TNAG-0142-FCO40-178-Long-term-policy-on-International-trade-in-textiles-1969 — Page 120

BOARD OF TRADE

R&R

Commercial Relations and Exports Department,

1 Victoria Street, LONDON S.W.1 Telex: 25955 Answer Back: BOTHQ LONDON

Telegrams: Advantage London S.W.1 Telephone: 01-222 7877, ext.

15

Our reference: Your reference:

Dear Herbert,

Textile Policy.

23rd September, 1969.

We spoke about Hong Kong Telegram 713 of 11th September commenting on the P.C.0. note on textile policy, of which we sent a copy to Hong Kong. We agreed that there seems no reason to answer any of the points made in this telegram except the proposal made in Paragraph 6 for "continuing the convention" whereby the Hong Kong representative is free to speak separately from the U.K. representative.

For the record the actual position can I think be described as follows, In the GATT generally the "Hong Kong representative" should more correctly be described as "the representative of the U.K. on behalf of Hong Kong"; it is in the latter terms that he is invited to speak and recorded in notes of GATT Meetings. Naturally the points made and views expressed by "the U.K. representa- tive on behalf of Hong Kong" may be different from those expressed by the U.K. representative in his own right, but we cannot think of any cases in which these different views could be described as "conflicting".

There is some difference in the Cotton Textiles Committee because Hong Kong is an exporter and the U.K. an importer, and because Hong Kong is a participating country in the Long Term Arrangement in her own right. Again the Hong Kong representative is technically "the representative of the U.K. on behalf of Hong Kong" but in the C.T.C. the Hong Kong spokesman is more obviously speaking quite separately from the U.K., and occasionally he figures by a Freudian slip in records as "the representative of Hong Kong". Naturally, because of the dichotomy between importers and exporters, Hong Kong's views in the C.T.C. are on a funda- mentally different basis from those of the U.K., but again we cannot recall a case of actual conflict at any rate in public!

-

This is just by way of back_round. We suggest that you may like to reply to Hong Kong's telegrams on the lines simply that we have no objection to "the representative of the U.K. on behalf of Hong Kong" (I think it might be as well to describe the Hong Kong representative in these technical terms) speaking on behalf of Hong Kong; but we should naturally want an opportunity to discuss beforehand the line which Hong Kong proposes to take in order to avoid possible embarrassment.

I am copying this letter to Mr. Stewart in I.1 Division and Mr. Toms

in CRE. 24 and & Roderiche Abbott in

H. H. Stewart, Esq.,

Hong Kong Department,

Yours

•

Genera.

Jean Rlliott

Miss J. 3. Elliott)

Foreign and Commonwealth Office, LONDON, S.W.1.

LAST

12

RECEIVED IN REGISTRY No.51

25 SEP 1969

нико

Page 120Page 121

}

Mr. Gallarher

Mr. Williams