TNAG-0160-FCO40-196-Exports-of-textiles-to-Norway-1969 — Page 140

2.

with Canada, I went off to Ottawa assuming that no one would raise objection- to our entering into the necessary consultations with the Canadians if, as I felt sure thay would, they wished to extend these restraints for another year, and to include polyester/polynosic shirts. I was therefore very surprised indeed when we received your telegram 513 on the 8th August. I had assumed, in the light of the discussions on 12, 13 and 23 June, that the validity of our telegram 463 had been accepted, i.e. that it was accepted that we should have to concede continued restraint to the Canad- ians.

8.

I have not at any time made any attempt to conceal anything from you (I was accompanied by a High Commission representative in my discussions in Ottawa, and by an Embassy representative in my discussions in Oslo and I thought you knew how far matters had gone (I am referring now to para. 3 of your telegram 513) and had, I thought, no reason to believe that you would have any objections in principle.

9.

I have said all this about the Canadian case because the same considerations were in my mind when I went to Oslo. I went there to sound their intentions for the future and when it became apparent that they would wish to have some arrangement for export restraint for the year beginning 1 October 1969, I accepted that if they asked for consultations we should have to agree to hold them. So I went on to make it clear that we could not agree to the restraints being extended until they had made a case (I indicated that on the information they had given me I could not see that there would be a case for the continuation of all existing restraints) and to urge them to let us have their formal request for consultations with supporting evidence well in advance of the actual discussions.

10.

I cannot emphasise too strongly that in the light of the outcome of the talks in London on 12 and 13 June I had no idea that there was likely to be any objection to our holding consultations with the Norwegians any more than with the Canadians, although of course the case for actual restraint would have to be examined very carefully for each item.

11.

As I mentioned in my telegram, I wrote to Jerving on 21 July and also to Streams in the Embassy on 5 August with a copy of my letter to Jerving. I enclose copies of both these letters. I have had no reply to either of them but the Norwegian Consul General has just been on the tele- phone. He himself has only just returned from leave and apparently there has been a letter from Jerving on the Consulate's files since June, though in the Consul General's absence no one got in touch with us. This letter apparently merely refers to a possible date for consultations. I have therefore told the Consul General about my letter to Jerving and read out to him the most important part of it which is in the penultimate sentence. I also said that I could not agree to a date for consultations until the Hong Kong Government had received a formal request and I could take instruct- ions on it, but had to give some indication of a suitable date, bearing in mind that the whole issue has still to be settled with you. I agreed that the second half of September would be suitable. This is as late as we can go without a hiatus in the trade, but he seemed to think that this might be difficult for them and that they might prefer about the middle of September. He said he will now telegraph to Oslo on these lines.

12./