THE DUNKEL TEXT 113 regimes of explicit or implicit subsidies, which do not differentiate between farmers by size of holding, would be open to question. The practice of public utilities charging concessional prices from the agricultural sector, followed by several State Governments in India, would no longer be tenable. WHAT NEXT? The draft Final Act in the Dunkel text is characterised by a take-it-or-leave-it syndrome that is implicit in its composite structure and discernible between the lines. It cannot and should not be accepted as fait accompli. As a sovereign nation state, which is one of the original contracting parties in the GATT, we must endeavour to re-open the negotiations on a few matters that are of strategic concern to us. The perception that we are in a small minority, or even alone, at the present juncture, should not lead us to abandon the negotiations and sign on the dotted line. It is this 'isolation paradox* which has, perhaps, coaxed many reluctant developing countries into a posture of acceptance. The pursuit of national interest is worthwhile so long as there is any room for manoeuvre, however limited it may be. At this stage, in terms of strategy and tactics, I would suggest three alternative approaches in descending order of preference. As a first option, we should insist on a formal separation of the agreements on trade in goods, trade in services and trade-related intellectual property rights, which appear as separate annexes in the Dunkel text. We should seek a deletion of the linkages between the different agreements through integrated dispute settlement mechanisms which allow for retaliation across sectors. This would be consistent with our stance so far on the issue of lodgement and the problem of cross-retaliation. At the same time, we should retain the freedom to choose between agreements that are acceptable and those that are not. The next option, if the agreements cannot be separated, is to consider acceptance of the Dunkel text, but on a strict understanding of 'best endeavour*, so that legislative changes would be made if and only if approved by Parliament which must remain sovereign. Pending that, the extant rights under the GATT must remain unimpaired. This stand should not sound unrealistic because the United States also may agree only to a 'best-endeavour* approach when it comes to the removal of Super 301 from their statute book, once the new dispute settlement procedures are in place. In conclusion, it would not be our of place to mention an option that may be a last resort. It has always been my judgment that, from the perspective of developing countries, multilateralism is superior to bilateralism or plurilateralism. The reason is simple. In a world of unequal partners, a multilateral trading system should provide some