RESTRICTED
х
injury to the
an industry.
Italy
economy of a donor country but injury to
This also found general acceptance as far as it went but Kemmis pointed out that safeguard provisions could be invoked more widely, i.e., for burden-sharing reasons or to counter injury to third country trade. (inunni) expressed the view that the concept of a "safeguard clause" was perhaps misconceived in the context of preferences. If safeguards were invoked all that was involved was a return to MF treatment. A less evocative form of words should be sought. The Group acreed to think about this. The general conclusion was that this paper also should be returned to when all the elements of a system of preferences were again under discussion.
Conclusion
18. In view of the fact that the process of tabling illustrative lists was not yet complete (and in particular in the absence of an 'merican list) it was obvious from the start that this meeting of the Group could not be very productive. This turned out to be the case. Indeed, if it were not for the need to prepare for the Second Session of the CTAD Special Committec, it is probable that no meeting would have been held at this stage. This meeting did, however,.enable some general discussion to be held on the present state of progress (or lack of it) and for preparations to be made for the UNCTAD Committee.
19. In private conversation the U.C. delegation were not able to make any forecast 28 to when their list would be ready, except to repeat the point that it was now under consideration in the National Security Council. hether it will emerge within the next two to three weeks or will take longer cannot therefore be predicted. There is, on the other hand, no evidence that the new dministration have gone back on their predecessors' commitment to preferences in general, although it cannot be excluded that they will try to link it to other aspects of trade policy, particularly LDC acceptance of their requests on textiles. What can be predicted, however, is that no further substantial progress can be made on this question within OCCD until the American list is tabled. Even then it will take some weeks at least for all countries to appraise the position and to brief themselves for the detailed process of evaluation and con- frontation of the lists. This exercise, and the adjustments it will bring to individual countries' initial positiors, together with further general consideration of the various aspects of a preferences scheme, will in turn take more time. In these circumstances it is almost certainly already too late for the OECD countries to have ready a scheme or schemes in time for "intensive consultations" with the developing countries at the third session of the UNCTAD Committee at the end of June; and it seems fairly inevitable that this exercise will need to be deferred to the autumn at the earliest. The question remains w ether, if the U.S. list is very much longer delayed, even the 0 CD exercise itself will need to be put off until after the summer break.
/Hong Kong
RESTRICTED