وو
9
supplying countries have the guarantee of certain minimum base levels and of growth and flexibility provisions, and the dubious comfort of knowing that importing countries are allowed to take action only against those suppliers who are causing market disruption and that innocent parties will not be caught in the net of a global restraint.
22.
The developed countries were unwilling to invoke Article XIX of the GATT because its non-discriminatory application would result in imports from other developed countries being caught by the global' quota, and they would then have to face the risk of retaliation or
To avoid this, demands for compensation by these developed countries. in the late 1950's they invented the term "market disruption", which is by definition a situation which can only be caused by low-cost countries all of whom, with the exception of Japan, are developing countries union lacked political and economic power to withstand the pressure exerted by the developed countries for a special arrangement which deprived them of their GATT rights. Thus the Cotton Textiles Arrangement came into being in 1961 and although originally intended to be of a short duration it was extended to the end of 1973 when it was replaced by the FA, with an extension in coverage to include man-made fibre and wool products.
23.
The present UK proposal, if adopted, means that the developing
Having accepted countries will be getting the worst of both worlds. the principle of the selective application of safeguard measures in textiles in return for the guarantee that only those countries causing disruption will be singled out while others will be left free, they are now being asked to accept a further derogation of their rights represented by the suggestion that such safeguard measures should now be applied to them in a group regardless of which of them are causing the disruption. It is inconceivable that they will find such a suggestion acceptable.
24.
·Situations of the type described by Mr. Meacher should be dealt with under GATT Article XIX. But, without directly ruling out Article XIX action similar to the Canadian action, Mr. Meacher has implied that the is unlikely to contemplate such action, by stating that there are significant differences between the Canadian situation and the UK one and pointing out that under Article XIX
the Canadians face the risk of retaliation or demands for compensation.