031/5
RECEIVED IN REGISTRY
20 JAN 1993
C-
Med Mented . Love laye
(FROM:
Jill Barrett
the
Assistant Legal Adviser
DATE:
DESK OFFICER
18 January 1993
Mrs Leslie
INDEX
PA
REGISTRY
Action Taken
ESED
CC:
Mr Davies, FED
Mr Quayle, ECD (E)
Mr Bunten, HKD
MONTREAL PROTOCOL: TAIWAN
1.
I refer to your minute of 2 December to Mr Aust, which was passed to me on my return from New York.
2.
You asked for views on your suggestion that, in the light of Taiwanese behaviour at the recent Copenhagen meeting and the consequently reduced prospects of achieving agreement among the Parties to the Protocol on its application to Taiwan, we commit ourselves to the line that Article 4 does not apply to Taiwan and therefore CFC trade with Taiwan is not subject to controls.
3. As indicated in my minute to Mr Lodge of 3 April, this would be a legitimate interpretation of Article 4, albeit a rather literal one which does not accord fully with the environmental objectives of the Protocol. Committing ourselves to this interpretation now would of course expose us to the risk of EC Regulation 594/91 being interpreted differently, and of CFC trade with Taiwan consequently being in contravention of EC law. It is therefore essential to ensure that the Commission and EC partners are willing to interpret both the Protocol and the Regulation as permitting uncontrolled trade with Taiwan, before we commit ourselves publicly to such a view.
4. As you say, although the Commission have taken the view that Taiwan should be regarded as a non-Party under the terms of the Regulation, they also indicated a willingness to consider other interpretations. If you decide you wish to take the line summarised in para 3(a) of your minute, I would suggest that we ask UKRep Brussels to revert to the Commission, arguing that (i) the literal interpretation of Article 4 of the Protocol is the correct one; (ii) since the Regulation was intended to give effect to the Protocol it should be interpreted in the same way. (This point can be reinforced by the fact that the discrepancy in the wording of the Protocol and the Regulation does not appear in the French versions);
(iii) the practical consequences of maintaining their interpretation might include an unliftable ban on trade with Taiwan if the Parties to the Protocol are unable to devise a solution. I would of course be pleased to assist with the drafting of a speaking note if required.
5. Para 3(a) of your minute referred only to Hong Kong/Taiwan trade being excluded from the scope of the Protocol, but I assume you are aware that if we take this view it of course follows that all of Taiwan's trade is excluded ie. we cannot interpret the Protocol in one way for Hong Kong and in a
6