the the t
4. In this context I feel that one of the factors to which we should be giving thought is how we will represent Hong Kong's interests in the GATT if and when we join the EEO. With the development of tho common commercial policy the likely position by then is that the Community view will be represented by one spokesman (probably from the Commission) on all questions arising in the GATT. This is already so on most major issues, as witness the recent Four Power Trade talks in Geneva Even if we were permitted to represent Hong Kong's views separately Speaking from the UK chair (which in theory" we could do unless the Community as such became a contracting perty), there seems little doubt that we would need to clear them first with our EEC partners, who might well object. And I shudder to think of the complications if we were required to have Hong Kong interests represented by the Commission spokesman. Furthermore, I cannot see how a Hong Kong represent- ative could easily be allowed to sit with the UK delegation in the middle of the Common Market bloc when Hong Kong, on present prospects, would not even be an associated overseas territory of the enlarged Community.
5. It was factors such as these which were at the back of my mind when I ventured to point out that, however things have since developed in practice, the drafters of the GATT intended Article XXVI: 5(c) to be applied to dependent territories. I think that what they had in mind was something analogous
to Article 69 of the flavona Charter This permitted dependent territories to be represented by separate delegations at commodity conferences and study groups, where a similar conflict of interest could arise between importing and exporting countries as we sometimes have with Hong Kong, especially in the case of textiles. I might add that in the past, when we had a lot more dependent territorios, we frequently made use of this provision at commodity meetings.
6. Which brings me to the subject of textiles, where the greatest difficulties naturally arise in our relations with Hong Kong in the context of the .GATT. I agree that the statement in telegram no. 451
/from
CONFIDENTIAL
2
!
1