“Should the United States cease opposing the inescapability of Internet gambling?”

The Interactive Gaming Council (IGC) based in Canada has lately expressed its opinion concerning the issue of the ongoing dispute over online gambling between the World Trade Organization and the United States. On dispatching a letter to the United States Trade Representative, the Attorney General of Utah expressed himself that he had not done enough to prevent the World Trade Organization from passing a rule that gambling is to be dealt with like any other pastime provision, and he ended by saying the ruling would in the long term jeopardy all state rulings in regard to gambling. Deciding that individual states should be responsible for their gambling laws, the Interactive Gaming Council concurred with the Attorney General of Utah as well as with his twenty seven colleagues from additional states.

The executive director of the Interactive Gaming Council, Rick Smith would like the Attorney General to bear in mind that keeping the United States heritage of enabling the states instead of the federal government to rule on gambling has two facets. For instance, on the one hand this could indicate that Utah is in rights to prohibit all kinds of gambling, on the other hand it indicates too that the federal government must not interfere if any state such as Nevada or United States state territory, such as the Virgin Islands endeavors to authorize and make regulations for Internet casinos, or when South Dakota controls and grants permits to the state’s online casinos.

The Attorney General of Utah’s letter, according to the Interactive Gaming Council, does not take into account the basic idea of international agreements on trade, and in fact the World Trade Organization’s decent management and general operations.

The United States concurred in supporting the World Trade Organization and its operations, the Interactive Gaming Council explained, and former World Trade Organization’s rulings also were advantageous to the United States. It’s considered not ethical and practical for the United States to avoid the rulings of the World Trade Organization or endeavor to exclude gambling from the primary agreements on trade. After having received Antigua’s complaint against the United States, the World Trade Organization proceeded according to the accepted protocol: it debated the issue, and published a resolution, and then after the two parties made an appeal to the primary ruling it published a conclusive verdict. The weight of the World Trade Organization is weakened if the whole procedure is not heeded to, and it also give the excuse to other countries who don’t like the World Trade Organization’s rulings to follow suite and not respect its due authority. It’s also not honest and practical to go back and try to negotiate once again a complicated treaty, such as the General Agreement on Trade in Service beacuse the United States’ evaluation of the treaty is negative. Negotiations and transparency are needed in international treaties, and countries should not anticipate that every issue can be won.

Deputy Director of the Interactive Gaming Council, Keith Furlong, stated that the World Trade Organization’s resolution on Anitigua was not entirely satisfactory for the Interactive Gaming Council. However, that the General Agreement on Trade in Services comprised an obligation to free trade in the services of betting and gambling was at least established by the World Trade Organization, and in addition it also stated the by allowing distant services for betting on horse racing solely for American providers and not the purveyors of such services from overseas, the United States does not obey the General Agreement on Trade in Services ruling.

If the United States would begin work on a creative program for regulating Internet gambling in the way that brick and mortar casinos are controlled, the Interactive Gaming Council thinks that the United States together with the International Community would be at a much better advantage than the present situation and that the United States should cease opposing the inescapability of the industry of international Internet gambling.

When the United States confirms the states’ rights to control gambling then progress will be in the offing. The intention is that each state has its own right to grant permits and control online gambling including the right to prohibit any type of gambling in the way the Utah endeavored to prohibit.