10.12.69.
C. & I, 369B 2700486
2,000-3/67-155562
RESTRICTED
TEL.
TELEGRAPHIC ADDRESS:-
"PRODROME GENEVA FOR JONES"
OUR REF.:
YOUR REF.:
GVA/10/8/1
164/
UNITED KINGDOM MISSION,
35-37 RUE DE VERMONT,
1202, GENEVA,
SWITZERLAND.
28 November
1969.
Dear Given;
I find that I owe you a reply to your letter of 11 November which found its way into my "pending" pile of papers.
2. This has again been somewhat overtaken by events, seeing that we managed to have a brief discussion of the position at the end of the meeting chaired by Rob Goldsmith on Tuesday of this week. The conclusion we came to, I think, was that things were now in such a state of flux that we should hold our horses for a while longer before playing our card of formal representations in capitals on the Hong Kong problem. In particular, as regards the EEC, it was felt that Tran and di Martino should be given one more chance to produce some better and more reasonable alternative to the 5% proposal.
3. I am reinforced in this thought by the knowledge that we have made our position on the question of beneficiaries very clear in OECD both in the Ad Hoc Group and in the Trade Committee, and that we have made a formal claim on behalf of all U.K. dependent territories and States for whose external relations we are responsible, backed up by a list of such territories and States which has been officially circulated.
4. I feel, therefore, that we have probably done enough for the moment and that we should leave a little time for it to sink in before we take any further action. quite apart from the question of official representations in capitals, which can still be held in reserve, I would suggest two courses of action. The first is that Hannay might be asked to keep in touch with Tran from time to time to try to keep him up to the mark on his promises. The second is that, if and when something like an informal Group of 5 is called together as suggested by Poincilit, we should be ready to have the question of beneficiaries thrashed out round the table as frankly as possible. And I might add that at some stage in that process we are likely to do better for Hong Kong by accepting reasonable "competitive need" formulae, to be applied on an objective and "non-discriminatory" basis to all countries that hit the triggers, than we are likely to do by standing put on the question of principle to the bitter end. You will recall that, at the meeting in the Board of Trade, David Jordan confirmed that this was the Hong Kong Government's view.
0.H. Kemmis, Esq.,
Board of Trade.
15.
RESTRICTED