Quibble over ‘slippage’ on protection

Meanwhile in Geneva… the WTO delegations have been debating whether the Secretariat's second report on protectionist measures (issued a month ago) showed 'significant slippage' in Member governments' commitment to hold the line, or not.

The U.S. ambassador disagreed with the proposition that Member governments had begun to default on their promises.

“We understand the danger of an incremental build-up of restrictions but do not think that the facts bear out the suggestion in the introduction of the report that ‘there has been significant slippage’ since the beginning of the year,” said Peter Allgeier, the US ambassador to the WTO, adding that he thought the phrase ‘some slippage’ was more appropriate.

While the Doha Round remains out of reach they have nothing better to do than to argue this sort of stuff. The Hong Kong delegation (possibly as a proxy for you-know-who) has been attempting to get Members' agreement to a temporary, 'binding' standstill declaration on top of their regular WTO obligations. A WTO version of the G20 pledge.

Last I heard that idea had also fallen foul of the delegations' quibbling over terms.

For the philological turophile the indispensable Bradshaw of the Future provides a derivation of 'quibble' that covers every quiddity.

Tags for this entry: wto china g20 protection