CONFIDENTI^L
the unilateral limitation of imports from Hong Kong,by
transferring the illegal (in GATT terms) French restrictions
into a common import policy, would be anything other than
illegal. In the specific case of umbrellas we questioned
why the EEC countries concerned were so reluctant to resort to
Article XIX (on a non-discriminatory basis), especially in
view of the limited number of suppliers involved and the fact
the Japanese were already exercising restraint.
24. Ernst conceded that the Community would need to give
further thought to this whole question. The imperative was
that there would have to be a common import policy and that.
it would have to deal with problems involving Hong Kong on a
Community basis. Outside textiles, umbrellas were the most
acute problem but there were a few other cases which he felt
could best be discussed round a table with the Community as a
whole. He felt that this question should be taken up after
cotton textiles had been settled. Such consultations could
be held within the terms of Article XXII of the GATT and any
solutions envisaged could be within normal GATT procedures.
One possibility might be a discussion in the course of which
the Community would explain the "non-discriminatory" action
they might take under Article XIX and the quotas which would
be extended to Hong Kong under such a procedure.
25.
At that point the meeting concluded with a promise from
Ernst that he would in due course get in touch with me to
suggest a date in March for renewed consultations on cotton
textiles. It was clear that towards the end he was rather
thinking aloud on the more general aspects of the common import policy as it affected Hong Kong and that anything he said should
be taken with an even bigger pinch of salt than usual.
it does show that the Commission, at least, is beginning to
have some worries about taking action against Hong Kong that
But
CONFIDENTIAL
/would