In this situation there could be no consensus and the conference had ended inconclusively, without a single proposal being approved, without a joint declaration and without even thanks to the chair and other participants. For the first time since many years, the rich country hegemony did not work, and the USA lost a very important battle on its own home-ground. For the first time the third world countries—who (including India) were mute spectators when their destiny was being shaped by the rich countries, during the last phase of Uruguay round GATT discussion (1991-1994) articulated their boiling anger and deep resentment at the very unequal nature of the global trade, the domination by MNCs and their onw small share in it.

India’s Role

As you know, for more than one year, in parliament and outside we had been urging the government to do the necessary homework for this very important ministerial conference, to forge trade alliance with other countries to work out a common agenda, and to strive for a national consensus on our position at such conference. This was not done, no consultation took place with the other parties. Alternatively, we asked for a national debate, so that, in place of personalized mud-slinging, this could be an issue for discussion in the election, and stand of various parties on the issue could be candidly and transparently put before the electorate, but both BJP and Congress, on the contrary, were keen to suppress information on the negative, and irreversible consequences of the kind of globalisation that was taking place under the WTO umbrella, that allowed virtually one-way access to poor country markets by MNCs.

The new minister of commerce and industry tried to rectify this situation by seeking consultation a few days before the Seattle conference and sought our participation in the delegation. Having urged consensus for so long, we could not refuse, and we cooperated fully with the minister as it was a matter of vital national interest. Our agenda consisted, as outlined in our letter to the minister before participation in Seattle, of two parts: (a) rectification, at least partly, of the damage done by Marakesh, by forming trade alliances with other poor countries, and (b) resistance to attempts by USA and Europe to further restrict the access of the third world exports to the rich country markets, in the name of labour and environment standards, and to further invasion of our markets in the name of e-commerce, rules on government procurement and so on.

We failed to achieve (a) as our country was not technically or legally prepared, the homework was poor, whether on agricultural or intellectual property rights, and some officials failed to understand the nuances of the wording in various drafts proposed by USA or Europe as they had no technical competence.

But our role on (b) was firm and raised the prestige of India in world forum. Only big countries like India, Egypt, Indonesia, Brazil or South Africa could provide leadership to the third world countries, not the smaller ones, nor the heavily indebted countries that were vulnerable to blackmail by the rich countries. India played that role and our minister remained firm, though some Indian business interests were cautioning us al the time that we would be isolated and punished for our misdemeanor by the mighty USA unless we compromised.

Where to go from here?

Having taken a principled stand on (b), and having acquired some prestige in the process, we should press for the renegotiations of the Marakesh agreement itself, by doing the much needed professional and technical homework on the entire range of issues, including TRIPs, TRIMs, GATs and agriculture, among others. Forming SAFTA with our neighbours within a year should be a must; almost all the rich and many poor countries are already in some trade alliance or the other. Having formed SAFTA we should seek understanding with ASEAN, China, Brazil, Egypt, Nigeria and South Africa, among others, and work with a common agenda a the international forum.