When I went to the British High Commission for a visa I was told that I would get a British Passport instead. I refused that offer and got a right to abode stamped on my passport. The reason I was entitled to a British Passport was that I was born in Britain off British parents. My parents were born in the Krishna District in the then Madras Presidency in British colonial India. Before independence, all natives were British subjects. That was globalisation. I was born a global citizen! - courtesy colonisation.

Fifty years later, the Indian Parliament is compelled to amend India's patent laws because the WTO has ruled, based on a US complaint, that India must amend its laws. So the neo colonial forces intrude upon the sovereign space of the free Indian State. At the same time the metropolitan center, USA, has made it clear that if three WTO verdicts go against USA then the USA will be out of the WTO. The WTO unlike its predecessor GATT not only makes incursions into the space of national sovereignty, dictating legislative changes but with its appellant authority and rules for cross retaliation, it has acquired lethal dimensions.

Increasingly multilateral agreements in the World Trade Organisation (WTO); the structural adjustment loans of the World Bank/ IMF and the norms set by the Bank of International settlement (BIS), all working in tandem, constitute the changes that have been imposed on the Third World countries by a consortium of powerful capitalist countries. The unfettered mobility of finance capital has created a domino situation wherein the crisis in one country gets transferred to another without any effort. Thus the crisis of the Thai Baht soon engulfed the entire South -East Asia. From south-east Asia to Korea and Japan, then onwards to Russia and Brazil, enroute it demolished the Ukraine and bruised East European Countries.

In the post Reaganite-Thacherite era the operational philosophy is that Governments should "let the free market work its magic." This argument rest on the belief that concentration of wealth is a positive thing, for only with the incentive of being able to accumulate and enjoy more wealth would individuals be made to invest more in production activity. As for the rest of humanity, they would have to wait for the wealth to trickle down.

In his book `The crisis of global capitalism’ George Soros states, "We are all part of the global capitalist system, which is characterised not only by free trade but more specifically by the free movement of capital. The system is very favourable to finance capital, which is free to pick, and chose where to go and it has led to the rapid growth of global financial markets. It can be envisaged as a gigantic circulatory system, sucking up capital into the financial markets and institutions at the centre and then pumping it out to the periphery either directly in the form of credits and portfolio investments, or indirectly through multinational corporations…..The capitalist system can be compared to an empire that is more global in its coverage than any previous empire. It is not a territorial empire because it lacks sovereignty and the trappings of sovereignty, indeed the sovereignty of the states that belong to it is the main limitation on its power and influence. It is almost invisible because it does not have any formal structure. Most of its subjects do not even know that they are subjected to it or, more correct, they recognise that they are subjected to impersonal and sometimes disruptive forces but they do not understand what those forces are. It has a center and a periphery just like an empire and the center benefits at the expense of the periphery."

 During an informal discussion Samir Amin responded to a question on how he sees the future of the world by saying, that the world was moving towards the establishment of two sets of countries. The modern day nation state of haves and have-nots. The haves are seeking to establish five monopolies. Monopoly over

• Natural resources
• Financial services
• Intellectual property
• Weapons of mass destruction and
• Culture.

 Globalisation needs to be understood within this framework. Third World nations and people must understand these are new frontiers for Capital.

Finance is flowing in the form of `capital as finance' and not as `capital in production'. The later being only two percent of the total cross border flow. Even in the matter of direct foreign investments the flow is mostly amongst the developed countries. In 1997 the total flow of FDI was a little more than $400 billion of which 84 % came from the developed countries and 58 % went to other developed countries. Even when FDI comes to the Third world it tends to come only to those countries where the domestic savings are already high. Also FDI demands access to domestic investment as well as guarantees from the state that would effectively protect the profits as well as ensure the security of the investment. The Multilateral agreements like those relating to Financial services are put into position to the extent that USA, European countries and Japan want to open their markets to each other. The rest of the world is to be taken for granted. On the other hand provision of services through the movement of natural persons is just mentioned so that its absence is not conspicuous. Otherwise it is tightly regulated by nation states though immigration laws.

While exporting capital to the developing countries, the developed countries also export their recession. In fact the two are linked. The credits given by equipment supplier nations and even the World Bank tend to finance deindustrialisation in developing countries. Often equipment that is produced by public sector domestic suppliers is forced to compete on unequal terms.

