questions to which I do not know the answer.
4. It seems to me that what we ought to say
to Hong Kong, tactfully of course, is that
with so noticeable an international trend
towards Import Restrictions on textiles in
the non-cotton field (illustrated by the
sequence of concessions to Germany, Canada,
Sweden, now the Norwegians, and possibly in
the future again the Germans; to say nothing
of the threatening noises I understand
X Nickson, as Presidential Candidate in the
States, has been making about regulating the
trade in man-made fibres and blends), unless
they resist pressure for import restrictions
rather more firmly than they have done in the
pasty
Here will inevitably be a temptation
"
on the trade in Britain to attempt the same
sort of restriction on Hong Kong imports
into this country. We possibly have a clearer
M
Ow
idea of the strength of north country
political pressures than they have in Hong
Kong, but I wonder if we improve our case by
talking about the "diversion" of trade. I
would expect to be told if we used this
term that neither the U.K. textiles trade nor
anyone else could prove the diversion of
trade from one country to another as such.
There might be a coincidental increase of
imports from Hong Kong into the U.K. following
a restriction on imports into another
country. But any request from U.K.
manufacturers to restrict Hong Kong imports
could really only arise from the greater
competitiveness of Hong Kong manufacturers
and I think that Hong Kong ought to be told wome
(whether there is already any
any political
NOTHING TO BE WRITTEN IN THIS MARGIN