Quote:
|
And as far as softwood lumber goes, many WTO rulings in favour of Canada and against the U.S.A. were ignored by Uncle Sam and eventually Canada settled for a lesser settlement than what the WTO ordered, figuring that the U.S.A. would delay and dither forever and that something now was better than nothing later. But it has also been widely accepted that WTO decisions usually side with the United States, and since the WTO's inception in 1995, the U.S.A. has been the biggest beneficiary as a result of WTO rulings. Is this what the WTO was designed for, to be a yes man for America? Hardly, the WTO was set up so that larger countries couldn't pick on smaller ones as a result of size and power which is precisely what is happening. Canada and the European Union have every reason to be involved in this case to ensure a dangerous precedent isn't set,`34 whereby the United States is the only country that matters in WTO rulings. Consequently, they should stand side by side with Antigua to demand that the United States stop acting as rulers of the world and start accepting WTO decisions that go against them.
|
This is the part of the article that jumps out at me, since it is the easiest for me to understand. How likely is it to happen, that another country or entity will stand up against these inequities?