(e)
(f)
RESTRICTED
Those developing countries who felt that their interests were not adequately covered in the GSP so far could rely on support in pressing their case within UNCTAD;
If the GATT waiver were delayed, it would slow down the implementation of the donors' offers and thus adversely affect the many developing countries who stood to benefit from the GSP.
The principal advocates of this line were India, Chile, Yugoslavia, Malaysia and Brazil. A number of other developing countries took the same line but with individual variations: Ceylon, for instance, referred to the lack of compensation for some developing countries for loss of traditional markets; Ghana said that they would support the waiver although the GSP would bring little benefit to them; and Peru (no doubt with Cuba and perhaps the Caribbean Commonwealth countries in mind) appealed to those Contracting Parties concerned to adopt the political decisions necessary to extend preferences to all developing countries in UNCTAD. In addition to tho se already mentioned Indonesia, Uruguay, Korea, and UAR also stated they would vote in favour, as did Australia.
3
The Ivory Coast, on behalf of the Associated States of the EEC, said that the GSP would not bring them much benefit. Moreover, there was little information available on the exact scope of the final offers or on the likely beneficiaries. Nevertheless, they did not wish to hold up the implementation of the GSP. They would therefore support the draft waiver but with a duration limited to one year. For varying reasons, this proposal was supported by the OECD developing countries (except Spain) and by Poland and Tunisia
*
4 Israel, Portugal, Malta, Greece and Turkoy argued against the draft waiver on legal grounds:
(a) (b)
(c)
(a)
(c)
GATT must protect the interests of all its members; It was not possible for GATT to judge the extent to which these interests were protected by the waiver in the absence of full details on the date of implementation, the machinery for reviewing the waiver, the scope of the offers, and most important of all, the list of prospective beneficiaries; It was contrary to the Rules of Procedure adopted on 1 November 1956 (and especially paragraphs (c) and (d)) to grant a waiver under such circumstances; The waiver as drafted would allow the donors a free hand to ignore the non-discriminatory, non-reciprocal and generalised basis on which the GSP was supposed to be built;
In effect, the donors were not socking a waiver from Article I under the terms of Article XXV but rather the modification of Article I: the donors' request should therefore be treated as an amendment to the General Agreement and not as a request for a waiver; (f) More thorough discussion of the waiver was required
than would be possible in the present meeting of the Council.
2 RESTRICTED
/Greece