2.
disagreements are of course major ones.
Last December most of the
participating countries were prepared to extend the MFA without modification. The developing countries generally recognised that their dissatisfaction with the MFA came not from the Arrangement itself but from the way it had been applied or rather, they felt, misused by some developed countries. Some of those countries, however, claimed that the MFA had given their industries inadequaté protection and wanted to change
it radically and to their own advantage.
This Seminar will give us the opportunity to discuss these proposed changes in detail. I propose to discuss this afternoon only, two of what seem to us the most objectionable proposals, both of which would involve fundamental changes to the basic principles of the MFA, but before I do so I would like to say two things. One is that I believe that,, for the effective defence of developing country interests in the Textiles Committee, it is most important that we should present a united front of opposition to these proposals. The other thing is that we must be prepared to expose the fallacies of the arguments put forward to justify the changes proposed. It's not just a question of saying we disagree. We must say clearly why we believe these arguments to be unsound.
The first proposal I want to talk about would involve establishing a "global" quota for all "disruptive" or "potentially" disruptive" imports, regardless of whether these imports are actually causing or threatening damage to domestic industry. This strikes at that basic concept of the MFA which says that action may be taken only against imports of particular products from particular sources that are actually causing or threatening disruption. And of course, since the MFA says that disruption can only be caused by "low-cost" imports, such "global" quotas are by definition applicable only against "low- cost" suppliers. Since the textile products exported by developing countries are generally cheaper than those produced in the developed countries, it is manifestly clear that the intention is to apply "global" quotas almost exclusively against developing countries. If this proposal went through, developing countries would soon find "global" quotas being imposed on products that some of them don't even export or produce and by the time they start producing and exporting these products they will find it impossible to expand their exports to, or even enter, those markets already restricted by means of such "global" quotas.
That is to
/say
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.