-
3
I the criteria embodied in the USA had been applied. Furthermore, in taking the
in it did, the developed country concerned had in effect torn up several
greements which it had negotiated under the FA and on which the ink
rely dried.
At about the same time as this was happening, the signatories to the MFA
were meeting in Geneva to consider the future of the arrangment after its expiry at
the end of 1977. The great majority of the developing countries and territories
present at that meeting were prepared to see the MFA extended without modification:
t, I understand, because they liked textile restrictions as such, but because
The only alternative to the MFA would have been a far greater evil.
However, despite the desire of the developing countries to extend the MFA,
...moeting came to no conclusion because some developed.countries gave notice that
they would like to see the MFA modified. As of now, nearly five months later, we
still do not know exactly what modifications they will be seeking, although there
are already suggestions that the MFA should be made even more restrictive, even
more imbalanced than it is to the disadvantage of the developing countries. This
is, to say the least, worrying, worrying not only because it is a retrograde step
towards protectionism, but also because the continued uncertainty about the future
of the MFA is already beginning to create problems for the textile trade.
11.
So, although this is not the forum in which the future of the MFA will be
decided, I would nevertheless like to urge those developed countries wishing to
sccx modifications to the MFA to re-consider their positions. Let us all work
towards an early decision on the future of the MFA, a decision which is consistent
with the basic objectives of the Arrangement which are (1 quote) "to achieve the
expansion of trade, the reduction of barriers to such trade and the progressive liberalisation of world trade in textile products".
/12. Turning