0003230
G.F. 323
CONFIDENTIAL
34
78.
Mr. Jordan said he could not see any connection
between Hong Kong's agreements on certain non-cotton products
with Canada, Sweden and Norway and the present approach from
the U.S. Government. Hong Kong had never been asked to
conclude a comprehensive bilateral agreement by any of these
countries. The Hong Kong Government had agreed to restrain
exports of particular products where it had been satisfied
that domestic industry was being seriously damaged by
imports of these products and that the bulk of these imports
came from Hong Kong.
79.
Sir Lugene Melville thought that the principles
involved in these matters should best be considered in the
G.A.T.T. To ask for precautionary comprehensive arrangements
without evidence of injury or real threat of injury seemed to
him to be standing the G.A.T.T. on its head.
Mr. Nehmer did not
think this was a G.A.T.T. problem. Hong Kong had not gone to
the G.A.T.T. in connection with its restraints on non-cotton
exports to Canada, Sweden and worway for example. Sir Eugene Melville
said he had emphasised that it was the principles involved which
should be considered in G.A.T.T.; it was not necessary for the
matter to be referred to the G.A.T.T. if one side gave an
unilateral undertaking or two sides reached agreement, unless
some other Contracting Party raised the matter.
80.
Mr. Nehmer said that the U.S. Government believed
that its proposals for a comprehensive bilateral agreement
were compatible with the G.A.T.T., and the market disruption
clause. Mr. Jones pointed out that this matter had in fact
/been
CONFIDENTIAL