Reply #107: Quite Correct [View All]

I am trying to set something up :) BTW, I agree with your answer.

I would argue that the current situation is simply the natural outcome of the right mentioned above being exercised.

Basically what happened is this. Countries got together and decided to form a group to promote and regulate trade. Given that all countries have a right to refuse to trade with anyone they want to, membership in this group must be voluntary. Likewise, decisions must be made by consensus, because any country that didn't like a decision could always just drop out.

However, even though membership is voluntary and all decisions are made by consensus, rich countries have defacto control. The reason is simple. The fact is that rich countries have the largest most valuable markets and the inherent right to refuse access to those markets. Rich countries call the shots, because they inherently have the absolute right to shut out anyone they don't approve of. The consensus aspect of the group enables poor countries to walk out, as they did in Cancun, but that sword cuts both ways. Sure, they walked out and refused to give rich countries what they wanted, but in turn they don't get what they wanted either.

This is basically where we are at today. Is it fair? No. However, I fail to see a way out of it unless you are willing to compromise on the principle that you and I both agree every country should have. I liken it to the 1st amendment. Sure, the 1st amendment results in outcomes that are distasteful, e.g. neo-Nazi parades. However, the principle is far too important and valuable to compromise on.