CONFIDENTIAL
--2--
3. WHEN OEEC WAS REPLACED BY OECD IN 1961 ALL THE MEMBERS OF
THE CEEC SIGNED A PROTOCOL TO REPLACE THE OEEC CONVENTION BY THE
NEW OECD CONVENTION. IN THIS CONNECTION COMPARE ARTICLE 4
OF THE OEEC CONVENTION ( ON WHICH THE CODE OF LIBERALISATION WAS HUNG) AND WHICH READS:
QUOTE THE CONTRACTING PARTIES WILL DEVELOP, IN MUTUAL CO-OPERATION THE MAXIMUM POSSIBLE INTER-CHANGE OF GOODS AND SERVICES. TO THIS
END THEY WILL CONTINUE THE EFFORTS ALREADY INITIATED TO ACHIEVE
AS SOON AS POSSIBLE A MULTILATERAL SYSTEM OF PAYMENTS AMONG
THEMSELVES, AND WILL CO-OPERATE IN RELAXING RESTRICTIONS ON TRADE
AND PAYMENTS BETWEEN ONE ANOTHER, WITH THE OBJECT OF ABOLISHING
AS SOON AS POSSIBLE THOSE RESTRICTIONS WHICH AT PRESENT HAMPER
SUCH TRADE AND PAYMENTS. UNQUOTE
WITH ARTICLE 1(C) OF THE OECD CONVENTION WHICH STATES AS ONE
OF THE AIMS OF OECD AS
QUOTE TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE EXPANSION OF WORLD TRADE ON A
MULTILATERAL, NON-DISCRIMINATORY BASIS IN ACCORDANCE WITH
INTERNATIONAL OBLIGATIONS. UNQUOTE
4.
IN VIEW OF PARAGRAPHS 3 AND 2(4) ABOVE THE GENERAL OPINION HERE (WHICH I SHARE) IS THAT THE O E E C CODE OF
LIBERALISATION IS A THING OF THE PAST AND LEGALLY DEAD. THE
FAILURE OF THE FRENCH TO COMPLY WITH THEIR THEN O EEC
OBLIGATIONS TO HONG KONG WAS THE HISTORICAL OCCASION FOR THE
START OF DISCRIMINATION BUT THEY CANNOT NOW BE ASKED TO FULFILL
THIS OBLIGATION IN THE CONTEXT OF AN ORGANISATION WHICH NO
LONGER EXISTS.
5.
ALTHOUGH THEREFORE I WOULD SEE NO OBJECTION TO MENTIONING
THE ORIGINAL O E E C OBLIGATIONS I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT IN
FORMULATING OUR RIGHTS WE RELATE THESE FIRMLY TO THE GATT.
CONFIDENTIAL
/6. IN VIEW