Read on Twitter
After @HawleyMO published the below @nytimes op-ed, he & @sdonnan engaged in a #Twitterdebate over the @WTO.
The debate is really over what International Organizations can & can't do in world politics.
Let's break it down!
[THREAD] https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/05/opinion/hawley-abolish-wto-china.html?referringSource=articleShare
The debate is really over what International Organizations can & can't do in world politics.
Let's break it down!
[THREAD] https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/05/opinion/hawley-abolish-wto-china.html?referringSource=articleShare
@sdonnan responds to @HawleyMOS's op-ed with a thread explaining how the @WTO, like any international organization, only does what its member states allow it to do:
1) be a negotiation forum;
2) share information;
3) help coordinate policies. https://twitter.com/sdonnan/status/1257707818045538304
1) be a negotiation forum;
2) share information;
3) help coordinate policies. https://twitter.com/sdonnan/status/1257707818045538304
@HawleyMO followed up his op-ed with a speech. Worth listening to the speech in full: he makes the point that the old GATT system was attractive b/c "nations remained in control". He claims that is NOT the case with the WTO https://www.pscp.tv/w/1djxXQNeMAXKZ?t=20m29s
@sdonnan responds by again pointing out that the WTO does not take away a member state's sovereignty https://twitter.com/sdonnan/status/1263170721641005056
At this point, @HawleyMO directly addresses @sdonnan. https://twitter.com/HawleyMO/status/1263174629251833871
To make this argument, @HawleyMO draws on @rodrikdani and his discussion of post-Cold War "hyperglobalization" https://twitter.com/HawleyMO/status/1263178561986473984
...and comes back to the point about the WTO not having power beyond what the member states provide to it https://twitter.com/sdonnan/status/1263267409521266688
@HawleyMO then lays out his argument in a thread https://twitter.com/HawleyMO/status/1263277858551726087
In the thread, @HawleyMO makes good points about the GATT system. It was more ad-hoc in its operation and was largely limited to focusing on tariffs in particular industries https://twitter.com/HawleyMO/status/1263277864021102593
The @WTO was given a wider remit (more industries; more focus on NTBs). https://twitter.com/HawleyMO/status/1263277864872443904
Then comes a key point in @HawleyMO's argument: "China shock" https://twitter.com/HawleyMO/status/1263277865942081537
This is in reference to China gaining PNTR (in 2000) & becoming a member of the WTO (in 2001) https://twitter.com/ProfPaulPoast/status/1206908925246935040
And there has indeed been A LOT of discussion about the "China Shock" by economists and political economists https://twitter.com/ProfPaulPoast/status/1244970143526137856
For me, @HawleyMO's criticism of the @WTO is really a criticism of granting PNTR to China.
The is similar to @realDonaldTrump's criticms of @WHO really being criticism of China's handling of #COVID19. https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/491555-trump-criticizes-who-calls-it-very-china-centric
The is similar to @realDonaldTrump's criticms of @WHO really being criticism of China's handling of #COVID19. https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/491555-trump-criticizes-who-calls-it-very-china-centric
Overall, I agree with @sdonnan: IOs, like the WTO, can only do what member states, especially major power member states, allow it to do. https://twitter.com/ProfPaulPoast/status/1240600170062110720
But I also think @HawleyMO's criticisms highlight the tensions that arise when an IO is dominated by two major powers: the IO takes the blame and becomes ineffective. https://twitter.com/ProfPaulPoast/status/1246418519861923841
I appreciate @HawleyMO & @sdonnan having this #TwitterDebate (note: I appreciate how both kept the debate respectful and civil)
Analyzing this debate has lessons for the role of IOs in the international system (h/t @abhworthington)
[END]
Analyzing this debate has lessons for the role of IOs in the international system (h/t @abhworthington)
[END]
