3
the criteria embodied in the MFA had been applied. Furthermore, in taking the
action it did, the developed country concerned had in effect torn up several
bilateral agreements which it had negotiated under the MFA and on which the ink
had hardly dried.
9.
At about the same time as this was happening, the signatories to the FA
were meeting in Geneva to consider the future of the arrangement 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:
not, I understand, because they liked textile restrictions as such, but because
the only alternative to the MFA would have been a far greater evil.
10.
However, despite the desire of the developing countries to extend the MFA,
the meeting 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 secking, although one
thing is crystal clear: that they will be seeking to make the MFA even more restrict-
ive, even more imbalanced than it is to the disadvantage of the developing
countries. This is, to say the least, deplorable
Wa
deplorable not only becausc
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
seck 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