I'm referring specifically to this paragraph: Unique among the major international trade and finance organizations, the WTO has a mechanism for enforcing its r

I'm referring specifically to this paragraph: Unique among the major international trade and finance organizations, the WTO has a mechanism for enforcing its rules. If a country believes another country has violated WTO rules, to its detriment, it may request the appointment of a dispute settlement panel to hear its complaint. The other country cannot veto the establishment of a panel or adoption of a WTO decision by WTO members. The panel reviews the arguments in the case and renders judgment based on the facts and WTO rules. If the losing party does not comply with the ruling within a reasonable period of time, the WTO may, if requested by the complaining party, authorize it to impose retaliatory measures (usually increased customs duties) against the offending country or to take other appropriate retaliatory measures against that country’s trade. I admit I haven't read the actual trade agreements, but it appears that the WTO has no choice but to summon a panel to review Trump's claim. I'll write it out: Claim(from you): Nobody in the financial or international communities is going to take any notice of Trump labeling anyone anything. Assumption 1: Trump will file a dispute with the WTO. Assumption 2: If a dispute is filed with the WTO, a panel will be convened to review it. Assumption 3: If a panel reviews something, it has taken notice of it. Conclusion: At least one person on the panel is in the international or finance community and will take notice of Trump's dispute. Since we have a contradiction of the form P & ~P, either the original claim P must be rejected, or one of the assumptions behind the argument for ~P must be rejected. I wonder: If someone is trespassing on my property and I call the police, am I merely a name caller until the court convicts them? It seems like initiating a formal process should be more than name calling.