Mainstream economists concede that the present globalization is favourable for the developed countries but they say that the poor countries should participate in the unfair game and extract as much concession as they can since there is no alternative.

They should save as much of their life as possible when the demon has caught hold of them. This thinking is a result of mental slavery. There is provision in the World Trade Organization that any member can give a six months notice and terminate its membership of the organization.

There is no compulsion for the poor countries to remain as member of the WTO. They are free to exit the present globalization bandwagon. We have no opposition to the principle of globalization. Our opposition is to the present model of globalization which is leading to illfare of large numbers.

The basic inconsistency of the WTO is that it provides protection to the monopolistic control of technologies but prohibits the monopolistic pricing of natural resources. The WTO requires that greater patents protection be provided to holders of new technologies.

Monopoly of owners of technology is recognized-even encouraged. The underlying principle is that the owner of a commodity has a right to extract highest price of his goods. Technological knowledge is a good and the holder is entitled to price it monopolistically.

The poor countries own eighty percent natural resources of the world such as water, soil, forest, oil, mineral, sea, etc. The monopolistic control of the poor countries on their natural resources stands on a similar footing as monopolistic control of the rich countries on technologies.

Just as there exists a market for technologies and they are bought and sold, similarly there exists a market for natural resources and they are bought and sold. Both are marketable commodities.

The principle of monopolistic pricing one's commodity is applicable to the rich countries' ownership of technologies. It should therefore also be applied to the poor countries' ownership of natural resources.

Microsoft has the freedom to charge high prices for its Windows software. In a similar way India should have the freedom to recover high prices for its bauxite and manganese ore. The inconsistency in the present globalization is that monopolistic pricing of technologies is permitted but monopolistic pricing of natural resources is prohibited.

The poor countries should come out of the WTO to break free of this unfavourable situation. They should initiate an alternative model of globalization which places all commodities-technologies and natural recourses included-on the same footing.

There are two differences between technologies and natural resources, however. Technology is generated by the owner while natural resources are a gift of nature. Protection to new technologies encourages more inventions while no such advantage accrues from protection to natural resources.

The problem with this argument is that natural resources have to be discovered and managed in the same way as new technologies. There is no value to a diamond lying in the field unless one has the necessary knowledge to recognize its value.

The knowledge of diamond lying in the field and a molecule having cancer killing property are similar. People of the poor countries have discovered these natural resources and maintained them for all these years.

It is well recognized, for example, that topsoil is generated by years of dutiful cultivation. It is not merely a 'gift' of nature. The poor countries are, therefore, entitled to price their soil and crops produced from it monopolistically as much as the MNCs have a right to charge high price for their drugs.

The second difference is that technology has a tendency to spread itself while natural resources have a tendency to constrict themselves. Many efforts are afoot to duplicate Microsoft's Windows software. This will be done sooner or later.

The Windows software has a tendency to 'grow' or to spread itself. The tendency of natural resources is exactly the opposite. They tend to reduce and get exhausted with time instead of spreading. The availability of diamond in a mine is less with every passing day. The oil deposits of West Asia are depleting.

The question is whether monopolistic protection should be provided to technology or to natural resources-to a commodity that spreads or to one that constricts. It seems that protection should first be given to natural resources. The commodity that tends to exhaust itself should be protected.

What is the benefit of giving protection to a commodity that is growing? It can be said that not providing protection to technologies will put an end to research and development.

But what is the purpose of R&D if they do not reach the people? Moreover, mankind has not waited for patents to discover telegraph, telephone and a host of other technologies. There is no reason to believe that technological advances will come to an end without patents.

The present model of globalization is inconsistent. Protection is provided to technologies but not to natural resources. Another inconsistency is that free movement of capital is encouraged while free movement of human beings is restricted.

The poor countries should make cartels of their natural resources and indulge in monopolistic pricing like OPEC did for oil in the seventies. They should openly violate the TRIPS agreement and copy advanced technologies.

Certainly the rich countries will retaliate by imposing high import duties on our exports and deny us new technologies. Both these steps will meet with a failure though. High import taxes will be as harmful for them as for us.

America will have to buy expensive garments from other countries if it imposes high taxes on cheap garments produced in developing countries. Ultimately they will have to buy our cheap cloth in their own self interest.

The fear regarding access to technologies too is without any basis. A study undertaken by UNCTAD has found that poor countries are finding it more difficult to obtain new technologies after the making of the WTO.

The basic contours of the alternative approach would be as follows. One, poor countries should be encouraged to make cartels of their natural resources. Two, TRIPS and patent laws must be scrapped. All knowledge must be free for the use of people. Three, free movement of human beings should be permitted while nations should be free to impose restrictions on free movement of capital.