C.
200 2700206
200x100-7/71-B83972
TELEGRAPHIC ADDRESS:—
"CANDIHONG” HONG KONG
RESTRICTED
COMMERCE & INDUSTRY DEPARTMENT,
FIRE BRIGADE BUILDING,
HONG KONG.
19 尊
IV
5th February
74
OUR REF.:
CR/EIC 230/20/1
LAST
REF.
YOUR REF.:
196) Prev
Dove
Dear Butler,
NEXT
REF.
Thank you for your letter of 21st December about the 1974 Review of the BBC's Coneralised Scheme of Preferences.
2.
Since January is over I assume that IRFP has already spoken to the Commission about getting the Review started. We should be glad to know what the reaction was. In the mean- time we have been doing our homework and should soon be ready to suggest a date for the discussions that we agreed on at the meeting in the D.T.I. on 30th November (Andrew Stuart represent- ed the F.C.0.).
3.
he will send to London as soon as possible the factual material we have been working on and a summary of the ideas that we should like to discuss (the negotiators' list of prior- ities that you mentioned).
4.
We have heard from Brussels that Tran van Thình intends to make a tour of FEC Capitals to discuss the GSP in the first half of February. While we are considering various possible lines it would be helpful, if Tran does visit London, to know what ideas he has.
5.
It may well prove that the solution to our problem will be found in some formulation for dealing with the wider problems raised by the inclusion of textiles in the Community's GSP. Our people in Ceneva for the GATT Textiles Negotiations towards the end of last year heard a few expressions of concern from some Member States' representatives about the cutstanding competitiveness of just a few beneficiaries in the FEC scheme. And we have noticed how often Yugoslavia and Korea seem to hit textile butoirs. Perhaps the answer is to recognise in the GSP context the special nature of the problems of international trade in textiles which are recognised in the new Multilateral Textilos Arrangement as requiring solutions not lending them- selves to application in other fields. That might avoid the odium of seeming to water down the scheme as a whole.
6.
You will no doubt have seen our telegram No. 142 to FCO, which is mostly about the 'PR' aspects of this subject. As we indicated there, there are two distinct benefits we are seeking: one is the removal of a discrimination that is damag- ing our trade: the other is the benefit to our bilateral UK/HK relationship that will flow if people here are convinced that a real effort has been made to remove the discrimination - even if that effort is not wholly successful. At least it will then be someone else's fault.
RESTRICTED
7./