IR KEMIS (CRE 1)
11.
1
2
relation
The Trade Committee at last discussed beneficiaries in a rather desultory way in Main Committee of which I now record the substance and also some of the discussion at the private lunch at which some of the old attitudes wore once more revealed.
First of all it was agreed that we should now instruct our delegations in Geneva to concert together and with the Secretariat about the drafting of a global waiver. The Canadians still seemed to have sono doubts about whether such a waivor could be satisfactori drafte Tut they agreed to give it a try. No other country opposed a global waiver in principle though the Japanese appeared to be arguing that the thing should not be "too legalistic" though I really could not understand what they were getting at.
The Turks, Creeks and Ertuguese, of course, made the reservation that their support for such a waiver would depend upon which countries were to be beneficiaries under the various schemes.
Invited in the Main Committee to speak on beneficiaries the United States said that they had "no trouble" with any of the Group of 77, that they had no intention of offering preferences to Eastern Europe at the outset (apart from Yugoslavia) and that in principlo thay had no difficulty in defining the four OECD members as developing countries- though, of course, the reverse preference condition would apply to them. Mr Cronk went on to recall that the UNCTAD Report said that "the attainment of this objective, in relation to the question of reverse proferences,
V111
敬
require further consultations between the parties äircetly concorned
The Secretary-General of UNCTAD will assist in thene consultations with the agreement of the governmento concorned". (Page 8 of TD/B/329). Presumably Ar Cronk hopes to get the Secretory General to call upon the EEC, United Kingdom, Canada oto to give up their reverse preferences like gentlemen without reducing any of the benefits they givo in return. If this is Mr Cronk's notion it is somewhat naive and quite irrelevant/to the OECD countries.
મ
4. The EEC said they had no a priori exclusions but the Ancrican
stipulations would lead to difficulties on grounds of burdon sharing. The consultations refered to at UNCTAD must take place between the countries imposing the conditions and the applicants for preferences. The base gave us the old story that the principle of self election should have moant a common list and that if there were to be very different systems in operation the New Dehli Resolution would be "remisencause". The Japanese said that they would soon have to submit their scheme to parliament with the proposed list of beneficiarios. They had been working on various systems but these were now being re-considered. They were glad that certain Afridan countries had dinénvoked CATT Article XXX in order to qualify for proferences in Japan. Others were likely to do so. The net rosult was likely to be thatthe number of beneficiaries under the Japanese Scheme would be increased. We said that we had always been prepared
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.