CONFIDENTIAL
(2)
Date of Implementation
Discussions revealed that it was very difficult to pro- ceed beyond the very general conclusions in paragraph 4 of the report. The EEC needed four or five months for technical and administrative work before implementation, but Di Martino pointed out that they would also need decision on an origin formula which would be workable by developing countries, as well as a settlement of the legal status of the schemes in the GATT. Subject to these reservations the EEC could imple- ment by about April or May 1971. The U.K. (Lam) said that the timing of parliamentary ratification could not be guaran- teed, but it was hoped that implementation could be carried out by about the Autumn of next year. He could accept a best endeavours commitment to bring the U.K. scheme into force by the last quarter of 1971. The problem for Austria was not so much GATT status, or origin rules, but the position on benefic- iaries. They could accept self-election but had first to consider the decisions made by the bigger donors. Cronk (U.S.) pointed out the uncertainties of the congressional timetable but indicated that the Administration intended to submit legis- lation to the Congress very early next year (i.e. probably in January). If Congress passed the legislation by early Summer, they would still need at least four more months for the implem- entation phase. Japan Miyazaki said that his government also intended to submit a Bill to their legislature very early next year which would necessitate settling the outstanding issues at an early date. It was hoped to have this legislation approved by about April, after which it would need about three months to put into effect. Switzerland was unlikely to be ready to implement before the end of 1971, if then. The Nordic Countries, also, would probably not be ready before the Autumn and perhaps later, as legislation was needed in all four countries. The Chairman (Herbst), summing up, said that the discussion showed that it was not possible for the Committee to go much further than the formula "as early as possible in 1971" which had been agreed in the UNCTAD.
www
(3) Timing of GATT Derogation
There was a long discussion on this which confirmed the view of the majority of donor countries that they preferred one general waiver in the GATT to a series of individual waivers. It was, however, generally agreed that a final decision could not be taken until a serious attempt had been made to draft a text. It was agreed that work on this should start as soon as possible in Geneva and that, initially, it should be confined to donor countries and the GATT Secretariat. The main objection to indiv- idual waivers seemed to be that this procedure might put some
-2-
CONFIDENTIAL