TNAG-0240-FCO40-276-Entitlement-of-Hong-Kong-to-generalised-tariffs-preferences--1970 — Page 83

CONFIDENTIAL

4. He pointed out, however, that all this was qualified by the problem of reverse preferences which was still not settled. He felt that early contacts between the U.S. and the other developed and developing countries concerned with reverse preferences should be held at an early date, perhaps with the assistance of the UNCTAD Secretary-General.

5. Di Martino (EEC) said that the Community had still not taken a final position. They would not, however, exclude anyone on general principles, such as reverse preferences or Article XXXV of the GATT. The various conditions raised by other countries (reverse preferences, MFN treatment, Article XXXV of the GATT etc.,) could involve the exclusion of anything up to 35 developing countries from one or more schemes. This could create a severe problem of burden sharing and he hoped that a solution could be found on these questions.

6.

Switzerland (Languetin) said that they could, in general, agree to self-election. If adopted by everyone this would lead to a common list which would be the easiest way of settling burden sharing. On the other hand, if some countries were excluded, then the effects on burden sharing would need to be considered. The need for as much uniformity as possible was not just for economic reasons but in order to help bring about some sort of uniform treatment in international trade. He felt that the OECD developing countries should participate in the system on this basis. Austria also supported self-election and pointed out the burden sharing problems involved if everyone did not follow this.

7. Japan (Miyazaki) said that his delegation had supported the formula of self-election "in general". They hoped that the question of beneficiaries would be settled at an early date because of the need to submit their Bill to their legislature. They could possibly introduce a device to enable the adminis- tration to introduce the list of beneficiaries at a later date but a final position would need to be taken at the latest by the early Spring. They were now revising their consideration of beneficiaries and were hoping to be able to increase the list. 8. The Nordic countries (Rydfors) were also aware of the urgency of the matter, especially as it would be necessary to put forward a list of beneficiaries to their parliaments.

How- ever, they felt that they could not take up a final position until the attitudes of the major countries were known. Rydfors pointed out that the Nordic countries had the highest per capita import of textiles from developing countries and that, in view of their relatively generous scheme involving zero duties and no quotas, burden sharing could be an important factor.

-2-

CONFIDENTIAL