PAGE TWO
3. I SAID THAT I WAS SURE THAT IT WAS THE CLEAR
UNDERSTANDING OF EVERYBODY ON THE BRITISH SIDE THAT HE
WOULD INFORM US OF THE JAPANESE PROPOSALS WHENEVER THEY WERE RECEIVED, PARTICULARLY SINCE, AS HE KNEW, WE WERE
THEORETICALLY ABLE TO GET THEM FROM THE JAPANESE UNDER
THE BERNE UNION. I SAID THAT I THOUGHT THIS WAS OWED TO US
IN THE SPIRIT OF THE FRANK EXCHANGES IN LONDON AND WAS ALSO
NECESSARY IF THERE WAS ANY QUESTION OF OUR HAVING ASKED TO
IMPROVE OUR PROPOSALS TO MATCH THE JAPANESE. CONSIDERATION OF IMPROVEMENTS WAS BOUND TO TAKE TIME, PARTICULAPLY AT THIS
TIME OF YEAR.
4. HE REFUTED THIS INTERPRETATION OF THE LONDON DISCUSSIONS AND CLAIMED THAT HIS OWN DETAILED RECORD OF THE DISCUSSIONS WOULD SHOW THAT HE HAD MADE NO UNDERTAKING TO REVEAL COMPETITIVE PROPOSALS BEFORE THE NEGOTIATING STAGE. IF AS A RESULT OF THE JAPANESE PROPOSAL WE HAD BEEN PUSHED QUOTE BELOW THE RED LINE UNQUOTE THEN HE MIGHT HAVE FELT IT RIGHT TO GIVE US A CHANCE TO GET BACK INTO THE SHORT LIST. BUT THE BRITISH GROUP IS FIRMLY IN THE SHORT LIST OF THE CONSTRUCTION CONSORTIUM AND THERE WAS NOTHING THEREFORE THAT THEY COULD OR NEED DO UNTIL
THE NEGOTIATING STARTS.
/5.