This is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 88%. (I'm a bot)

> Australia has teamed up with China and more than 100 countries to protest longstanding blockages at the World Trade Organization as the United States vetoes appeal judge appointments.

> Australia and China remain at odds over specific trade disputes between them - such as Beijing's tariffs on Australian wine and barley - but are united in concern about the years-long disruption to a key appeal body.

> Australia and China were among a large number of co-sponsors of a proposal put to a meeting of the Dispute Settlement Body in Geneva on Tuesday.

Extended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: Australia^#1 Trade^#2 dispute^#3 members^#4 China^#5

We need a rule based international order. we cannot discard rules simply because they are against our favor at this moment.

> The crisis stems from the then-Trump administration’s decision to block appointments of judges to the top WTO appeal body – which the US claimed was overstepping its role and encroaching on US sovereignty.

> The failure to replace retiring judges caused the top appeal body to grind to a halt in 2019. The Biden administration has not resumed appointments, saying the US concerns about the dispute system “remain unaddressed”.

> Australia and China were among a large number of co-sponsors of a proposal put to a meeting of the Dispute Settlement Body in Geneva on Tuesday.

What exactly are the concerns of the US?

[removed]

It seems to me if we can hold up your process so easily it really should be reformed a bit... unironically.

I think.. this stuff? https://ustr.gov/issue-areas/enforcement/us-views-functioning-wto-dispute-settlement-system I'm not savvy enough to quickly paraphrase all of this.

we want to be the first to open christmas presents

Many of the trade bodies have a setup where each country gets 1 vote, instead of a vote proportional to the amount of trade.

So a group of micro nations can dictate the rules for large countries trade which is stupid.

[deleted]

Yup, we can't say "the rules based order is fundamental" on one hand, and then say "we will stop the implementation of the rules based order because we are concerned."

In this case, appoint the judges to make the system function as intended, then look into reforms that are agreed by everyone.

They can protest. If you want to play by the rules, we have the veto power. If not, let's just go with every nation does what is best for its interests.

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

We need rules that are not violating national sovereignty.

Nice photo of the Australian PM with the Chinese President.

Actually ignoring rules not in best interest of your nation is exactly what national sovereignty is about.

Sounds familiar... where have I heard this before....

cough the US Senate cough

> Australia has teamed up with China and more than 100 countries

Seems an odd choice of title, given it ignores so many other concerned nations.

It looks to be a Guardian Australia article. So it’s just mentioning the most important countries for readers in the title.

Rules that have previously been formally agreed by all the sovereign governments controlled by those rules. If those governments no longer wish to be bound by the rules, there is a mechanism to leave.

The US is literally playing by the rules and using a mechanism built into them to resolve the larger dispute over how rules are created and interpreted.

Rules change based on how their interpreted and the US is facing a long term disadvantage due to the contemporary interpretation of the rules.

Rather than abandoning the rules, the US has worked to establish new rules outside of WTO and is actively using the rules inherent to the WTO to force a renegotiation of the dispute resolution process.

Rule based order only works if the spirit of the rules is upheld.

The US is clearly violating that spirit here, but as a reaction to other countries doing the same.

As WTO rules are concencus based, there is no feasible way to change rules that are being abused, without forcing the issue. As the US is doing here.

Yup. Plus Australia and China agreeing on anything these days is good click bait. We’ve been on the outs with China for a while in Australia.

[removed]