THE meeting of the so-called G-20 in Bhurban last week was regarded by many informed and relatively active individuals and groups within ‘civil society’ as a major opportunity to advocate that the third world’s 20 largest countries adopt a ‘radical’ position in the upcoming Hong Kong ministerial summit of the World Trade Organisation (WTO).

A parallel ‘people’s forum’ on the WTO was held at a venue not far from the G-20 meeting and representatives of the forum were even invited to make a presentation at the G-20 meeting.

The WTO, as much as any other institution, is a lynchpin of the capitalist world system. Since the collapse of the Cancun ministerial summit in 2003, the WTO has been in crisis management mode, with frantic efforts being made to resurrect it.

Most who have followed the progress of negotiations over the past two years will concur that the situation is no longer as precarious as it was in the aftermath of Cancun. The first world has done its homework, and is looking forward to reaping the dividends of a much more successful ministerial meeting in Hong Kong.

Lest there by any doubt, most of the first world’s homework has involved old-fashioned arm-twisting. Numerous third world countries, and particularly those who spearheaded the resistance in Cancun, i.e. many of those in the G-20, have been roped into signing or committing to sign bilateral agreements with the US and EU that are almost in complete contradiction with the principles that seemed to guide their positions in Cancun.

More specifically, the issues of market access, investment and government procurement that were sidelined in Cancun as the third world insisted on fundamental changes in global agricultural trade, have re-emerged in many bilateral agreements. As such therefore, some expect that the Hong Kong ministerial will be an occasion for formalities, where the third world will once again be put back into its place as the whipping boy of the capitalist world system.

Whether or not this is what happens in Hong Kong remains to be seen. And the fact is that there is still a chance that third world countries unite again to defy the first world as happened in Cancun. In principle therefore, the desire of ‘civil society’ organizations to influence the agenda of the G-20 is clearly commendable.

In many parts of Asia and Africa, mass movements against neo-liberal orthodoxy have also emerged in recent years that have forced many states in the third world to reconsider their unbridled commitment to the whims of first world states and multinational capital.

Like the vast majority of state elites in the third world, Pakistan’s elite too is wholly committed to neo-liberalism. Since General Musharraf’s coming to power almost six years ago, the government has undertaken a series of measures that have made it a favourite of the international financial institutions (IFIs) as well as numerous multinational companies who have benefited from the sale of state assets.

It is important to consider that in Cancun, the Pakistani contingent was hardly at the forefront of the G-20, and was content to follow the herd rather than appear as a leader of the third world challenge to the US and EU.

Speaking at the G-20 meeting in Bhurban, prime minister Shaukat Aziz clearly suggested that the third world should live up to its end of the bargain by slashing agricultural subsidies and then turn its attention to the first world. Perhaps, the prime minister forgets that agricultural subsidies in the third world are already a fraction of what they were only a few years ago, primarily because third world economies are compelled to adhere to the conditionalities imposed upon them by IFIs.

In any case, this refrain served only to confirm that Pakistan’s economic managers are quite happy to go along with the neo-liberal agenda. The privatization of PTCL at gunpoint was only one of many clear indicators of this ideological commitment to the vagaries of the capitalst world system.

Given this state of affairs, how meaningful is ‘advocacy’? In the first instance, Pakistan’s ‘civil society’ must admit that it is extremely weak vis a vis the state and the corporate power that the state is protecting.

While other third world states are not necessarily any less committed to neo-liberalism, they have to answer to mass movements that pose a considerable political challenge to their very existence. Pakistan’s ‘civil society’ is dominated by organizations without mass constituencies, typically funded by the international donor community and often unwilling to take on the state on the political battles that desperately need to be fought.

Unfortunately, mainstream political parties in this country are also powerless to stop the neo-liberal onslaught, most firmly committed to it themselves.

If the G-20 does repeat its performance of Cancun in Hong Kong, it will be because of the pressure faced by Brazilian, South African, Indian, and other third world delegates from mass movements in those countries. It is time that Pakistanis too started asking themselves the difficult question of how to build a mass movement in this country, because without one, we are simply beating around the bush.