TNAG-0342-FCO40-378-Effects-on-Hong-Kong-of-long-term-policy-for-textiles-in-int-1972 — Page 103

NOTHING TO BE WRITTEN IN THIS MARGIN

RESTRICTED

4

8 UKMIS Geneva have suggested there are four

possibilities :-

(i) Hong Kong could be represented, as now,

within the United Kingdom delegation but the

EEC Commission, speaking for the Ten, would

normally make any Hong Kong points arising after

agreement à dix. This would probably not raise,

any GATT problems in the sense that the

Commission's right to speak for Hong Kong would

be questioned by third countries. The United

Kingdom would still be a contracting party to

GATT and her responsibility for Hong Kong unchanged.

If we chose to proceed in that way it would be our

concern. However, it seems unlikely that the

Community would accept such an arrangement and

neither we nor Hong Kong would be likely to find

it satisfactory. It would be very difficult to

get Hong Kong points into the Community brief.

Hong Kong might well have little confidence that

the views of the Colony would be much regarded

in Brussels; and if Hong Kong's rights in the

not

GATT could/be asserted publicly, they would become

pretty meaningless.

(ii) As a variant on this, Hong Kong could be

represented as now within the UK Delegation and

with the UK, not the Commission, speaking for

her. From the GATT point of view this would be

even more unexceptionable than (i) above. There

is a convention that member states of the Community

do not normally speak in GATT meetings, but they

retain/....