Mr Gregory (CTL)
0.0. Mr Lam
Mr Carey
(CRE: 1) (Mintech:)
Mr Woodhead (CRE:1)
Mr Heath
(F.0.06)✓
CRE: 23599:P
HONG KONG: RELATIONS ON TEXTILES
Your minute to me of 29 Junc raises a question on which we must certainly clear our minds. As I understand it you wish the now regime to make it possible for Hong Kong publicly to argue at a CAST Conference in favour or rolling in non-cottons to cotton restraint agreements, and for HMG to wash its hands of what Hong Kong is saying, and indeed to argue for a contrary policy. As I understand Geneva telegram 451, they wish it to be clear that this will not be gllowed to happen.
2.
The reference in para.3 of the Hong Kong telegram to the Concordat does not in my view mean that our Mission in Geneva are under the misapprehension that the Concordat as such would still stand. In asking for the retention of the "special arrangements" formula, their intention is simply, by wording on the lines of that Formula, to get it clear that even if Hong Kong is given a free hand to negotiate bilaterally on non-cottons, as on cottons, this does not mean that Hong Kong will similarly have a free hand to express views possibly conflicting with those of HMG in international organi- sations.
3. I would be inclined to agree with the view which Sir E Melville has consistently expressed that it would be foolish and indeed dangerous to attempt to write down exactly what U.K./Hong Kong relations in GATT meetings should be, and I think one can be confi- dent that, as in the past, matters will be handled by the individual concerned at Geneva so as to avoid damage to either of us. We have to recognise that unless and until Hong Kong achieves independent menbership of CATT there is no alternative to the existing position under which there is only one contracting party representing the United Kingdom and Hong Kong together. In the field of cotton tex- tiles this position has proved reconcilable with giving a good deal of freedom of action to the Hong Kong element in the delegation. As I understand it all that we are now proposing is, in respect of the GATT, that the Hong Kong element in the U.K. delegation should have similar freedom of action in respect of non-cotton textiles, even though in respect of non-cotton textiles there is not present the special circumstance that Hong Kong is a separate signatory of the Long Term Arrangement. How far this freedom of action can go is something I do not think we should attempt to spell out. As I have suggested it must be left to the good sense of those on the spot.
4. If a reply to the Geneva telegram is required, I suggest that it might be on the lines of the draft attached.
DI Dunnett (CRE:1)
1 July 1970
::.
Page 180Page 181