CONFIDENTIAL -2-
24
4.
I CANNOT SEE THAT ANY OF JORDAN'S ACTION RAN COUNTER TO
CONFIRMED POLICY. IF YOU HAD FELT THAT TO AGREE TO CONSULT ON
POLYESTER/POLYNOSIC SHIRTS AND TO CONCEDE RESTRAINT WOULD
PREJUDICE V.K. INTERESTS I WOULD HAVE EXPECTED YOU TO RESPOND
TO MYTEL 463 (DESPATCHED BEFORE JORDAN LEFT HONG KONG) IN THE
EVENT YOU MADE NO REPLY TO THIS TELEGRAM AND ON ARRIVAL IN OTTAWA
JORDAN WAS SURPRISED TO FIND, WHEN HE ASKED THE HIGH COMMISSION,
THAT THEY HAD RECEIVED NO INSTRUCTIONS FROM LONDON.
5. JORDAN WENT TO OTTAWA FOR A PRELIMINARY EXAMINATION OF THE
CANADIAN CASE. SINCE THERE HAD BEEN NO REPLY TO MY TELEGRAMS, IN
THE ACTUAL TALKS HE HAD NO INSTRUCTIONS AND HAD TO USE HIS
DISCRETION IN THE LIGHT OF
(A) THE CANADIAN STATISTICS SEMICOLON
(B) THE FACT THAT YOU HAD NOT DEMURRED TO MY TELEGRAM 463
FROM WHICH IT WAS CLEAR THAT HONG KONG ENVISAGED CONSULTATIONS
LEADING TO RESTRAINT SEMICOLON
(C) THE DISCUSSIONS IN LONDON TO THE EFFECT THAT IN GENERAL RESTRAINT COULD BE CONCEDED WHERE THERE WAS AN ARTICLE XIX-TYPE
CASE PROVIDED THAT U.K. INTERESTS WERE NOT PREJUDICED - NO
INDICATION OF A U.K. INTEREST HAD BEEN CONVEYED TO THE HIGH
COMMISSION AND YOU HAD JUST AGREED TO A RESTRAINT IN A SIMILAR
CASE (SWEDISH SHIRTS) SEMICOLON
(D) HIS ASSESSMENT OF THE CANADIAN ATTITUDE.
/6. IT IS
CONFIDENTIAL