Gambling and globalism.

Gambling is illegal in Utah, Hawaii, and a number of other states. Whether this policy is wise or whimsical, it indisputably falls within what James Madison described as the "numerous and indefinite" powers reserved to the states under the Constitution.

On April 7, the Geneva-based World Trade Organization (WTO) upheld a complaint by Antigua that state laws against gambling are an impermissible impediment to the tiny island nation's Internet gambling industry. At one point, Antigua had a reasonably robust agricultural sector, producing primarily bananas and sugar. Those industries were decimated, in large measure, because of an earlier WTO ruling. Antigua turned to gambling as a revenue source.

Last November, the WTO ruled that U.S. efforts to crack down on Internet gambling violated the General Agreement on Trade in Services, which supposedly covers not only legitimate trades, but also gambling and betting services. On April 7, the WTO's appellate body upheld the earlier ruling.

Utah state laws against gambling figured prominently in Antigua's case before the WTO. Lori Wallach of Ralph Nader's Public Citizen Global Trade Watch correctly states that the WTO's ruling in favor of Antigua represents "the place where federalism and the WTO go head-to-head in a record collision."

"If Utah can't pass laws prohibiting Internet gambling, it will have lost a large measure of its ability to define what people in this part of the country consider to be proper conduct." Complained Salt Lake City's Deseret Morning News. "That's why the Bush administration needs to demand a renegotiation of trade agreements that concern international gambling."

The Deseret News has long supported the WTO and U.S. membership in the body. But our membership in the WTO entails nullification of constitutional provisions intended to protect the reserved powers of the states. By approving the WTO pact, Congress also abdicated its constitutional power to regulate trade and commerce with foreign nations, surrendering it to an unelected, unaccountable synod of foreign bureaucrats.

"In many ways," the Deseret News opined shortly before the April 7 ruling, "Utah should have seen this coming." Indeed, it should have--and may have, had the newspaper explained the implications of U.S. membership in the WTO. Under the editorial leadership of former UN undersecretary-general John Hughes, a member of the globalist Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), the Deseret News has consistently promoted multilateral bodies and pacts that diminish our sovereignty.

"The culprit here is not necessarily the WTO," insists the Deseret News. "It is the U.S. negotiation team that hammered out international trade agreements years ago without any thought for states' rights.... The WTO is an important organization. It has nudged countries such as China and Russia toward democratic reforms in order to enjoy the benefits of membership.... But for the WTO to prohibit a state from enacting laws on what it considers basic questions of right and wrong is simply unacceptable."

Why, exactly, is it worthwhile for the WTO to "nudge" Russia, but "unacceptable" for the same body to push Utah around? The same globalist sauce that's good for the Russian goose is good for the Utah gander as well.

In a recent essay, Newsweek's international affairs editor Fareed Zakaria (CFR) pointed out that the WTO is, in effect, a UN with teeth. "Unlike the United Nations, the WTO can actually require that a country change its laws, regulations and precedents--not simply national laws but often state and local laws," comments Zakaria, approvingly. "Its rulings on disputes between nations are binding. It is undemocratic and filled with technocrats. And it was an American creation that [many] conservatives supported wholeheartedly."

The John Hughes-led Deseret News editorial board is typical of the "conservatives" Zakaria describes. While going out of its way to exempt the WTO from its criticism, the News has suggested that it may be necessary for the Bush administration to "tear up the general trade agreement and renegotiate it with states' rights in mind."

It's hardly necessary to "renegotiate" a trade agreement that protects states' rights, since one already exists: the U.S. Constitution. Tearing up the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) would mean leaving the WTO and restoring Congress' role in regulating international trade. Representatives Ron Paul (R-Texas) and Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) have cosponsored House Joint Resolution 27, which would withdraw our country from the WTO.

As the Old Testament prophet Elijah might say: How long will the Deseret News halt between two opinions? Supporting the WTO, which was created through the GATT, of necessity entails a surrender of national sovereignty and states' rights; it's inescapably a package deal. Residents of Utah and other states seeking to protect their distinctive cultural values should enlist in the effort to get our nation out of the WTO.