н
UM 21/6
14
Reference....
CONFIDENTIAL
منکر داره
croifing
Sue mel
me
域
which
3
Mr Spendlove (South East Asian Department - W 83)
1.
Mr Smallman's letter of 13 December to Mr Moore of SEAD, ODA (copy attached for ease of reference) warns that the question of non-regional membership of ECAFE is likely to be brought up at the 30th Session of ECAFE in Colombo in March/April. It will probably be raised by the Chinese in an attempt to embarrass the Russians, but it will also affect ourselves, France, the Nether- en op lands and the USA. (FRG and Switzerland also have
"consultative status" which could also be affected.) The Dutch are, with the backing of their Foreign Ministry, to take no part in the debate on the decision, and to abide without comment by whatsoever is decided. Mr Small- man favours taking a more robust line. We have always considered ECAFE the most important of the 3 regional economic commissions of whom we have non-regional member- ship, the other two being the Economic Commission for Africa and the Economic Commission for Latin America.
mitü
Chinese тебя
regard assoudre
esson
Save
Та
ovo
cs
membership
of Hong Kong,
ما
어
concelo
The
oper
me m
little othe
Ł Swely
to regione
Bership my
?
I find out Chire
intentions
como hist
end
Try
and
Then
Two halves
So gentle
ħ
Square argument. Pof
them
behind
suves
news
me
2
Any
во
1212
2*
Membership of ECAFE is open to those "States which are, first, within the geographical scope of the Commission which extends from Iran to Western Samoa and includes Australia and New Zealand, and, secondly, are members
of the United Nations or were admitted as members of the Commission under the terms of ECOSOC Resolution 517 (XXVII) of 22 April 1954, together with France, the Netherlands, the USSR, the United Kingdom, and the United States" but there have been rumblings from various countries that ECAFE should be regionalised. The argu- ments in favour of our attempting to retain membership are that it would prejudice the Permanent Members' status, were we to leave without a fuss; that we wish to be represented because of our vast commercial and financial interest in the region; that we have Hong Kong's interests to vote for (although Hong Kong is an Associate Member in its own right the territory would be ill- placed to defend this status without the UK's cover) and that in a regional organisation where China is active and could become dominant it is in our interests to be represented.
3. The arguments in favour of our accepting expulsion or reduced/limited membership are that our economic interests would not be directly affected; that by accepting the Lahore Convention (copy attached) we have in effect accepted a limited standing on many of the topics discussed at ECAFE meetings already; and that Hong Kong, our main direct interest in the area, is already accepted as an Associate Member in any case.
4. The reasons in favour of our withdrawing gracefully are therefore negative ones, and we are inclined to agree with Mr Smallman's recommendation that while it is not worth being ejected kicking and screaming, it would be wrong to allow our membership to be withdrawn by default. We should make a considered case for being allowed to
/ continue
CONFIDENT IAL