All quite true. The only thing I might add is that, if you think reforming the dispute-settlement process is long over due, you miss out on a high-profile issue that could spur your cause.

On the other hand, given that the Hong Kong Ministerial is forthcoming, and completing the Doha round will be difficult (perhaps especially because a new Director-General and a new USTR will both need to be found), it's best to limit the controversies.

What possible endpoint for these talks could there be that would be of benefit to the United States? The key players in EADS (Airbus) created the situation the way it is now for a reason. They have achieved their goal, and the Iraq adventure has surely solidified their thinking as to why EADS was necessary. The EU is in a position of strength on this one - why would they back down in any forum?

Cranky

I won't argue that this is not a win-win for the careers of those who argued it, or for the organizations for which they argued it. And it is certainly a better outcome than many other possible outcomes.

But I'm sceptical when it comes to the possibility of "win-win" solutions in general, for the same reasons that I am very sceptical of any organization whose name includes the wqords "public interest". There is no public interest, as such (at least when it comes to controversial issues- we can all agree that large scale nuclear war would be against the public interest, but... no-one is arguing for one- I hope)- there is an aggregate interest, but that is a different thing entirely. Optimizing for a number of variables equal to the number of economic actors in our economy is a Sysiphean task. There is no public interest, in any interesting sense of the phrase.

It is good that airplane manufacturing is opening up. But an easier solution to these tense trade talks is to open trade up entirely- this is clearly a gain in terms of the aggregate interest. I work in an industry that has been offshored heavily in the last few years- I still have a job, but my wages must be depressed as a result.

I don't mind Indians competing for my job, as long as they can compete for every job in the economy (where feasible). But I resent bearing the brunt of offshoring. If my work is offshored, I want yours offshored as well, so I can benefit from the lower labor costs in your industry.

Partial free trade is fundamentally unfair- damaging workers in vulnerable industries (by which I mean not organized) without allowing them to reap the benefits- so, great, these guys come to some sort of agreement that is a bit more free in terms of airplane sales- the existence of these trade resolution bodies indicates a problem. I'm all for free trade, but I want it to cut across all industries- if my wages are depressed by it I want to see my costs depressed as well.

So pardon me if I am less than enthused about the results of this particular round of jockeying. The jockeying is the problem, and there is no reason to celebrate this isolated victory (unless of course I get cheaper airline tickets thereby, at which point I will break out the champaigne).

OT, but a nice line caught my eyes:

"...that theoretically could have hurt both governments."
If we still don't have yet a constitution, at least we have a government in Europe...
For sure Europe is a "fait accompli", as you corroborate it there, I sometime just wonder which a fact it is.