Jamieson Greer’s declaration (New York Times op-ed on Aug. 7, 2025) that the World Trade Organization system has now run its course, and a new “Turnberry system” should take over, is sparking repercussions in the global community. After years of innuendos and insinuations, he finally points out the elephant in the room. As far as I can remember, this is the first time that a high-ranking official of the United States has officially mentioned a new "system" to replace the WTO instead of improving or reforming the Geneva-based international organization.

At least it seems to be a candid statement on the part of the United States after all the hype on a parade of tariff measures for the past seven months, and to expand it further, after all the US criticism and frustration directed at the WTO since 2016 when Washington began to block the appointment of the adjudicators of the WTO’s Appellate Body.

It is sad to hear of the possible demise of the 78-year-old system (counting from the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade) from the member with the largest economy in the 166-member organization, and the very member who created it in the first place. Oddly enough, though, to some extent, it also feels relieving that we have a candid statement finally. At least the remark could mark the beginning of the global discussion for an orderly retreat from the current regime and for the shaping of a new one.

Now, the United States needs to propose a specific plan for a new system, beyond the praise for the success of tariff measures, unfair trade practices of its trading partners and the failures of the WTO. As has been so well evidenced for the past couple of months, US trading partners are all ears; they are ready to listen and most probably accommodate whatever comes from Washington. What has happened in the 2025 tariff whirlwind and what is still happening at the moment are merely give-and-take transactional deals at a bilateral level to account for alleged US losses so far. They are "deals" indeed, but do not constitute a "system" themselves. Bilateral deals are not a system — there is nothing systematic about it.

And yet, for the first time, Washington talks about a new system for global trade.

It then needs to follow up with key elements to be included in a new system. Calling it just the “Turnberry system” does not solve the problem. Nor does repeating the failings of the WTO. Key elements and core components of the new system that Washington envisages should be organized and presented. It will then become a template for a new negotiation, hopefully on a global scale, or at least among the critical mass of countries. Plausibly, a new template may address, for instance, unilateral tariff measures and a broad national security concept, as the United States has experimented with this year. If these novel experiments are here to stay and they are the way we should proceed, then they need to be elaborated and systematized. Something needs to be written down, and an instrument should be prepared for there to be a meaningful discussion of a new "system." Greer’s remarks do not offer these details.

The past 10 years have shown, and the past seven months have dramatically visualized, that a global economic regime that the United States does not endorse could hardly survive. Let alone the one it refuses. That said, now is the time for it to put on the table a concrete plan for the future, a plan that it desires. Enough for criticism and enough for disappointment. Many countries are eager to hear from the United States about its plan to restructure the current regime and begin a new one. The plan doesn’t have to be in complete form with water-tight logic. But it should at least offer a template or framework with key US ideas and suggestions in it. Details can follow later. Fine-tuning may come in due course.

Once a proper occasion arises, hopefully as soon as feasible, Washington should bring forward this template. Other countries will then react. But I would doubt those reactions will turn out to be a significant stumbling block, or delay and complicate the building of consensus on the essence of the new US-proposed system, given the tariff responses of many countries this year. APEC 2025 to be held in South Korea in late October seems to be one of the candidates for such an official announcement forum. Other venues may be contemplated as well.

Now that bilateral tariff negotiations are coming to a close one way or another, and the official announcement for the pursuit of a new system for global trade was made, it is time to think about the basic contours of the new system seriously. As the country that designed the current regime and also as the country that discredited it, it is the United States that should come up with a specific proposal for the next step.

It feels almost surreal to see the near absence of the WTO during the tariff debates and negotiations of the past seven months. Few, if any, have ever talked about the WTO Agreements in this process. Fewer have referred to FTAs, bilateral arrangements operating under the WTO umbrella. Now, no more beating around the bush. No more national security excuses to get away with WTO/FTA obligations here and there.

It is time to initiate a candid discussion. If the WTO’s decline is irreversible, the global community needs an alternative system. Greer’s statement is the first step in that direction.

Lee Jae-min

Lee Jae-min is a professor of law at Seoul National University. The views expressed here are the writer’s own. — Ed.


khnews@heraldcorp.com