RESTRICTED
Greece and Turkey also suggested amendments (unacceptable to the majority) to the draft waiver.
5 In addition to these two main groups, there were a number of other more individual positions taken by some developing countries, og: Cuba, who attacked the US embargo and the recent EEC decision to recognise only the Group of 77 as beneficiaries initially, and emphasized past recognition of its own developing status; but spoke in fairly restrained terms and appeared ready to support the waiver; Spain, who said that the waiver was much too open on details but they would support it on the understanding that they were recognised as developing -if not they would reserve their full rights under the GATT and in particular, Article XXIII; and Jamaica and Trinidad and Tobago, who repeated their reservations on the GSP rade in the UNCTAD and said they would only support the waiver if they would be beneficiaries under all donors' offers.
6 During the lunch break, the Associated States were lobbied to some effect: they agreed to bow to the wishes of the majority of the Group of 77, if the latter put up a show of persuasion. Accordingly, Chile, India, Argentina and Malaysia spoke again in the afternoon repeating previous arguments and adding that to limit the waiver to one year might possibly kill the GSP off altogether, that the UNCTAD had given greater detailed study tc the substance of the GSP than any waiver had ever received in the GATT, and that failure to provide the necessary waiver might well be fatal tc GATT itself. Reed (Norway) speaking on behalf of the donor countries, made broadly similar points, adding that no final decisions had been taken en beneficiarics; that it would be impossible for many donors to seck legislative sanction for the GSP if the GATT waiver were limited to one year; and that invest- ment decisions under the GSP might be adversely affected by such a waiver.
7 The Chairman (Thrane Denmark) then summed up. With some difficulty (the Greek delegate was particularly recalcitrant) he obtained the withdrawal of the minor amendments proposed, leaving the Council with a choice between the draft waiver as presented and cno limited to one year. After a short recess, the Associated States withdrew their suggested amendment and after further discussion, the OECD developing countries and Israel agreed not to press it on their own account. The mecting then endorsed the Chairman's view that a consensus cxisted in favour of putting the draft waiver as presented to a vote of the Contracting Parties.
8 According to normal procedures, Contracting Parties have one month to vote, to allow time for postal votes from those countries not represented here. The final result therefore may not be known until 25 Junc. On the evidence of the debate, about 35 countries intend to vote in favour (donors, plus those listed in paragraph 2, perhaps Cuba and Spain). We understand that the figure is at present 28 in favour (including of course the UK) and 2 abstentions. The indications are therefore that the waiver will be granted especially if, as is now expected hore, the Associated States ultimately decide to vote in favour also.
9 In recognition of the significance of the waiver for GATT principles (there had been many references to the "historic" nature of the debate), the Chairman accepted numerous.requests
3 RESTRICTED
/from