CONFIDENTIAL
3 -
4.
point of view there was no objection to excluding
products -- the H.K. objection was to discrimination);
I told Tran that I would take note of the points he had
made and asked to be provided with the now so called "Hong Kong
sensitive list". He said that he would try to let me have a
copy early this week. In the meantime he said that he would
look at my tentative suggestions in relation to the figures. He addid that the material on Hong Kong I had previously supplied, which had been translated in the document "Apercu sur
Hong Kong", had been very useful. The Commission would not have
got even as far as it did with the Member States without this
material.
5. If what Tran says in (a), (b), (c), (d) and (f) in paragraph 3 above is correct then the position in practice for Hong Kong
Lay not be as bad as it at present looks on paper. But on past
experience I would not take this from Tran alone without checking, in view of his predilection to put forward his own thoughts as though they wore already accepted by the Community.
suggest we now need is another talk with the Germans and perhaps
the Dutch before tackling di Martino again. Perhaps this can
be arranged in Paris later this week.
What I
6. I think I should also add that at one point in our talk Tran referred to the Commission's judgment that the American
proposals would in practice cxcludo Hong Kong, Taiwan, South
Korea and Mexico. I said that I did not think that this would
necessarily be the case. There were a number of Hong Kong
exports to the U.S. not on the exceptions list. where Hong Kong accounted for less than 10% of U.S. imports. I also pointed
out that any discrimination would also not necessarily apply to
Hong Kong alone but would be based on performance. Finally I
repeated that Hong Kong as such had no objection to the longth
CONFIDENTIAL