- 5
Preamble and in Article 1. They would therefore require not just minor
would destroy modifications to the MFA but major and basic ones which
what little balance there is in it now.
If the MFA was changed to
And let us not delude ourselves. provide minimum growth rates lower than the present minimum or even "negative" growth rates, such a provision would not be applied only against the substantial suppliers. The pressures being exerted by the developed countries' textiles industries on their governments are very
Even if the new restrictions are great, and will probably increase.
opposed by some developed countries, once a more restrictive MFA has come into existence, their domestic producers are bound to press their governments to apply the more restrictive terms on as many products as possible and against as many suppliers as possible.
So I suggest that all of us "low-cost" suppliers of textile products are really in the same boat and should adopt common objectives. We should resist any proposals to make the MFA more restrictive and should press for a quick decision to extend it without modification not because we like it but because the alternative
would be unthinkable.
The latest news from Brussels indicates that the EEC may after all not seek to re-write the MFA but that they may instead seek
It is also reported that they an "improved interpretation" of the MFA, intend to establish quotas internally for sensitive products and that they will try in bilateral negotiations to hold imports within these quotas.
I don't see how this can be done without either changing the MFA, or "interpreting" it in a way that runs counter to the plain sense of the words. The MFA allows an importing country to demand restraint on imports and to apply import restrictions if the exporting country concerned will not agree, only if the requirements of Article 3 are met. Those requirements are that a situation of market disruption should be shown to exist and Annex A makes it clear to prove market disruption you have to show serious damage, or threat of it, caused by a sharp and substantial increase or imminent increase of imports of particular products from particular sources. No amount of "improved interpretation" will enable an importing country to apply Article 3 to suppliers who are not causing market disruption.
I have put this emphasis on Article 3 because, as I have said,
/this
.....