RECEIVED IN REGISTRY No.51
MAY 1971
MICKEY
п
CONFIDENTIAL
Reference...
MTU 15/4
(lew by (o.a) Melabur (43)
NOTE OF CONVERSATION WITH MR ROGERS OF THE US EMBASSY, ON 7 MAY 1971
GENERALISED PREFERENCES
What
य
1. I asked Mr Rogers indirectly about the status of Mr Samuels' statements to Mr Rippon and others during his visit to London at the end of April that the United States were thinking of dropping their insistence that countries wishing to benefit from the American offer should make a declaration of intent to abolish or phase out reverse preferences. Mr Rogers said that Mr Samuels was not outlining an official US position though he was giving something more than a personal view. His intention was to air one of the courses of action which was under discussion in Washington and to elicit reactions which would be helpful in deciding whether the proposition should be taken further. the Americans really wanted from us was a statement that we would, after 'enlargement, work for the removal of reverse preferences from agreements under the revised Yaounde Convention. I said that we could clearly give no such statement, which Mr Rogers seemed to accept. But (emphasising that I was speaking on a personal basis) I suggested to him that it would be worth his while to consider what would be the incentives for those concerned under the various courses of action open to the Americans. If they insisted upon a declaration of intent from prospective beneficiaries then the likely result was that some at least of the Caribbean Commonwealth countries would not accept beneficiary status under the American offer; have no incentive to abolish their reverse preferences.
they would therefore If however the Americans took the position which Mr Samuels had outlined, then the Caribbean states, amongst others, would up till 1975 be able to have the best of both worlds and try out the American GPS scheme. If this proved to be advantageous to them then they would surely have an incentive to act in such a way that they would be able to continue after 1975 to benefit both from the US scheme and from association.
2.
As regards our reactions to what Mr Samuels had said, I told Mr Rogers that as he no doubt knew Mr Rippon had commented favourably on the flexibility which the American change of position would introduce. From this point of view what Mr Samuels said was to be welcomed.
3. On Hong Kong, Mr Rogers said that the Americans would not include the Colony as a beneficiary if the Japanese did not. He did not make it plain whether this was his personal view of the situation or a decision taken in Washington. He then proceeded to probe me about Japanese intentions but naturally I did not tell him of the recent shilly-shallying in the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs. I described the position as it had been until recently and said that the Japanese had told us some time ago that they had firmly decided to include Hong Kong; what was unclear
CONFIDENTIAL
/was