Three days from now Pakistan will be one of the 146 nations to meet for the WTO’s fifth ministerial meeting at Cancun, Mexico. Governments of developed states depict WTO as a multilateral trading system that will help flow of trade in a smooth, free, fair and predictable manner. Poor nations see otherwise. For them WTO rules are intrinsically unfair. The current round of talks carry great significance, for its outcome will impact the fashion in which business is carried on in member countries. Have we drawn up strategies to make our presence felt at the talks? Beyond that everyone is wondering about life after WTO. There is a nagging question:

In this feature, reporters and writers of Dawn’s business desk have made an effort to identify major issues relating to the agreements that we need to care about.

KARACHI: The World Trade Organization (WTO) as a subject of study is, incontrovertibly, a massive issue. The WTO rules  agreements  run up to 30,000 pages, which is why within the limited space of these two pages, it was possible just to show the tip of the iceberg. The overriding purpose of these pages is to shake the concerned people out of their reverie and to spark a dialogue on how, when and why of the WTO regime. In fewer than 15 months  from January 2005  the WTO regime could change entirely the way trade  whether in goods or in services  is carried out.

And yet there is little awareness and hardly any appreciable effort has been made on the part of the government to enlighten the people most likely to be affected. But does the government itself have the expertise and manpower to address the WTO issues?

The commerce minister is leading a large delegation to Cancun to attend the 5th ministerial conference scheduled to be held in the middle of the next week. Most people here and in other developing nations view the WTO as “a rich man’s club”. Around 146 countries are to participate in the intensive talks and since three-fourths of the WTO members constitute developing and least developed countries, the arguments on whether the rules are fair or foul are going to be intense.

Is Pakistan prepared to ride out the challenges posed by the WTO regime? On which side of the divide will the country stand on various issues at the crucial talks at Cancun? During the last two months, the commerce minister has left no stone unturned to let everyone know that he has his grip on the fundamental matters to be brought up at the upcoming trade negotiations. He has maintained that he sees the WTO more as an opportunity than a challenge for the country’s economy. In his view Pakistan is well positioned, as compared to most other nations of the region, with tariff regime already liberalized. The minister believes the country stands to gain a great deal with focused efforts in post 2005 scenario. Enthusiasm, however, begins and ends in the close circle of free market zealots. People at large, though not so well versed in complexities of the WTO regime, are all but, skeptical.

Skepticism, however, can hardly do much to halt the onward march of market forces. Trade and investment treaties to be concluded at Cancun will further lock in a global regime of liberalization, privatization and deregulation. It will supplement and strengthen mighty transnational corporations to the peril of local manufacturers. At the same time it will further erode the ability of national governments to provide public services for their citizens, control or protect their natural resources, and set health, safety and environmental standards that displease big business interests.

The government feels that protective environment has made the industry support addictive depriving it of the drive to improve both quantitatively and qualitatively. Opening up of the market, it feels, will push the local industry towards efficiency both in terms of quality and prices through innovations and better management practices. Even if one accepts the government’s argument that trade challenge will shake up and prompt local industry to become efficient and more responsive to market, to the benefit of all, there is still the looming question: Who is going to correct the distortions in the economy that suffers already from lopsidedness of growth? Disparity and inequality if allowed to persist have a limiting effect ultimately even on quantum of growth, besides brewing social unrest. Resulting political outburst do not serve even trade and commerce well let alone industrial and agricultural development.

So the government here like in other developing countries must resist clauses in negotiations that lead to clipping of their power to carry out the required corrections in the economy. It cannot absolve itself of social responsibility of ensuring that economic gains are spread as evenly and vastly as possible amongst all classes of society. Pakistan despite growing at an estimated rate of 5.1 per cent has failed to register improvement in the social sector indicators. The social sector situation has actually been deteriorating as the country slipped six places from 138 to 144 in UNDP Human Development Index.

There are suggestions to better capitulate Pakistan’s position over issues under discussion at the Cancun meeting. But what compulsion does the government have to do the same? In the absence of public awareness over the issue there is every possibility that the government gives in to pressures in the ministerial meeting. Whatever safeguards have so far been secured by developing countries are primarily because of anti-globalization campaigners who have turned out to be most vocal defenders of the rights of the Third World masses.

If it were not for these people who are acting as world conscience the issue of import of generic medicines would not have become a rallying point for the developing countries. If it were not for those anti-war massive rallies in developed countries, the US would not have been as isolated as it is in the current situation.

In Doha two tears back when developing countries sought to preserve their right to import generic medicine the US opposed it tooth and nail as it feared consequences for its pharmaceutical industry. On August 28 in a pre-ministerial meeting of WTO it changed its stand and surrendered in favour of poor countries demand who were allowed import of generic medicines if they so need.

Some people are hoping that conflict between the US and the European Union could lead to suspension of the trade negotiations indefinitely. There is very little chance that this would be allowed to happen. What if most previously negotiated deadlines are not adhered to? Stakes are too high for the world economic order to let the WTO flop at this point in time.

Trade tangles and disagreements are reasons not good enough to end the forum that was created with a purpose. More so when most nations are committed to global regime of liberalization, privatization and deregulation voluntarily or under international financial institutions’ pressure.

Besides, big business and the US cannot possibly afford more set backs after Enron and Iraq. They are showing signs of extra flexibility already to gain at the WTO what they lost in courts and the UN — moral authority. Agreement over medicines is a case in point.

In politics of economic interest logic alone is not enough. Critics of multilateral trading system assert that institutions like the World Bank and the IMF and the WTO were created to help strengthen a global corporate power structure that is unaccountable, irresponsible and self-serving.

They might have a point, but in absence of public awareness the government is under no compulsion to put in its best efforts to safeguard the interests of people in farms and factories and offices.

Political parties through parliament can bring in focus issues from peoples’ perspective. For that, however, first they will have to do their homework to understand the complex and technical clauses of all agreements at different stages of discussion or implementation.