By Devinder Sharma

Two days after the Third Ministerial Conference of the World Trade Organisation had begun at Seattle, I was caught in the mayhem that erupted after the police fired some teargas shells to disperse the protesters. It was almost midnight and I was walking back to my hotel in the Capitol Hill. I took a turn on one of the labyrinth of city streets to find myself in the midst of the police action.

Protesters of all ages, a majority teenagers, were running away to avoid the pungent fumes. As I stepped back, I was confronted by a reporter of an American television channel. Asked, what as a foreigner I thought of the trade talks in the midst of such massive protests, I replied "While the strong-arm tactics of the American government in the streets is muffling the voice of the peaceful protesters, the high-handedness of the American bureaucracy in the Convention Center is silencing the voice of the developing countries."

For four days, I had seen the fate of the developing countries oscillate. The political maneuverings, the ample use of 'carrot and stick' policy, and the arrogance of the US Trade Representative had made a mockery of what is perceived to be an economic exercise. In the name of 'free trade', the entire exercise was to push the political agenda of the US and the richest trading block, the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), down the throats of the Third World countries. And despite the massive protests on the street, the Millenium Round too would have been a fait accompli but for the resistance within.

The democratic norm of one-country-one-vote was thrown to the wind. It took a series of 'green room' consultations to arrive at a consensus, which were then placed before the working groups. For instance, at nine in the evening, twenty countries received an invitation for a 'green room' discussion on trade-related intellectual property rights (TRIPs). Ten of these countries, including India, Pakistan and Egypt, met two hours later in a hotel. And by two in the morning, some sort of agreement had reached on the contentious issue. While the United States had agreed to make provision to extend the geographical indicators to cover crops like Basmati rice and Darjeeling tea, in the bargain it had extracted a promise from Indian and Pakistan to support the formation of the working group on biotechnology.

The Africans were obviously angry. None of the African countries was invited to the 'green room' diplomacy. To add fuel to the simmering discontent, the WTO chief, Mike Moore, also held 'green room' parleys with about two dozen countries, including India, to set the agenda for the Millenium Round. The Africans were once again kept out. Resenting the 'undemocratic' procedures, the African countries amassed the support of some 100 countries to express their disgust at the way the talks were proceeding and threatened to walk out. The African countries, despite their pathetic economies, had mustered enough courage and support to thwart the biggest trade talks of the century.

Earlier, the US and Canada had suggested the formation of a working group on biotechnology with the hope that the genetically modified crops be included in the agreement on agriculture. This implied that the genetically engineered food and food products have to be accepted by the member countries. By the second day, it became clear that at least five European countries were opposed to the move. A day later, the EU opposing members swelled to a dozen. But interestingly, the European Commission, which has the administrative control, was in favour of the working group. Europe was, therefore, split on the contentious issue of biotechnology.

Europe, on the other hand, was in no mood to reduce its massive subsidies in agriculture. It had, therefore, presented a 'multi-functionality' concept arguing the need for subsidies to protect the environment and wildlife. The US, wanting the EU subsidies to go, was not acknowledging that the US$ 6 billion export credit that Bill Clinton had provided to farmers be treated as a subsidy. While it was quite obvious that both the US and EU were not willing to forgo the trade distorting subsidies, the thrust of the rich trading blocks was to ensure more market access and removal of quantitative restrictions that many developing countries have had.

The biggest casualty of the Seattle fiasco is the failure of India to emerge as the leader of the developing countries. In fact, from the very beginning India tried to convey that it should no longer be treated as a developing country. It has a unique position in the global community considering its size and the market. The Indian position throughout the negotiations was, therefore, closer to the American stand. Ostensibly to win over the Indian polity, President Clinton had even ensured that the Indian trade minister, Murasoli Maran, be seated on the same table during a luncheon he hosted for the trade ministers of 135 countries.

The failed Millenium Round has clearly demonstrated the vulnerability of India. At no stage, whether in the Uruguay Round negotiations or the Seattle Round, India had demonstrated a will to protect its economic interests. As a result, India is increasingly becoming a dumping ground for cheap and highly subsidised manufactured products and foodgrains. Nor do the developing countries treat Indian as a leader. The trade-off at Seattle was essentially in the areas which were represented by the CII, FICCI and ASSOCHAM. Agriculture was being offered as a sacrificial goat to protect what ever little that remains of the protected Indian industry. The EU, for example, had agreed not to force for further reduction in import duties for sugar if India supported its proposal for 'multi-functionality'.

The Seattle fiasco has certainly driven the first nail in the coffin of the WTO. As things stand, it merely is a time-out before the dangerous game of politico-economy again resumes. Developing nations, including India, have to take a fresh look at their own position before succumbing again to the threats. And the civil society has to re-build and strengthen its approach to take the battle right into the Convention Centres. The voice of the people need to be heard. No international agreement can survive if it is not people-friendly. And WTO is no exception.

It is true that WTO is being orchestrated by the bureaucrats and the neo-classic economists for the benefit of the multinational companies and the corporate world. We are in an era when all governments, without exception, have begun to represent only the vested interests of the industry. In the bargain, the poor and hungry are being further marginalised. And rightly, as a placard at the protests in the streets read: "WTO is a Wrong Trade Organisation."