ECO 6/13
CONFIDENTIAL
RECEIVED IN
REGISTRY No. 51 21 AP1971
Аккы
اب ہے۔
BRITISH EMBASSY
WASHINGTON, D.C.
2 April, 1971.
Generalised Preferences
Copies & to /12/
M. Bo Koulay M. Gallagher
Mr. Statham (EID)... Mr. Laird (HKD) - 16. Lush (NAm 3)
and me
183.14
In my letter of 2 March to you I asked for some guidance on the scope and advantages of generalised preferences offers compared with the advantages of Yaounde-type association; and I mentioned that I hoped to de-brief Ed Cronk on his return from his tour of Africa which ended at the OECD Trade Committee on 25/26 March.
2.
I had a fairly long talk with Cronk on 1 April in the course of which he made a number of comments which seem worth recording.
3.
First, his African trip. His main stops were in Abidjan, Yaounde and Kinshasa, although he alled at a number of other points including Narobi. The main purposes of his trip were to encourage a more serious interest among African LDCs in the U.S. generalised preferences offer; and to spread the gospel of American objections to "reverse preferences". Cronk acknowledged that there might seem to be rather little present value in the U.S. offer but he had tried to interest African countries in the opportunities that it provided for the future growth of their trade with the U.S. His remarks suggested that he led had a polite but not particularly enthusiastic welcome. On reverse preferences he had explained U.S. objections and argued that they were contrary to the interests of LDCs. He told me wryly that apart from the obvious exception of Kinshasa. his advocacy had been treated with some scepticism. Most of the African countries took the line that they had to "pay" something for the benefits they received in the EEC and did not seem to mind this. Cronk regretted their lack of determination to back up U.S. efforts to secure the ending of what he regards as an iniquitous system.
4.
However Cronk had not been deterred by these exchanges from continuing to maintain staunchly that the American crusade against reverse preferences remained a worthy one. He did however add that it hardly mattered what view the Administration took of the matter since even if the State Department did not make it a condition of access to the American generalised prefer ences scheme Congress most certainly would do so. then raised with me the statement by Mr. Lightbourne which I reported in our telegram No. 1154.
0. H. Kemmis, Esq.,
Department of Trade and Industry.
co's: J.R.D. Gildea, Esq., D.T.I. W. Nicoll, Esq., D.T.I.
R.G. Britten, Esq., F.C.O.
-1-
CONFIDENTIAL
He