1
-2-
CONFIDENTIAL
golia
in line 6.
Points for FED and HKD
Para 3: Last sentence. the light of the Anglo-Japanese communiqué after the Aichi talks, to read "Dependent territories, including Hong Kong, will be included, subject to certain restrict
ions of product coverage, in a second stage of Japanese implementation, not later than 1 April 1972." It is not certain that Japan will include all claimants for bene- ficiary status. This should be modified to read "other than those which discriminate against Japan by invoking GATT Article XXXV".
This should now be updated in
Para 6: In Annex A, the UNCTAD membership list, we should also note four non-UNCTAD members, China, Albania N. Vietnam and N. Korea. Should these ever claim develop- ing status, we should presumably reject them on burden- sharing grounds, as excluded from EEC and US Schemes. (the dependent territory list referred to in this para- graph does not appear to be attached. The trade figures of Annex B are available if any Dept should wish to see them).
י
Para 14: 3rd sentence. Re-write "We have persuaded the Japanese to include Hong Kong, though not immediately, and subject to restrictions. We think that they will also accept such of our other dependent territories etc as are sufficiently autonomous in trade and payments, and can comply with Japanese certificate of origin requirements." Para 23: We would endorse the idea of excluding Taiwan unless the USA included Hong Kong on reasonable terms. This means initial exclusion of Taiwan from our offer, as we are unlikely to know by October what the Americans plan to do for Hong Kong (though our assumption is that they will do little or nothing).
Para 24: See note on para 6, above.
Para 25: Exclude "Mongolia" for reasons given in note at bottom of previous page of this minute.
Points for EESD
Para 6: We agree with the DTI line on Romania and Bulgar ia.
We can hardly include them while excluding the four OECD "developing countries".
Paras 17430. By reason of her membership of the UNCTAD Group of 77, Yugoslavia has secured herself beneficiary status in the EEC Scheme, and is likely also to be included by the USA. We have therefore no reason to justify her ex- clusion (ie, this particular "burden" is shared with the other major donors). The paper should however spell out the possible means of limiting Yugoslav exports mentioned in the final sentence.
Points for EID
Apart from any general comments, I would be grateful if EID could mark with a cross those Commonwealth ldc's on the list at Anhex A, which will come up against the US