Two experts on international trade law exchanged barbs over the policies of the World Trade Organization at an Institute of Politics forum that attracted about 350 people last night.

The event, entitled "Free Trade: Prosperity for all or Race to the Bottom?" brought together frequent opponents on the topic--Ira S. Shapiro, a chief U.S. trade negotiator, and Lori M. Wallach, chief counsel for the nonprofit organization Global Trade Watch--to talk more in-depth about an issue that has made international headlines in recent months.

In his opening remarks, Shapiro--who helped the U.S. government negotiate the initial WTO agreements--told audience members that free trade benefits America's economy.

"Our openness is our competitive advantage," he said.

But Wallach--a key organizer of the protests that interrupted WTO negotiations in Seattle late last year--said the WTO does not promote free trade.

Holding aloft a 900-page copy of the 18 international agreements the WTO oversees and enforces, she asked why such a long list of restrictions was necessary for the preservation of supposedly free trade.

"This is not free trade--it is corporate managed trade," she said.

In the ensuing debate which lasted for about 90 minutes, the two panelists answered an array of questions which came at them in groups of three or four-- a tactic designed by IOP organizers to discourage individual audience members from monopolizing the speakers' time.

The questions varied across a wide range of environmental, labor and political issues that are affected by international trade policies.

But the broad spectrum of the discussion, which touched on topics like prison labor in the U.S. and the Asian Monetary Fund, meant that Wallach and Shapiro did not clash frequently on specific subjects.

Many of the questions focused on the much-publicized protests of the WTO's recent round of negotiations in Seattle.

Wallach repeated a motto that protesters chanted outside the Seattle talks, "No new round, turn around," and explained that the motto urged the WTO to change its existing policies before adopting new ones.

Shapiro, however, disagreed.

"Although we can admire [the protesters] for their tenacity and constancy, we cannot admire them for their wisdom or the accuracy of their judgements," he said.

The two also lawyers argued over some the specifics of the WTO's policies--in particular, the WTO's rejection of a U.S. law which bans the sale of shrimp which were caught with nets that entangle endangered turtles.

Shapiro hailed the WTO ruling to void the law as an example of the WTO's effectiveness and impartiality. The powerful U.S., he said, had been held in check on behalf of the interests of some developing countries in Asia, which, the WTO ruled, were not given sufficient time by the U.S. to upgrade to turtle-friendly nets.

Wallach responded that the original U.S. law had been enacted to comply with an international environmental treaty. The WTO's action, she said, prevented an important environmental protection from being enacted.

"We need to put commercial rules back in the box they should be in," Wallach said in her concluding remarks, which, like many of her comments throughout the event, drew brief applause.