29.
The proposals raise two further
important questions: first, whether imports from small suppliers andhew comers are disruptive by definiti on (which is the only construction which can be placed on the Community's proposals) and secondly whether the BEC genuinely wishes to see new comers and small suppliers obtain a share of the import market.
30.
I do not propose to detail arguments- on the first question: it is well known that Hong Kong does not accept that imports are by definiti on disruptive, whether the imports be massive or miniscule.
31.
The second question calls for some comments however. If small suppliers and new comers cannot obtain a share of the EEC market because of their inability to meet the trade requirements of the market, EEC importers will naturally tum to other efficient sources of supply, that is, to the developed countries (which will not be subjeot to restriction), since other efficient developing supply sources have had their trade opportunities reduced. A possible effect of the EEC proposals therefore 18 that trade will be taken arbitrarily from the developing countries in order that the " developed may benefit:
32.
We find it objectionable that this element of your proposals should even have been considered as an acceptable starting point for negotiations. It is clear that it is not our cooperation to solve EEC difficulties that is being Bought, but a sacrifice on our part is being demanded and I ask the interpreters to translate the word "demanded" in the sense of "ordered" not in the French sense of "requested"
a sacrifice incorder to solve other suppliers difficulties, difficulties caused by the EFC not by the other suppliers themselves. All this soome to us to be in direct conflict with all the pronouncements
/which