HKK 6/8
Reference
GI
Mr R B Crowson
HONG KONG AND THE GATT
We have now received both a letter from
The
Mr Hartridge in Geneva and Lå subsequent telegram. The letter was written immediately after Mr Hartridge and Mr Pearson met Mr Patterson of the GATT Secretariat. Mr Patterson saw no immediate reason why the solution to this problem which we proposed should not be adopted namely that the Hong Kong delegate should sit behind a separate flag. Unfortunately the telegram reports that after Mr Patterson had considered the question with the Secretariat more fully, the latter see "considerable difficulties". The reason is principally one of precedent and the Secretariat say they are worried about the possible reaction of other contracting parties with responsibilities for Colonial Territories. This is a nonsense. United Kingdom is the only country with a large number of Dependent Territories and we have no intention of seeking individual representation for them in the GATT. The other Administering Powers are the United States with the Virgin Islands and Micronesia, which are hardly comparable; France with the Comoro Islands and French Somaliland, which are unimportant trading entities; Spain with Ifni and two city states on the Mediterranean; and Portugal with her territories in Africa - however Portugal maintains that these are part of her Metropolitan Territory and would hardly be likely to seek this privilege for them in the GATT since this would run complete counter to her established policy in the UN. It seems to me, therefore, that the GATT are raising a hare.
2. There appear to be two courses of action now. We could go to the EEC and put the problem to them along the lines of the fallback position agreed at our meeting with Mr Hadden-Cave early in October. I wonder, however, whether it would not be better for us to go back to our Mission in Geneva to suggest that they express our surprise at this reaction from the Secretariat and ask which Administering Powers they have in mind since we cannot see any with Colonial responsibilities at all similar to those facing us over Hong Kong. If our Mission see objections to this, then I see no alternative but to approach the EEC with our second proposal.
3.
Would you like me to discuss this. with Miss Elliott and the other interested Whitehall parties along these lines?
2 November 1972
Hello
M A Goodfellow
Hong Kong & Indian Ocean Department
IM
DD 897152 154596 500M 2/72 GM 3643/2