5.
CONFIDENTIAL
-2-
IN OTTAWA JORDAN CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE CANADIANS
WERE DETERMINED TO PLUG THE POLYESTER/POLYNOSIC LOOPHOLE. THE
CANADIANS PRESSED FOR THIS TO BE DEALT WITH SEPARATELY AND WERE
IN DIFFICULTIES ABOUT ARRANGING EARLY ACROSS-THE-TABLE CONSULTATIONS,
AS THE RECORD PREFERRING TO CONSULT'' BY CORRESPONDENCE.
SHOWS, BOTH JORDAN AND HOWARTH MADE CLEAR THAT THEY WERE NOT
AUTHORISED TO NEGOTIATE.
ITHOUT
JORDAN UNDERTOOK WITHOUT COMMITMENT
TO PUT A PROPOSAL TO ME. IN THE EVENT THIS HAS COME TO NOTHING,
BUT THIS DID BUY TIME AND REDUCE THE RISK OF ARBITRARY
SURCHARGE ACTION BY CANADIANS.
6.
THE CANADIANS HAD PROVIDED ADDITIONAL STATISTICS THROUGH
THE HIGH COMMISSION WHO, I ASSUME, PASSED THEM TO YOU.
HIGH COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVE WAS PRESENT AT JORDAN'S DISCUSSIONS
AND INFORMED HIM IN A LETTER OF 3 JULY THAT HE WAS SENDING YOU
THE RECORD OF THE MEETING.
7. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY COMMENT FROM YOU ON THESE PAPERS,
IN WHICH I CLEARLY ENVISAGED (SEE PARA. 7 OF MY TELEGRAM 463) A PACKAGE DEAL INCLUDING POLYESTER/POLYNOSIC SHIRTS, I HAD TO ASSUME YOU HAD NONE AND PROCEED AS I THOUGHT BEST IN HONG KONG'S INTEREST, WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK, OF COURSE, OF AGREED POLICY. IT WAS ESTABLISHED AT HUGHES' MEETINGS IN LONDON IN JUNE THAT POLICY REMAINS UNCHANGED: THAT IS TO SAY, 'VOLUNTARY' RESTRAINT MAY BE CONCEDED ON NON-COTTON TEXTILE ITEMS WHERE THERE IS AN
''ARTICLE XIX-TYPE CASE''.
8.
IN THE B O T PAPER REFERRED TO IN YOUR PARA. 3, THE ONLY
SPECIFIC REFERENCE TO THE EFFECT OF VOLUNTARY RESTRAINTS IS
CONFIDENTIAL
/IN THE