RESTRICTED
What was new in the U.S. offer was its insistence on a common
scheme (again, this is not true because the U.S. have made this
clear all along). Its timing was determined entirely by
internal political reasons and in order to take account of the
position of one group only of the "77" (the Latin Americans).
It was difficult to see how such a late offer could replace
others because it was the best. It was not possible to say it
was more liberal because safeguards could be invoked at any time
and could lead to uncertainty. Further, it was not clear what
was the scope of petroleum products in the exceptions list.
it include plastic articles?
16.
Did
Forthomme then went on to say that the sort of system
proposed by the U.S. created discrimination against the least
developed, not least because it excluded their most important
exports. His further remarks made it clear that, as one of the
original authors of the "Brasseur Plan", he still believed in
its principles.
17. Switzerland (Staehlin) said that they agreed on the
desirability of working on a common basis and in non-discrimination.
He was followed by Goldsmith (U.K.) who repeated the U.K.
position on existing and reverse preferences and also questioned
the scope of the exceptions proposed, the way the safeguard
clause would be invoked and the position on agricultural products.
Hooton (Canada) limited himself to saying that the whole
situation clearly required further discussion.
18. In reply to the various points which had been made on the
U.S. statement Kronk repeated that their proposed exceptions were
"minimal". They would cover all textiles and all shoes (not
just leather). On agriculture the U.S. list would be virtually
identical to the illustrative list tabled in July, but they would
now apply a zero tariff instead of a 50% cut. The escape clause
would be used sparingly. The existing escape clause had not been
used since 1962. Steps were being taken to make it somewhat
RESTRICTED
/more
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.