TNAG-0239-FCO40-275-Entitlement-of-Hong-Kong-to-generalised-tariffs-preferences--1970 — Page 96

CONFIDENTIAL

t

Reference.....

MTU.15/393/1

Mr. Statham (EID)

CC:

Mr. Laird (Hong Kong Department) Mr. Gallagher

2

+

248

Generalised Preferences

Hong Kong

In my minute of 24 September to Mr. Brind I supported (and asked for EID's opinion on) Mr. Jones' suggestion that only Ministerial pressure, preferably. by Mr. Rippon himself, would shift the EEC on the question of their inclusion of Hong Kong as a beneficiary of their offer under the Generalised Preferences Scheme. Subsequently Mr. Brind minuted to you and Sir C. O'Neill on 1 October.

2.

The position has now significantly worsened with the news in UKMis Geneva telegram No. 705 that all the Six (mainly it appears at French instigation) have decided not to do anything for Hong Kong under the GPS. I enclose a copy of a letter and enclosure from Mr. Perceval of this Department who is at present in Geneva (the letter is somewhat personal and should please not be copied outside the FCO) which contains some commentary on the new position.

3. I agree with most of what Mr. Perceval says. Perhaps I could outline my initial views as follows:

is as

(a) The reason given by M. Tran, i.e. the UK's

exclusion of textiles from her offer, Mr. Perceval says, simply an excuse.

(b) The difficulty mentioned in, the second sentence of paragraph 5 of the Geneva telegram makes little or no sense.

(c) Can we place any reliance at all on the indications |

given by M. Tran and Mlle. Guyot that Hong Kong will get a lengthy phasing out period on enlarge- ment or possibly something better? Is it not possible that we are being led up the garden path?

(d) If the Hong Kong Government support Mr. Jones in

his various suggestions (that in paragraph 2 of the Geneva telegram is not the first) that the problem might be met by the EEC doing something less for Hong Kong than complete inclusion, then my feeling (subject to Mr. Laird's views) is that this is a decision for them, though we have to bear in mind possible repercussions on other dependent territories, even though we are not certain that this issue will arise. We do not lightly want to give away our position that all dependent territories should be included by all donors.

CONFIDENTIAL

:

14.