In an article "Globalization of capital and the theory of imperialism" (Social Scientist Vol. 24 No 11-12, Nov.-Dec, 1996) Prof. Prabhat Patnaik shows how the dovetailing of global finance with the third world deindustrialisation not only benefits the producers from the advanced countries but also finance capital. He observes, " Finance benefits both on the swings and on the roundabouts. When it flows in, it does so for garnering large speculative gains, in real estates, in stock markets, etc. Since the interest rates offered on foreign exchange deposits in the third world economies (strapped for foreign exchange in a world with adverse terms of trade for their products) are also much higher compared to what prevail internationally, even the meanest rentier who is incapable of making speculative "kill" still does pretty well by bringing in finance into the third world economy. Now, if this finance is used up to paying for a splurge in imported consumer goods which simultaneously entail a process of deindustrialisation of the domestic economy, then when the time comes for finance to flow out the country is once again strapped for foreign exchange. And then it is forced to adopt a whole series of measures to entice foreign exchange to stay within its shores, measures which include selling off rights over natural resources `for a song', selling off public sector assets at throw-away prices, making prime land available to rentiers, etc. In short, from the point of view of the recipient country deindustrialisation of the economy is paid for by selling off national assets cheaply to international rentiers, entailing inter alia a process of denationalisation as well. The rentiers do well when finance is flowing in; they do even better when finance threatens to flow out.

On the role of the World Bank and IMF Prof. Patnaik states, "Suppose a country decides not to enlarge its import bill or liberalise consumer goods imports; suppose a country decides not to privatise its public sector assets; suppose a country which is receiving substantial inflows of foreign finance, decides not to fritter its reserves away in importing luxury consumer goods but to enlarge welfare expenditures or public investment in crucial infrastructural areas on the strength of these reserves, then the Washington institutions, to the extent that country is bound by conditionalities, enforce them. But even when there are no conditionalities as such, notwithstanding the large accumulated foreign exchange reserves, they start demanding an exchange rate depreciation, on the grounds that such a level of fiscal deficit is unsustainable at the prevailing exchange rate, or that the prevailing rate of inflation demands lowering of the exchange rate. Once they make these demands, speculators start excepting depreciation, and the reserves begin to vanish forcing governments to back down from the autonomous route it had temporarily charted for itself. The role of the Washington institutions extends to enforcing a comprehensive set of measures involving deflation and devaluation upon the primary commodity producing third world economies whose overall objectives is to ensure price-stability in the metropolitan centres which act as the entrepot for global finance. To be sure, large-scale unemployment in these centres which breaks the back of the trade union movement helps in the process, but ensuring that primary commodity producers are not able to jack up their prices is also an essential part of the strategy."

Now I will invite George Soros to bear witness, "As a general rule, lenders tend to fare much better in an international debt crisis than debtors. They may have to roll over their loans, extend the dates of maturity, or even grant concessional rates but they do not abandon their claims. Often they can even persuade debtor countries to assume liabilities from commercial banks that would be wiped out (which is what happened in Chile in 1982 and in Mexico in 1994 and it is happening again to a limited event in Korea, Indonesia and Thailand). Of course, the lenders have to set up reserves, but eventually they tend to recover a significant part of the bad debts. Although the debtor countries may not be able to pay off their obligations in full, they will be obliged to pay to the limits of their ability. The burden of doing so will eventually weigh them down for many years to come. This is in sharp contrast with domestic debt crisis in advanced countries in which bankruptcy procedures tend to protect the debtors. (US banks lost a lot of money in the savings and loan crisis of the 1985-1989). The relative immunity of the lenders in the international system creates a dangerous moral hazard: The risks are not large enough to discourage unsound lending practices. This asymmetry is a major source of instability. Every financial crisis is preceded by an unsustainable expansion of credit" Further he states, "today, the ability of the State to provide for the welfare of its citizens has been severely impaired by the ability of capital to escape taxation and onerous employment conditions by moving elsewhere".

While finance seeks a global space to operate, all regulations on capital are within the nation states. This anomaly is what is undermining on the one hand the ability of the nation-state to intervene in the economy to maintain high levels of activity and employment and on the other increasing the risks for the peddlers of global finance capital. The former set of issues are concerns for those seeking development, and not just development, but development with equity within a participative democratic framework. And the latter set of concerns is not only that of the World Bank and IMF but they also seeking expression through multilateral agreements likes GATS and MAI.

