possibilities:
CONFIDENTIAL
(i)
that the UK should urge the EEC to exclude textiles and shoes entirely from their offer; (ii) that the exclusion of Hong Kong's close
competitors (South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore) should be urged;
(iii) that at worst, Hong Kong should be excluded item
by item on the basis of performance, and that subject to this, there should be regular reviews to assess possible damage and consider remedies.
Hong Kong strongly favoured course (1) above.
3.
Mr. Lan made it clear that the UK which had not adopted the ERC type of offer was in a weak position to influence the EEC in this matter, and that in any case, we wished the community to maintain even their limited offer on textiles which were of benefit to other Commonwealth countries. On (ii), the Governor stated that inclusion of her main rivals by the EEC on textiles and footwear would be discrimination against Hong Kong. This was not denied in the course of general discussion, which established nevertheless that,
(a)
(b)
(c)
there was little evidence, despite Dr. Dahrendorf's comments in Hong Kong, that the EEC were considering the exclusion of South Korea and Taiwan;
UK pressure on the ELC for such a step would prove embarrassing in UNCTAD even though the two countries under reference did not command widespread political support: their lic status
had never been called in question.
Mr. Hannay pointed out the tactical dis- advantage in complicating the EEC's study of Hong Kong with their separate exercise on beneficiaries in general. Spreading
alarm about these countries would cause yet
-2-
CONFIDENTIAL
Page 15Page 16
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.