The scenes from Seattle were reminiscent of the anti-Vietnam war protests that swept the United States in the sixties and early seventies and finally brought that conflict to an end.

Whatever the outcome of the WTO talks, one thing is certain: the official agenda has been successfully hijacked by the odd alliance of trade unionists, environmentalists, students and anarchists who briefly ruled the streets of Seattle. One group conspicuous by their absence were representatives of developing nations, although they will be the biggest losers if the US and the European Union get their way.

Indeed, ever since the World Trade Organization came into being in 1995 as the successor to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), there has been relative apathy in the Third World to the implications of the agreement signed by 130 members of the WTO. We have been particularly laggard in focusing on the key provisions of the agreement that affect Pakistan directly. Instead of coordinating with similarly placed countries, we have been locked in our sordid little world of politics and corruption. The result is a total lack of preparation in adjusting to a more open and liberal international trading system.

The implications of the Seattle talks are far-reaching and will touch the lives of hundreds of millions of people around the world. Consumers, farmers and manufacturers will all be affected to varying degrees. Unfortunately, developing countries have woken up to these coming changes rather late, thus failing to evolve a common platform and strategy for Seattle. Luckily for them, American protesters have taken up their cause.

So what has ignited the protests in Seattle? Basically, the WTO is different things to different groups. It offers vast opportunities to multinationals as well as efficient (and often subsidized) farmers, while spelling doom to inefficient manufacturers and small farmers. And it will deal a heavy blow to nations that turn a blind eye to child labour and indulge in gender discrimination as well environmental damage. In brief, countries like Pakistan will derive few benefits while standing to be the biggest losers from trade liberalization.

As custom duties head towards zero in most categories of goods by 2005, our manufacturers will face increasing competition from imports that will be both cheaper and of better quality. Our farmers will be unable to compete with produce from Europe and America that is grown on huge, mechanized and massively subsidized farms. It is true that Pakistani customers will benefit from greater choice, lower prices and better quality. However, this increase in imports will result in higher trade deficits and a fall in the value of the rupee. Ultimately, the economy will come under intolerable strain as many manufacturers and farmers face ruin.

When the WTO came into being in 1995, member states had a decade to make the structural adjustments needed to bring their economies into line with the requirements of free trade. However, successive Pakistani governments since then remained blind to the need to gear up the economy, and our manufacturers, spoiled by decades of subsidies and official pampering, did not put in the investments and hard work necessary to increase efficiency and quality.

None of this is to suggest that trade liberalization is not a good thing. All things being equal, it brings about a better deal for the consumer and provides manufacturers a level playing field to compete on. But in real life, things are seldom equal. For years, multinationals have employed lawyers specializing in international trade to draft provisions that benefit them, and these clauses are then placed in the working papers of governments that spearhead the cause of these giant corporations. Manufacturers in developed countries are far more efficient than those in developing countries, and generally enjoy greater economies of scale. Farmers in the West are generally subsidized and produce food far in excess of national requirements; much of this excess is exported to the rest of the world at prices that small farmers elsewhere cannot match.

Before GATT and the WTO, countries protected their own interests through high tariff barriers and restrictive import policies. However, this will no longer be possible. For instance, the governments of Pakistan and India will not be able to restrict imports from each other without attracting severe penalties. Indeed, this policy of cutting our noses to spite our faces has always been incomprehensible: both nations prefer paying far higher prices in importing goods and services from the rest of the world rather than trading directly with each other.

According to Third World critics of the WTO agreements, the whole thing is a western conspiracy to further impoverish poor countries. But while we demand greater access and lower tariffs on our exports to the richer markets in the world, we are unwilling to grant similar access to their products. However, the fact remains that the present system of international trade is tilted in favour of the developed countries: currently, tariffs on imports from the least developed countries are 30% higher than on imports from developed nations. Indeed, according to an Oxfam estimate, trade barriers are costing developing countries up to $700 billion annually through lost exports.

International trade is now a far bigger factor in the global economy than it was fifty years ago, having increased fourteen times since 1950 to $6,500 billion in 1997. Twenty six per cent of the world economy now is directly linked to international trade as compared to 8% in 1950. Clearly, then, there is a growing need to regulate this burgeoning commerce and protect groups and countries unable to withstand the growing power of multinationals. However, there is a real danger of the WTO becoming a handmaiden of western interests, much as the United Nations has. The fact that developing nations have so far not played an active role in GATT and WTO negotiations is one reason they are in the very real danger of being marginalized even further in the world economy.

For Pakistan, the problem is that our politicians, planners and businessmen have still not grasped the opportunities and dangers of globalization. With a largely illiterate workforce, a poor work ethic, a ramshackle physical and social infrastructure, outmoded management and a corrupt bureaucracy, there is just no way we can compete in the global market without following protectionist policies. And these policies are about to be scrapped under the WTO agreement we are signatory to.

The name of the game now is 'sink or swim', and there is no indication that we are taking any swimming lessons.