From GATT to the WTO: Writing the Rules of Global Trade
If Pax Americana was a global game, then the U.S. helped write the rulebook—and one of the biggest chapters was trade.
From the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) in 1947 to the creation of the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 1995, the U.S. didn’t just participate in global trade.
It shaped how it worked, who got to play, and what the rules would be.
And while it was pitched as a win-win system of free trade for all, the reality was more complicated.
GATT: The First Draft
GATT was born in the aftermath of WWII, alongside the U.S.-led financial order created at Bretton Woods.
Its goal was simple in theory:
Lower tariffs. Reduce trade barriers. Grow the global economy.
In practice, GATT was a gentlemen’s agreement between major Western powers—especially the U.S.—to open up markets on their terms.
For decades, it helped expand trade and connect economies. But it also locked in advantages for countries that already had power, capital, and industrial might.
WTO: Globalizing the Game
By the 1990s, the world had changed. The Cold War was over. New economies were rising. And trade was more complex than ever.
Enter the World Trade Organization (WTO), launched in 1995.
Unlike GATT, the WTO had enforcement power. Countries could bring disputes to a global court. Rulings were binding. Compliance became mandatory.
And guess who helped design the system?
That’s right: the U.S., alongside European allies and a few emerging markets. They created the rules to protect:
Intellectual property
Corporate rights
Global supply chains
But not necessarily workers, climate, or local industries.
Free Trade, American Style
The idea behind all this was that free trade brings peace and prosperity.
Open markets = more cooperation = less war.
And for many countries, it worked—especially export powerhouses like Germany, Japan, and (eventually) China.
But the U.S. also used the system to enforce its values:
Free-market capitalism
Deregulation
Intellectual property protection
Corporate-friendly dispute mechanisms
If you wanted access to the U.S. market, you had to play by its rules.
The Fairness Question
On paper, free trade sounds fair. But in practice:
Wealthy countries kept subsidies that protected their farmers and industries.
Poorer nations often struggled to compete and had little say in rule-making.
Labor rights and environmental standards were usually left out of trade deals entirely.
For many, the system didn’t feel like a level playing field—it felt like a stacked deck.
What Comes Next
Tomorrow, we’ll explore how U.S. companies used this system to expand globally—and how economic diplomacy became a powerful (and sometimes controversial) foreign policy tool.
Because trade wasn’t just about tariffs and treaties.
It was about shaping the world in America’s image—one container ship at a time.