•
.6.
out that the U.S. had already stated that Article XIX was "of no use to them"
since they would have to go to Congress for authority to act first.
Mr. Jordan said that at the recent talks in Hong Kong with the Americans,
Mr. Stans had made it clear that he wanted comprehensive restraint on non-cotton
items (e.g. under an agreement similar to the LTA) and that he was not
interested in the present limited restraints operated by Hong Kong.
The meeting then concluded. It was decided that the group under
Mr. Kemmis' chairmanship would meet at once to discuss to what degree
"Article XIX-type" cases existed on the items on which the Swedes were seeking
•
restraints by Hong Kong. A further meeting would take place at 10.15 a.m. the
following day to discuss the findings of the group.
June 13- 10.15 a.m.
Mr. Keumis reported to Mr. Hughes on the findings of the Group held the previous
afternoon, as follows1-
There had been a good deal of discussion on the policy issues discussed at
the previous meeting, e.g. should restraints be conceded at all, or, if they
were conceded, should it be only in accordance with Article XIX. No agreement
was reached on these matters and the group had therefore turned to consideration
of each item in turn, on the basis of the Swedish and Hong Kong statistics which
had been sent to London at the end of April.
1.
Items on which restraints already existed.
a) Anoraks: It was felt that the restraint conceded on men's
synthetic anoraks in 1968 had been weak. It had been extended
to some types of women's anoraks in February last and the Swedes
now wanted it extended to all women's anoraks. Production had
fallen in 1967/68 and imports over the same period had risen
sharply. The Swedes therefore had a better case than they had
had last year, and it also seemed that a "threat of injury" situation
Subject to a decision on the points of policy
might be developing.
/already
Page 15Page 16