از
OUNCIL
Dear Ral,
CONFIDENTIAL
BOARD OF TRADE
1, VICTORIA STREET,
LONDON S.W.1
20th October 1969
124
UNCTAD Preferences
Hong Kong
At the meeting of the Ad Hoc Group on Preferences in Paris last week, there was some discussion on the issue of beneficiary countries. This was stimulated by the paragraph on beneficiary countries on page 23 of TC/PREF/69.22 which was discussed sentence by sentence in the course of the week.
2.
While most members were prepared in principle to subscribe to the "self-election" concept, a number said that they proposed to exclude some countries that would claim developing status on grounds that would be both compelling and competitive.
3. I naturally pressed for a re-affirmation of the-principles set out in the report of the Special Group of 1967. I succeeded to the extent of having the word "beneficiaries" substituted for "beneficiary countries" and I made clear that in asking for this amendment I intended that territories and regions were meant in addition to countries.
4. The end result was a brief paragraph to appear in the joint submission to go to UNCTAD but the EEC, supported by Japan and the USA and others, insisted on the inclusion in square brackets of "in general" and the EEC further insisted that the whole paragraph should go forward in square brackets on the grounds that until the paper came before the Trade Committee for approval the Community had not decided their position on this issue. The paragraph reads as follows:
What-does this Say? I have arkad
T.P.D
5.
"Beneficiaries. As for beneficiaries, donor countries
would in general base themselves on the principle
of self-election. With regard to this principle reference
should be made to the relevant paragraph in document
TD/56 i.e., section (A) in part I 7"
In the course of this discussion and following consultations with Derek Jones I made the statement which is attached, virtually in the terms in which I gave it, formally claiming developing status for all our dependent territories. There was no reaction in the Group but subsequently I gathered that the reason why we made such a statement was well understood and caused no offence.
R. G. Britten Esq.
Trade Policy Department
Foreign and Commonwealth Office
Great George Street. LONDON SW1
CONFIDENTIAL'
ROTVD AN
V No. 51 23 OCT 1969
HICK 6/12
LAST
REF
128