!

masy developing countries that special tariff treatment would help them and ought be conceded. The Group attach importance to this "psychological" aspect. The

development of customs unions and free trade areas in the second post-war decade

has meant that a much lower propa tion of world trade is conducted on the basis of m.f.n. tariff rates now than was the case a few years ago. Even though m.f.n.

tariff rates on a wide range of goods, particularly industrial goods, will be

coming down over the next four years as a result of the Kennedy round, developing

countries take the view that not enough has been done to help solve their trading

problems. This dissatiofaction has crystallized itself in more insistent demands

for "preferences". in developed country markets. This cornexion between the issue

of principle and the pragmatic issue can be looked at in another way. One result

of the new arrangements, which many countries would see as an important objective,

would be a movement in the direction of equality of treatment for the exports of

all developing countries in developed country markets. The US Member pointed out

that certain developing countries have expressed particular concern about special

arrangements which they consider adversely affect their trade interests. He

expressed the view that elimination of existing discrimination among developing countries is one of the principal objectives of the proposed generalized scheme.

In his view the ultimate result should be a departure from the basic m.f.n. rule

on only one general level.

4.

The Group have concentrated their attention on the question "how" rather than

"who ther" to grant special tariff treatment. They are agreed that the concession

of special tariff treatment in developed country markets could help the developing

countries to increase their export earnings.

General Approach

5.

In discussing the mechanics of arrangements for the grant of special tariff

treatment, it has been the practice to deal with the subject under a number of headings, 1.8., donor countries, beneficiary countries, product coverage, depth of cut, duration, safeguards, existing preferential arrangements, etc. Piecemeal consideration under separate sub-titles of this kind may tend to obscure the interlocking nature of the problems since conclusions on any one aspect affect all the others. Although this report follows past practice, it attempts to bring out

the essential relationship between each of the main aspects.

:

Share This Page