TNAG-0341-FCO40-377-Effects-on-Hong-Kong-of-long-term-policy-for-textiles-in-int-1972 — Page 7

RESTRICTED

4.

I suggest that the four options are as follows:-

(i)

She wouldn't!

(ii)

Hong Kong could be represented, as now, within the UK Delegation but the EEC Commission, speaking for the Ten, would normally make any Hong Kong points arising after agreement à dix

concern.

I do not think this would raise any GATT problems in the sense that the Commission's right to speak for Hong Kong would be questioned by third coun- tries. The UK would still be a contracting party and its responsibility for Hong Kong would be unchanged; if we chose to delegate spokesmanship on that subject, as on others, it would be our

It is perhaps possible that, since the UK would not have acceded on behalf of Hong Kong and since Hong Kong will not be an associated overseas territory of the Community, somebody might make debating points, but I think that is all that would happen. However, though it is not for us here to judge this, I doubt if the Community would accept this arrangement and I do not think we or Hong Kong would find it satisfactory. Sir Eugene Melville, in his letter of 9 September 1970 to which you refer, said he "shuddered to think" of the complications this would entail, and we also shudder at the thought of trying to insert Hong Kong points into the Community brief; it is hard enough to insert our own. It is for Hong Kong to say whether she would have any confidence that her views would be much regarded in Brussels, particularly given French attitudes on imports of Hong Kong textiles, but one doubts if she would. Moreover, this would seem to be the surest way of losing Hong Kong's GATT rights vis à vis EEC members, even if they remain separate contracting parties; if one's rights in the GATT cannot be asserted publicly, they become pretty meaningless.

As a variant on this, Hong Kong could be represented, as now, within the UK Delegation and with the UK, not the Commission, speaking on Hong Kong's behalf From the GATT point of view this would be still more unexceptionable than (i) above. It is merely a convention that member states of the Community do not normally speak in GATT meetings. They retain the right to do so and occasionally exercise it. In some Committees, member states always speak for themselves - the Budget Committee, for example.

2 RESTRICTED

/No third