Word recently leaked out that the United States had lost an important World Trade Organization decision on the application of U.S. anti-subsidy laws in cases involving privatization of previously state-owned companies. This loss comes on the heels of other setbacks on issues regarding U.S. tax laws and access to the Japanese film market.

At the same time, the United States is having considerable difficulty steering the agenda for future trade talks. While it is certainly too early to throw in the towel, the United States must remain focused on its trade priorities and critically consider the ability of the WTO to promote those objectives.

It is important to recognize that the United States actually has a good overall record in prevailing in WTO disputes.

Perhaps the biggest win was against Europe's unwarranted ban on imports of meat from animals treated with hormones while being fed for slaughter. The WTO eventually supported U.S sanctions against Europe in retaliation for the import ban. Unfortunately, the sanctions have yet to yield results.

Nonetheless, there have also been important decisions against the United States. Although it raises many and admittedly complex issues, the recent WTO ruling against U.S. tax treatment of companies involved in exporting seems difficult to justify in light of the long-standing endorsement of Europe's special treatment for exports.

The dispute over the Japanese film market is also complex, but the United States marshaled a powerful case that the Japanese government and various private-sector entities worked together to exclude imported film from Japan. The collusion appears to continue to work today to exclude Kodak film from the Japanese market to the benefit of Japan's Fuji film.

The WTO panel seemed, however, to work hard to overlook this evidence. It found that the collusion did not significantly limit U.S. access to the Japanese market.

The latest setback on privatization of subsidized companies seems at least as hard to justify. In essence, the United States argued that the extensive subsidies provided by Britain to its steel industry continued to have an impact on trade even after the firms were privatized.

Washington noted that many of the privatized steel mills would not have existed were it not for the previous government subsidies to build new facilities and reduce debt. The European Union argued, however, that the sale to private parties erased the subsidies and invalidated the U.S. duties to offset them.

The EU position has the counterintuitive result of arguing that the very same steel mills that were heavily subsidized before they were sold to private parties were no longer subsidized once the sale was completed. Gallingly, in its internal rules on subsidies provided by member countries to their own companies, the EU takes exactly the opposite position.

Unfortunately, the impact of this ruling will stretch far beyond British steel mills, since the same issue is raised in many other industries in numerous other countries. Hopefully, the decision, which also reached several other damaging conclusions, can be corrected through the appeal process.

Troubles now stretch beyond just the dispute-settlement process. The United States seems to face an uphill battle on many of its priority items, such as integrating the environment and labor into trade negotiations, in the round of trade negotiations to be kicked off at the WTO ministerial meeting that convenes Nov. 30.

At the same time, Japan and a number of developing countries are launching a concerted effort to attack U.S. antidumping and countervailing-duty (anti-subsidy) laws. This attack is made even though a new set of multilateral rules on antidumping and countervailing duties were negotiated only five years ago and are not yet fully implemented.

To further restrict these laws would deprive the United States of the only real tools available to ensure that trade occurs on terms that are fair and equitable.

It seems that Japan is maneuvering to force the United States to choose between its trade laws and having a new round of multilateral trade negotiations -- a choice the United States should never allow itself to face. Perhaps the administration's claim that Japan is attempting to torpedo the process in order to distract attention from its own trade sins is more than just negotiating rhetoric.

Unquestionably, there are sound reasons for the United States to support a multilateral trading system. But the system should not be blindly supported simply for its own sake. If a major new round of talks does not further U.S. interests at this time, it should be delayed. If the WTO dispute-settlement process is flawed, it should be reconsidered.

Each of these issues deserves careful consideration, but considering them through rose-colored glasses does not further U.S. interests.