CONFIDENTIAL
along with the more unpopular aspects).
Widening the bill's scope in this way probably would improve its chances; at least it would steal the clothes of those who have dressed up protec- tionist proposals with balance of payments arguments.
3.
Sentiment in the Administration, and in foreign trade circles in Washington, is cautiously optimistic that the bill will be passed by the House of Representatives this year. Nobody, however, is placing any bets on the success in the Senate. The risk remains that either chamber, especially the Senate, may seek to attach protectionist amendments, and the danger would be considerably reduced if the textile question were in sight of settlement on lines which at least mollified the textile lobby. It is too early to know whether, say, an easier escape clause and agreement by Asian exporting countries to limit export of textile products causing demonstrable injury would be sufficient. A lot would be gained if Wilbur Mills were satisfied with such arrangements; whilst this could not ensure the bill's passage through the Senate it would at any rate mean that Mills would use his influence to secure the rejection by the House/Senate Conference of any farther-reaching amendments by the Senate.
4.
•
If matters develop on the lines foreshadowed the U.K. and other interested countries must, I think, be prepared to follow flexible policies and tactics. We could just conceivably reach a point at present it is impossible to say at which thers would be a chance of buying the termination of A.S.P. by some concessions to protectionism, in all probability on textiles. As seen from here, this choice would not be easy. In such a situation, moreover, the interests of different exporting countries would by no means coincide. I suppose that the E.E.C. countries and Switzerland could well put A.S.P. first. Japan and the other Asian textile exporters might be expected to take the opposite view. Hong Kong's interests would considerably complicate the issue for us. I very much hope, nevertheless, that the solid front of exporters, which has played a significant part in checking protectionism under Nixon so far, can somehow be kept intact. For the moment the tactics which H.M.G. have pursued this year, and which are broadly speaking embodied in two recent papers for the Official Committee on Commercial Policy (PCO(69)17 on textiles and PCO(69)15 on A.S.P.), still seem right. Certainly nothing has been lost so far by standing firm on textiles and if at the end of the day it was decided to make concessions their value should be enhanced thereby. Meanwhile we ought, it seems to me, to maintain our stance of yielding nothing but keeping our options
open.'
(E. A. Midgley)
CONFIDENTIAL