TNAG-0136-FCO40-172-Tariff-preferences-for-developing-countries-1970 — Page 88

CONFIDENTIAL

2

United States submission threw then into some confusion in the

Ad Hoc Group but they stuck to their tariff quota idea in the Trade Committee and got away with, for the monent, relatively

light examination.

Commonality of Schones

4.

In discussion, the Americans argued strongly that there had to be a common preferences scheme, as in element 5 (through- out the discussion they insisted on talking of "elements" and not "conditions" in their new submission,, though conditions some are) of their submission. If not, it would be difficult to ensure equivolence of effort amongst the major donor countries and gain sufficient political support from doubtful legislators. A common scheme with duty-free entry and no import quota calings would also ensure that point 6 in their submission need not apply and that there would be no discrimination as amongst different 1.d.c.s i.e. the Latin Americans would cease to be the poor

neighbours among 1.d.c.s. The E.E. C. dissented, arguing that the UNCTAD New Delhi Resolution 21 (II) covered a common

commitment to introduce generalized preferences rather than a single uniform scheme and that since circumstances differed between donor countrics it was unreasonable to ignore this in their preference granting role. Goldsmith and others pointed out that without a clearer idea of the escape clause under the American scheme - given that the Americans said the existing escape clause law needed to be changed it was difficult to compare its real impact with that of prospective schemes like those of the E.E.C. and Japan where there were ceiling amounts for duty-free entry but no other explicit "safeguard mechanism".

Beneficiary Territories

5.

This caused a great deal of difficult discussion. Goldsmith continued to press strongly our line that the only reasonable formula was that of "self-election" by the contenders to beneficiary status, a formula which has been widely accepted in the past and not replaced by anything better. We had also put in a paper to the Ad Hoc Group formally claiming beneficiary status for our dependent territories (including Hong Kong) and other territories for whose external relations we are responsiblc.

CONFIDENTIAL ›

/The