G.F. 323
0003230
CONFIDENTIAL
23
In support of this view, I read out an extract from a
letter written by the Counsellor for Hong Kong Affairs
in Geneva (dated 21st March 1972). Both F.C.0. and D.T.I.
officials confirmed that there was substance in these
worries. One F.C.O. official (Burns) commented, however,
that Hong Kong representation in Geneva would still have
a valuable monitoring function in such circumstances,
because the representatives there of the Member States
would have to decide tactics for meetings of the G.A.T.T./
C.T.C., whatever policy line had been laid down for them
in Brussels.
48.
I then went on to suggest that thought must be
given to how, in these circumstances, the Hong Kong viewpoint
could be expressed in G.A.T.T./C.T.C. forums if the E.E.C.
line were to be, in the Hong Kong Government's view,
contrary to Hong Kong's interests.
I recognised that
Hong Kong's viewpoint would be put forward by the U.K. in
Brussels but, if it was not accepted, I considered that,
as a major exporter of manufactures, our viewpoint ought
to be made clear in international forums and that, whatever
the doctrinal difficulties foreseen, some way ought to be
found whereby Hong Kong representatives could be given
enhanced status and greater freedom of action than at present.
I thought this could be done, depending on the juridical
position, either by way of a declaration under
Article XXVI(5)(c), or de facto (c.f. Hong Kong in the
C.T.C. over the past ten years). I fully recognised that
the problems associated with a de facto extension of
Hong Kong's freedom of action must be examined in terms of,
/first,
CONFIDENTIAL
Page 75Page 76