There are specific problems with multilateral agreements such as GATS. These are

 Discriminatory treatment between capital and natural person.

The major competitive advantage that the Third World countries have is the services that they can provide through the natural person. This could range from barbers to computer programmers. The third world countries are expected to give complete and unfettered access to capital (with MAI giving almost a sovereign status to the investor providing for a corporation to take nation states to courts). At the same time the most humiliating set of immigration rules are laid down for natural persons.

 Assumption that all national service providers are at the same level.

In this day and age of satellite communications and global television networks providing services is based not merely on skill and quality of service but the ability to invest capital in high speed communications, advertisement and marketing. This form of capital intensity gives a great advantage to the MNCs as against a supplier from the Third World. The MNC’s ability to cross-subsidise sales in one country from the excess profits of another and thereby make for unfair competition to the domestic producers.

One of the most critical areas is cross subsidisation. In every service the principle of cross subsidisation has been the basis for providing services to the weaker and disadvantages sections. For, example in Telecommunications, in India the basic telephone service provider for Delhi and Bombay is a public sector unit MTNL. Eight percent of the subscribers provide ninety percent of the revenue. In the Air transport sector, in India there are three types of destinations - profitable sectors between metropolitan stations, loss making sectors that connect the inaccessible areas of the country, loss making short haul tourist destinations and politically important but commercially unimportant locations. Under the liberalised regime of GATS and MAI, what would happen is that FDI would seek out the profitable areas and there would be a phenomenon of privatisation of profits and nationalisation of losses.

It is obvious that adjustment and multilateral agreements like GATS, TRIPS, MAI etc. would require that all societies must be shaped, moulded and evaluated by a single criterion - to enhance the wealth of the powerful corporations and their local fronts in various countries. In other words, it means that welfare of the entire human race depends on how well all societal processes adjust themselves to enhancing and optimising the welfare and well being of the shareholders of the large corporations of the world - their collaborators and fronts.

 Once again I summon George Soros to provide credibility to my arguments. Soros writes, "There is a widespread belief that capitalism is somehow associated with democracy in politics. It is a historical fact that the countries that constitute the center of the global system are democratic but the same is not true of all the capitalist countries that lie on the periphery. In fact, many claim that some kind of dictatorship is needed to get economic development going. Economic development requires the accumulation of capital and that, in turn, requires low wages and high savings rates. This is more easily accomplished under an autocratic government that is capable of imposing its will on the people than a democratic one that is responsive to the wishes of the electorate "

 That is why there is talk of adjustment with a human face. What does this mean? It means that since, by definition, the majority has to be reshaped into achieving a single objective -that of optimising the well being of a minority, dissent is inbuilt. The problem then becomes one of managing dissent. Therefore the concerns are:

 How can dissent be kept within limits and the dissenters co-opted, or marginalised? Human rights and social sector funding are considered the tools to achieve this. Therefore, all the hullabaloo about human rights and the social summits. (What greater denial of human rights and social justice can there be than that a majority of the human beings live on the verge of starvation and in misery alongside extravagance and a vulgar display of wealth? That too when the society has the means and the technology to eliminate poverty and wretchedness.)

1. On concerns of social welfare like child care, gender issues, poverty etc. the emphasis is on diluting the role of the Government in favour of the Non Governmental Organisations (NGO), which in the Third World are under the financial support and tutelage of the agencies located in the capitalist countries. The proposal to privatise the Anganwadi (integrated child development programme) in India is a pointer to this. In Bangladesh, the total inflow of foreign exchange to the NGOs exceeds the official aid received by the Government.
2. On the issue of development there is complete marginalisation of those that cannot contribute to profits in any meaningful way, like the tribals, indigenous people and those below the poverty line whether they are in the Third World or USA.
3. Marginalisation of Trade unions. The falling membership in the organised Trade Union movement in USA and Europe indicate a certain measure of success in this direction. The brutal repression of Trade Unions in most of the Third World is well documented.

