subsequent mutual agreement are we not bound to
adhere to the growth rate fixed in the Heads of
Agreement? There were no substantive discussions
about growth, only the untidy sequence of events
described above which allows both parties to
believe that their interpretation is the correct
one.
But the strongest argument in Hong Kong's
favour is a moral one of which Hong Kong them-
selves are unaware. We know, and the Board of
Trade do not contest, that HMG's representative
at the negotiations actually succeeeded in
restraining Hong Kong at a level of exports
which, to use his own later words, "gave away
only 40% of the margins set by the negotiating
It would be arguable whether this was
limits".
in any case a proper approach to trade negotia-
tions with a dependent territory for whose
welfare we have responsibility. But whether
this is so or not, to disagree over 3% growth
rate, when the basic export levels agreed were
so much lower than they might have been, is
clearly wrong.
The Board of Trade go so far as to say that
if Hong Kong continue to maintain that the
"offer" was not accepted at the time it was
made, there would be a strong case for with-
drawing it altogether. This
at
Justifies the
statement that/the worst the entire agreement
could be endangered. Apart from the "take it
or leave it" manner in which (unintentionally,
for sure) the offer was made it must be reported
that Hong Kong formally recorded their disagree-
ment with these proposed growth provisions in the
month following the negotiations.
There was no
disagreement with them for 3 months thereafter.
/In
NOTHING TO BE WRITTEN IN THIS MARGIN
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.