There are a few other areas where the rules-based multilateral trading system – or more specifically, its denizens – falls short.

First, a word on tariff liberalization. Up until very recently, the United States has kept a very open economy with very low tariffs. In addition, the United States has very little water in its tariff bindings, meaning the difference between the tariff levels it commits to at the WTO and its actual applied tariff. For the most part, U.S. bound tariffs are its applied tariffs. That is not the case for many other WTO members. Tariff negotiations are always seen as a two-way street. But the United States does not have much more tariff water to give except in sensitive sectors. Conversely, other members do. So it does not take much to see, perhaps, the roots of the United States’ frustration with the system it built and the concessions it offered to other members of such a system.

Next, there is transparency. There is nothing more basic than providing transparency about one’s trading system. And here, the United States is, if not the best, certainly among the best. And one must understand that transparency makes it easier for others to sue the discloser. You can’t monitor, assess, and sue others if you can’t even find the most basic information about what they are doing. This is an issue with many WTO members, but in particular with China. This is an area where the rules simply don’t apply in the same way to all members.

We welcomed China into the WTO in 2001 with faith and hope that, over time, its non-market economy would become more like the open market models upon which WTO rules are based. That did not happen. And we have found that rules that were created with market economies in mind simply do not apply in the same way to non-market, non-transparent economies. Is it fair to complain that you are retreating from international rules and norms if those rules and norms are incapable of addressing the very clear negative consequences of the Chinese economy and of its failure to follow through on moving toward becoming a market economy?

Should the United States say good-bye to the WTO?

Does this all mean that the United States should walk away from the WTO? My answer is no. A lot of good work still gets done, particularly at the technical committee level. At least during my time in Geneva, the United States has been present, and leading, in many areas. I hope that continues. It is a good sign that someone has been nominated by the Trump administration to be my successor as U.S. Permanent Representative to the WTO.