6. The paths chosen by those who are managing the nation states:

1. Delink from the Capitalist controlled global economy, risk autarky and struggle against sanctions exploiting the space available in the inter-imperialist contradictions. The path chosen by Cuba.
1. Implement both the structural adjustment package, WTO agreement and continue with a soft state and populist politics, thereby fall between two stools, only to pay a very heavy social price at a later date. A path chosen by India.
2. Get rid of the vexatious democratic process, replace it with an authoritarian regime, and receive handsome payoffs and handouts from the developed capitalist countries. A path thrust on the people of most of Latin America and Africa and many countries of South East Asia.
3. Just disintegrate into irrelevant and inconsequential states that can be manipulated. A path chosen by the former Soviet Union and East European countries.

 7. Agenda before the Trade Unions

The options between nations and people are not between a set of economic policies and paradigms and their alternatives, but between a set of values. Value systems cannot be imposed, but must be evolved by a collective. People must decide to optimise the welfare of society in a holistic sense and not the benefits that sub-systems or individuals can derive. Trade Unions have to move beyond economism and begin to organise people to struggle for societal welfare. They must evolve alternatives and organise the people, led by the working class, to force the ruling classes to implement the alternatives. This is not possible in a complex system, unless the Trade Unions are equipped with expertise on the specifics of various subjects and issues. This is one area that is lacking in the agenda of most World trade unions particularly those of the Third World. It is important to realise that Trade Unions can and are co-opted, therefore there is a need for creating solidarity amongst workers in order to ensure an internal system of communication and information.

 7.2 The issues.

Form the above discussions we can derive the following issues:

1. that the national governments and the local elite are conscious and willing partners to imposing structural adjustment packages and that the policy changes are not merely the dictates of the World Bank / IMF or WTO, but are in fact packages of mutual benefit between metropolitan capital and their local counterparts. Already the elite has began to articulate the concept of global governance and it is a matter of time before local governments and the elite make compromises on the sovereignty of nation states.
1. that the offensive is very formidable; the consequences of which will be `colonisation without physical occupation’ through a process of `auto colonisation’.
2. that opening of national markets under monopoly conditions as envisaged in TRIPS and MAI, would result in a number of national enterprises either being closed or taken over. MNCs would either use the route of importation or take over existing units rather than make large investments.
3. that there is a need to recognise that the survival of planning and state intervention through state enterprises is not an ideological issue. At the stage of development in which most Third World countries are and given the levels of inequality, state intervention is the only means of ensuring cross subsidisation of goods and services. Adhoc privatisation would lead to the phenomenon of `privatisation of profits and nationalisation of losses.’
4. that labour legislation will be made more repressive. The struggle of the South Korean Trade Unions would soon become a universal phenomenon. Trade Unions will be attacked, marginalised or co-opted. Therefore Trade unions need new weapons and techniques to meet the offensive. Trade Unions will have to be multi-skilled and backed by serious research inputs. There is little space left for partisan and competitive trade union politics.
5. that there will be an offensive against the ILO. Attempts will be made to marginalise ILO and WTO will start setting labour standards or at least intervening in them.
6. that the struggle against this can no longer be confined within nation states and there is a need for international solidarity.
7. that India and its trade unions must play a significant role with bold and imaginative initiatives.

1. At both national and international levels there must be a minimum understanding of the implications of the offensive of G-7 countries, World Bank, IMF and WTO. Based on this common understanding, programmes and activities must be launched.
2. Resources should be pooled to form a critical mass. Sub critical struggles not only demoralise the cadres but also legitimise repressive forces.
3. Trade Unions must evolve suitable institutional mechanisms to be able to bring together all nationalist and patriotic elements. The help of professionals, scientists, etc. should be sought to analyse issues and prepare critiques that will give muscle to trade union struggles.
4. Trade unions have access to the people through services like postal, banking, transport etc. Educational material should be distributed to the people using this access.
5. Industrial sickness is a very complex phenomenon and Trade Unions must seek professional advice nationally and internationally.
6. Trade Unions should use their access to the ILO effectively.

8. Conclusion

A time comes in the destiny of every nation and organisation when its leaders are called upon to rise above partisan considerations, such a time has come. Not to recognise this, either wittingly or by default, is to demand that future generations of workers pay the price for our failure.

 Finally, I would like to conclude with the word of Samir Amin "the bourgeoisie, in its various forms, at the current stage of capitalist transnationalisation and taking account of the internal contradictions of every kind (social, political, cultural) engendered by the historical development of the region, totally accepts its comprador status and will no longer attempt a national construction… the task of 'democratic national revolution' remains on the agenda of ineluctable necessities. What is new is that national construction can no longer be bourgeoisie but popular…."