TNAG-0132-FCO40-168-Tariff-preferences-for-developing-countries-1969 — Page 154

C6/14

CONFIDENTIAL

UNITED KINGDOM DELEGATION

TO THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES.

52 avenue des Arts, Bruxelles, 4.

16 December, 1968.

Al

UNCTAD Preferences

This is by way of being an interim reply to your letters to Freddy Jackson of 2 and 6 December about the Community position on UNCTAD preferences. He were not in fact aware that the Commission had put forward specific proposals on the preferences the Community should table in March and are grateful for your having put us on to the scent. We have not yet got a copy of the proposals but will do our best to get

one.

2;

Meanwhile I had a word with Stakhovitch, subsequent to his return from Geneva, which only served to confirm what I gather to be your impression that he stands very much at the "French" end of the spectrum. Stakhovitch argued strongly in favour of an extensive system of tariff quotas rather than reduced depth in the preferential cuts on sensitive items. He particularly mentioned steel as one of the products where the Community would have the greatest difficulty in offering unlimited access to under-developed countries and argued that on such a product it was better to give tariff free entry for a fixed quantity rather than a small reduction in the tariff without quantitative limits.

HONG

Х

3. On Hong Kong, Stakhovitch remained unhelpful. He said that if Hong Kong were included the Community offer would need to contain a multiplicity of strictly limited tariff quotas on almost all manufact- KONG ured goods. If Hong Kong were excluded there would be hardly any need for quantitative limitations on finished goods but only on soul- manufactures where other under-developed countries had considerable production facilities. He suggested, without any enthusiasm, that perhaps something might be done for Hong Kong by the Community on a few specific items and he confirmed that by this he meant a positive list for Hong Kong. He aimitted that this would be contrary to the agreement to produce exceptions and not positive lists on manu ** factures and semi-manúfactures, and that it would be discriminatory. But he said that he thought that this was the most that could be envisaged.

4. Finally, referring to your agreement to have a further informal discussion with the Commission at the 0.E.C.D. meeting in January,

B Stakhovitch said he was looking forward to this and hoped that we would

be able to be as specific as possible about the content of our list on that occasion. I asked him whather the Commission would be equally free to talk about their list by then to which he replied that,

informally, they would hope to be able to do so.

c.c. J.G. Morris,

Beard of "rade.

G. Whitehead. F.C.0.

P.H.R. Marshall, UKMis Geneva

GOLDSMITH, ESQ.,

BOARD OF TRADE.

(D.H.A.Hannay)

CONFIDENTIAL

F