Nobody can argue that exchange, in principle, must be to the advantage of parties entering into exchange transaction. But the WTO Agreement of Marrakesh in December 1994, finally signed by all GATT members grossly violated this principle in the sense that it was rushed through in the final stages by intense pressure from the USA, supported by other developed countries. In fact developing countries were not given an adequate opportunity either to analyse the implication of the text or even to discuss and debate the issue.

In India, there was no discussion in the Parliament prior to the signing of the Agreement. Nor were the State Governments consulted on issue which, under the Constitution, are clearly 'State subjects', and hence in regard to which the Govt. of India has signed and International Treaty which is violative of the Constitutional powers of the Central Government.

The implications of the agreements on TRIPS, TRIMS and GATS on the developing countries have been much discussed. Specially the way, the USA is pressing for the patenting of "life form" and traditional knowledge, where there is not even any genetic engineering (turmeric, neem and Basmati rice are classical example), gave danger is ahead of us. Similarily the OECD countries have circulated a draft "Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI)" which is not covered under TRIMS agreement. MAI states that all government restriction on "mergers" and "amalgamation" i.e. all restriction on ownership are unwarranted fetters on freedom to invest and company law of many countries need to be amended to provide full freedom to investors.

Whenever the developed countries would be able to clinch the Patent, Investment, Services and Agriculture issues by forcing the developing countries to enact legislation towards those end newer issues would come up. These will come in the WTO secretariate within few months. These would include:

* * * Problem of Human Rights and Labour Standard. For example the use of child labour or low paid labour would be an adequate ground for developed countries to impose quantitative import restriction on import of products involving such labour.

* * * Issues related to Enviromental Degradtion. But curiously, no one in the WTO is even concerned with the fact that the USA alone today is responsible for 80% of the CO2 emissions in the whole world. No sanctions are imposed on them due to this:

* * * The third new issue now raised in the grab on 'Competition Policy' is to ensure that public procurement be made subject to international tendering, so as to achieve greater transparency and competition. An even public procurement of foodgrains in India would be under attack, since these are not based on international tendering and there is a clear objective of price support to agricultural producers in India, through the public procurement policy.

* * * Finally there is pressure to reduce all subsidies irrespective of the goals of public policy. Objectives such as "food self-sufficiency" are, of course, totally unacceptable to the WTO. Public distribution at subsidised prices is already under attack, though how such policy is connected to WTO is not at all clear.

There is no consensus within the country to accept such a regime. But successive Central Govts. are trying to pursue the path dictated by the WTO. There has been a growing discontent against this unequal regime throughout the country over the last 6/7 years and a sizeable section of the leadership of the present ruling party at centre, BJP, were part of this movement throughout the period. But curiously the same party is determined to move ahead with WTO gameplan and they are not even prepared to take the advantages of the transition period upto 31st January 2005.

The fact remains that after the POKHRAN-II adventure, the Govt. is desperate to appease the US Administration. All kinds of advantages are promised to the TNCs and the Govt. feels that the developed countries would be satisfied if the Patent Act and other related legislations, which guarantee a balanced indegenous Scientific and Industrial development get amended.

The left MPs within the Parliament and the mass organisations outside prefer our sovereign existence over the obligation of signing an international treaty. They are determined to fight out the cause and to expose the anti-patriotic role of the pro-liberalisation parties. At the same time efforts should be made to develop concensus amongst the developing countries who would be totally at the receiving end under the new regime.