68
$
PERSONAL A CONFIDENTIAL
- 3-
76
field of responsibility. You may well be right and they may well be wrong. But you will realise that there is no point in arguing, for example, about the merits of H.N.G.'s already announced policy to impose a tariff on cotton imports from the beginning of 1972. In addition and again it is a matter of differing judgment though you say in paragraph 4 that a stand internationally against the use, outside G...T.T., of voluntary restraints has no hope of success, this is not a view shared by some elements in the Board of Trade. Some would support your view; others my the opposite, but this they will have to work out for themselves between now and the middle of September.
5. We recognised, and wished that this could have been avoided, that the instructions in which we had concurred reluctantly would cause local difficulties and embarrassment, but could, in the light of Board of Trade views, devise no way of avoiding this. I did, however, in view of your categoric request that the situation shoulć be put to Ministers, talk to Lord Shepherd on 18 August and explain what had happened. While he was, of course, sympathetic to your predicament, he agreed with me that there seemed little that we could do but wait and see how the talks with the Canadians went. In the light of your telegram No. 655 about the first day's meeting with the Canadians, we consulted the Board of Trade again and sent you their views about further talks. I hope that if the Canadians really do take umbrage and "demand negotiations with us" that we shall be able to meet them, although, as we said in F.C.0. telegram No. 550, such talks would not really be useful in advance of the Board of Trade having made up their minds about the broader issues and having obtained "inisterial approval of their position. Incidentally, in your telegram reporting the first day's meetings yo mentioned that the Canadians were incensed that we had given no inkling of our instructions to Ottawa before their departure. that the Canadians were virtually on their way by the time the decisions set out in F.C.0. telegrams Noa. 536 and 537 were taken I doubt if anything useful could have been achieved in Ottawa. did, in fact, consider whether to make specific representations which might have had the effect of stopping the departure of the Canadian team, but decided against it, partly because I, at least, thought that this would be even more unwelcome to you.
Given
Te
6. I can well understand your doubts about whether Whitehall are really acting in your interests (paragraph 6 of our telegram No.652 and your conclusion that you will have no alternative but to request a full review of the relationships between us on matters affecting Hong Kong trade with third parties. I hope that we will not come to this for I think that such a confrontation would not be helpful to either of us. There is a certain virtue in not having the position defined too clearly. For example I know that some in the Board of Trade would like to see the correct procedure defined something like this:
PERSONAL & CONFIDENTIAL
(a) meetings