Reference...........
than in any other way. It is not certain that
it can.
4.
Our position is less clear, para. 8 of Mr. Dunnett's draft seems more openended; this may simply mean our thinking is more flexible, but does it reflect uncertainty as to our policy? Hong Kong might be prepared to accept action on the lines of para. 8(1), if they were forced to compromise because the Japanese position was lost.
They would, however, argue that unlike the Canadian and Swedish cases, as para. 12 of the draft says, the Americans have no case, and they are not therefore able to go beyond Art. XXII consultations. In effect these took place in October 1969 and there is no reason to believe that the talk with Trezise will produce fresh evidence. How then can "progress" be made if, among other things, we wish to avoid the impression of being as categorical with the Americans as the Japanese are prepared to be?
5.
As para. 9 and 10 of the draft say, any solution for the Americans will represent some- thing of an event which cannot be shrugged off. For this reason do we not in the first place have to be more decisive about the forum? The Japanese propose an ad hoc committee, (para. 10). They do not elaborate, it could be argued that a meeting might be convened in the framework of the C.T.C., even though this may seem to make concessions in the m.m.f. sector which no one wishes to make. The argument in favour of this is, however, that restraints negotiated bilaterally with Canada, Norway and Sweden suggest at least that the pattern of the L.T.A. is likely to be more relevant than anything else to finding a solution, and a systematised approach is better than arbitrary action by major importers, or than the multiplication of ad hoc agreements. Furthermore the interested parties would be represented and have a right to attend any discussion.
یا
to the adoption of
Is this approach likely to lead/views con-
trary to our view of the future of the textile
CONNIIWMHT AT
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.