Thread by @ProfPaulPoast

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]

nytimes.com/2020/05/05/opi…

@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

@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

pscp.tv/w/1djxXQNeMAXK…

@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

FYI: This is the book cited

wwnorton.com/books/The-Glob…

@sdonnan responds directly to @HawleyMO...

https://twitter.com/sdonnan/status/1263265914922950656

...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.

thehill.com/homenews/admin…

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]