What was done with circumspection, to begin with, has subsequently tended to be done more and more brazenly. What is queering the pitch further is the start of recessionary phase in the economies of the developed countries themselves which is now turning into a crisis in the capitalist system.

The response of leaders of the vested interests - social, economic and political - in the developing countries is now panicky. Supplication for foreign capital and technology and military - strategic support for the protection of their economic social and political interests for their protection has become pathetic. The occasional declamations by the political spokesmen of the vested interests, global and domestic, against increasing iniquities in the World order have, however, failed to impress the mass of the people world wide. That the vested interests make a virtue of the increasing iniquities for the working people as the price of economic growth is indeed a mark of desperation. The acceptance of policy prescriptions handed down to politicians and administrators in the developing countries for implementation is applauded by the leaders of developed countries as their wise and quality leadership.

The solidarity of the developing countries emerged, once direct colonial rule was overthrown. This was the potent instrument to assert the interests of the people in the world order. But long drawn out negotiations for accommodation of the claims of the developed countries and special interests group in the developing countries have been formed at the instance of G-7 to disrupt G-77 by clandestine bilateral bargains. The political and business leaders of mid-level developing countries have fallen under these arrangements to secure from the G-7 accommodation on substantive issues of concern for their people. The upshot has been that developed countries have found vast opportunities to extract enormous gains from the exploitation of the natural resources, labour and consumers of the developing countries. Needs and aspirations of the mass of the people in the developing countries have thus been pushed down in the order of development priorities in the name of economic growth and stability of what is called the globalisation process.

The most grotesque in this context is the concept of what is euphemistically called trade-related services on global scale. This concept does not cover only trade in goods and services across borders of sovereign countries. It is extended to cover health services, education and intellectual property and so on. WTO, IMF and World Bank are now functioning not merely as bodies to facilitate trade but as supranational authorities to clip the fundamental rights of Nation States in the developing countries. The position has now reached a stage where even the existence of sovereign status of the Nation State is questioned. This position is critical for the developing countries, especially in the context of the US war plans in the name of combating global terrorism. The essential requisite of globalization thus is to undermine the autonomy of the development process in the developing countries and snap its linkages with the needs and aspirations of their citizens who have suffered cruel deprivation under long years of colonial rule and are still denied rights on land to till, a dwelling place, health care and education.

Indian official delegations to trade negotiations initially tried not to buckle under pressure of G-7 in order to safeguard autonomy of the domestic industry, agriculture and services in India. But to pick up the issue of reduction in subsidies in the developed countries to facilitate exports of agricultural commodities from the developing countries was not a well thought out move. The trade between countries with WTO as the global facilitator has resulted in hurting gainful trade and economic activity in India and all developing countries and has helped to expand markets for the developed countries to exploit in the developing countries.

The problem of food security for the people in India, for instance, can not be resolved by creating artificial export surpluses for export to developed countries. The cereals procured from domestic producers in the developing countries for exports to fetch higher prices in the global market is not a sound or feasible proposition. It is far more appropriate and effective for the protection of Indian farmers to regulate imports not by fiddling with tariffs and subsidies but by imposing quantitative restrictions on trade in commodities, raw and processed. The domestic consumption should be satisfied in full before surpluses are found for gainful exports by the developing countries. The question of food security and access of food at affordable prices for consumers is a problem, which is still to be tackled in India.

The government in India is facing isolation from the international community in its foreign policy and its economic cultural and strategic positions. To enter into negotiations on tricky issues of foreign investment, trade facilitation, government procurement etc as a quid pro quo for development aid and private investment from the G-7 has been counter-productive for the developing countries. The rights and interests of the developing countries as a whole in trade negotiations in WTO have been actually saved to some extent by the resistance of the least developed countries. They have not been lured by developed countries' offer of special assistance to break the solidarity of G-77.

The mass of the people in the developing countries must wake up to dangers of the World order under the G-7. They must isolate the vested interests in the developing countries and clearly differentiate their interests from the “national interests”. While maintaining their solidarity, they must have cordial relations with the working people in the developed countries.

The international financial institutions, in particular the World Bank and the IMF, had been working from the very start of their operations to regulate the economic policies of the developing countries. They never aided them to achieve economic growth on self-reliant basis. They have not only regulated their credits but capital flows on private account as well. The imposition of policy conditions was an issue of sharp controversy between the government of India and the World Bank / IMF combine before 1991. Subsequently, the government in India fell in line. This is what the economic reform process in India is really all about. The most remarkable in this context is, the virtue now made by the ruling elite of the system conditionalities laid down for the flow of foreign credits and investments, official and private, to the developing countries as part of the globalisation process. The idea of global policy initiatives and management structures may sound very appealing to the cosmopolitan elite in India as elsewhere. But it is a sinister idea which can only be disastrous in its consequences. It exposes India and all developing countries to neo-colonial exploitations and subjugation. (IPA Service)