PM
Indeed. It is. I'm sure that those in charge are familiar with history.

I'd suggest the contrary. Both Madison and George Washington (as well as Eisenhower) all warned about this specific issue.

evanescence
Jul 7th 2010, 07:44 PM
I'd suggest the contrary. Both Madison and George Washington (as well as Eisenhower) all warned about this specific issue.

What I meant was that the Elite are well aware of the consequences of war and use this to their advantage.

Americano
Jul 7th 2010, 10:54 PM
What I meant was that the Elite are well aware of the consequences of war and use this to their advantage.

Leadership capable of describing the ramifications of leadership require no kudos. If they declare war is necessary for our country to remain sovereign, cannon fodder lines up faster than it can be trained and a draft is easily employed to secure the management component. War economies provide massive wealth using public debt as capital for interested parties. Who are the Elite you refer to. Who could be your neighbor employed by the enormous defense industry.

That's history common in many armed countries. Enough nuclear weapons with delivery systems to turn most of the developed world into wastelands. We (US) build new bridges in Afghanistan under military protection while US infrastructure crumbles. ROI is what US politics, including geopolitics, is all about.

evanescence
Jul 7th 2010, 11:38 PM
Leadership capable of describing the ramifications of leadership require no kudos. If they declare war is necessary for our country to remain sovereign, cannon fodder lines up faster than it can be trained and a draft is easily employed to secure the management component. War economies provide massive wealth using public debt as capital for interested parties. Who are the Elite you refer to. Who could be your neighbor employed by the enormous defense industry.

That's history common in many armed countries. Enough nuclear weapons with delivery systems to turn most of the developed world into wastelands. We (US) build new bridges in Afghanistan under military protection while US infrastructure crumbles. ROI is what US politics, including geopolitics, is all about.

Who are the Elite? That's rather difficult to pin point, but I'll try to compile a list tomorrow.