C. & 1. 200 2700206
200x100-7/71-B83972
CONFIDENTIAL
135
COMMERCE & INDUSTRY DEPARTMENT,
FIRE BRIGADE BUILDING,
HONG KONG.
TELEGRAPHIC ADDRESS:
"CANDIHONG" HONG KONG
23
121
OUR REF.:
YOUR REF.:
CR/EIC 230/20/1.VF-
(123)
Dear Andrew,
No. 51
27 ALG1974
4KK 6/198/1
EEC GSP
20th August
13
me
་
Aps
•
19 74.
Mr Baittumiti
Mr Cloake
with coys]
Rand R of 123 27/8
Thank you for your letter of 26th July.
When:
27/9
I wrote to you on 9th July I was not so much concerned that the memorandum should have been presented by Embassies (which was arguable) but rather that the point about the political dividend in Hong Kong to be obtained by HMG being seen to act on Hong Kong's behalf appeared to have been over- looked.
Action
3
I agree entirely that the joint operation has gone very well; and I hope it has set a good precedent though it is obviously not a thing we can do often. The next subject should, I think, be textiles (under the MTA not the GSP this time).
>
I never of course envisaged the memorandum being presented by UK officials alone. My idea, once it became clear that my original idea of doing it myself was impossible, was Embassy accompanied by H.K. officials. EID insisted on it being the other way round. But I would agree that in the end it probably didn't make much difference.
We shall try to make the most out of the joint operation here. Now that it is almost completed, I am having an information paper prepared for the Trade and Industry Advisory Board. This will, in accordance with our normal practice, be distributed to UMELCO and a number of bodies (e.g. the General Chamber of Commerce) in the trade field.
There are various reasons why we hadn't said any- thing ourselves about the Commission's proposal to include Hong Kong's footwear in the scheme in 1975. Firstly, it was only a proposal and we knew already that some Member States were opposed to it, so it seemed unwise to make anything of it when its chances of acceptance were very uncertain. It was, of course, because we knew that some Member States were opposed to it or doubtful about it that Dodge and Tsao spelt out the case. In the meantime we didn't want to raise false hopes here. And we didn't want people in Europe frightened by precipitate or excessive jubilation in Hong Kong. (The Press might have made quite a meal of it though industry as a whole would not be very excited.) We know that the Hong Kong footwear industry can hardly threaten anyone but lots of people would like to pretend that it could.
One is often/