It has been an interesting day at the USCC hearing on "Evaluating China's Past and Future Role in the World Trade Organization", and after the second and third panels, there has been a multitude of ideas and opinions thrown around regarding where China and the United States stand on a global economic scale, as well as how they should relate to one another and within the constructs of the greater WTO. The panel, entitled "Current U.S.-China Relations in the WTO: The Reality a Decade Later," featured panelists James Bacchus, former chairman of the Appellate Body of the WTO, Greenberg Traurig, LLP in addition to Clyde Prestowitz, AAM book co-author and President of the Economic Strategy Institute, and Dr. Oded Shenkar, Professor, Fisher College of Business at Ohio State University.  Most of the discussion centered around the trade and economic ties between the U.S. and China, the present situation between the two nations, and how to go about addressing any differences. Bacchus argued that we should focus on how far China has come in the WTO as opposed to how far they need to go and suggested that he is strongly supportive of negotiation over litigation.  He also pointed out that China isn't the only offender of WTO rules and that other countries, including the U.S., are guilty as well. He was later questioned by Commission Co-chair Patrick Mulloy on how negotiation with China could possibly be the best solution to trade imbalances given how much we have tried negotiations in the past.  Bacchus remained unwavering in his stance.  Mr. Prestowitz brought some very interesting perspective to the table as he used his recurring analogy of Chinese and American trade practices and sports.  Prestowitz asserted that focusing on whether or not China is abiding by the rules is the wrong area in which to focus.  He said instead, the bigger point is that China and the U.S. are playing a different game.  While China is playing football, a full-contact sport complete with pads, the United States is playing baseball, while insisting that China is playing baseball as well. Prestowitz also used this analogy at a panel moderated by AAM Executive Director Scott Paul at the America's Future Now 2010 Conference yesterday. He added that the reason that the U.S. and China are playing different "games" so to speak, is a flaw of the WTO, whose clauses provide for a broad range of games to be played.  We can play one economic game, and China can play another and still be within the constructs of the WTO.  Dr. Oded Shenkar added further insight into the situation by saying that, given his background in academia, if he were to give China a grade with regard to its place in the WTO, he would give them an "F for going forward."  Meaning the future of China in the WTO is bleak indeed.   The panel concluded with a question and answer session from the members of the commission and a few memorable quotes in response from the panelists. Bacchus insisted that the United States is doomed to failure on a global economic scale unless we provide an "initiative and incentive for innovation," while Prestowitz argued that due to the many geo-political issues surrounding the United States' relationship with China, it would be "inconceivable that we would use the WTO for anything more than pinpricks" and that "making China obey WTO rules" is a "dead end, not our salvation." Co-chairman Mulloy wrapped up the discussion with another great analogy, comparing the United States to the deteriorating owners of a great estate: "Each year, we sell off part of the estate to support a lifestyle that we aren't even earning anymore." Stay-tuned for a video interview with panelist Robert Lighthizer, former Deputy U.S Trade Respresentative and international trade attorney, later in the week.