the territory of the other party to the Treaty in such quantities or under such conditions as to cause or threaten serious injury to domestic producers of similar products, take action (e.g. in the form of imposition of import restrictions) to prevent or remedy such injury. The Protocol provides that such action shall be taken only after consultations between the two governments have failed to provide a mutually acceptable solution.
The Japanese have suggested that we should rely on a watch list system, under which they would agree to stop exports if they reached predertermined lovelo during the years immediately following the end of quotas, and on the general provisions for consultation in case of difficulty which are written into the Treaty. They claim that other countries have found such arrangements satisfactory and are, we understand, seeking abolition of safeguard clauses where they exist. not wish to lag behind others in this respect, but here again we do not know in
We would any detail what arrangements exist and how satisfactory they have been.
-
As regards France may I refer you to Mr. Whitehead's (Tokyo) letter of 26th November (ref. 6/59) to Mr. Haines here and copied to Paris, about the safeguard clauses in Japan's Trade Agreements with Germany and France, and also to Mr. Galsworthy's letter of 17th April 1968. The published text in the M.O.C.I. of 3rd April 1968 does not appear to include the Protocol to the Commercial Treaty which provides for safeguards against disruptive competition, and we are wondering whether the full text was not in fact ́published (as it was at the time of the 1963 Treaty see M.O.C.I. of 15th May 1963) or whether the "tightening up" mentioned in paragraph 3 of Mr. Whitehead's letter took place after the March 1958 negotiations. Whatever the explanation is, what we would like is to see the text of any new version of the 1963 Protocol covering the safeguard aspects, and to know whether the 1963 text stood unchanged until then. From the description "tightening up" we do not imagine that the new Protocol provides for a watch list system" since this would be tantamount to a relaxation of the 1963 arrangements, but if some such system has in fact been adopted we would like details, and to know whether the system is regarded as effective against unfair competition.
Our meeting with the Japanese is due, in April, and we would be grateful if you could provide the information requested by the end of February at the latest.
P. R. Holmes Esq. British Embassy Paris
Yours sincerely,
(Miss M. Eggleston)