TNAG-1491-FCO40-2049-Future-of-Hong-Kong-General-Agreement-on-Tariffs-and-Trade-(-1986 — Page 79

CONFIDENTIAL

United Kingdom Mission

37-39 rue de Vermont 1211 Geneva 20

Telex 22956

Telegrams Prodrome Geneva

Telephone 34 38 00 33 23 85

Your reference

59

M Hill Esq

Hong Kong Department

FCO

нии осон

Quot

RECEIVED IN REGISTRY

19 FEB 1986

Our reference

Dear

You

INDEX

if

PA

REGISTRY

Action Taken

GATT: HONG KONG

Date

10 February 1986

hus

This has gene

to Hir.

Ureful badged into L VZG !!!

W.1412

1. Our researches into the questions raised in paragraphs 7(a) and (b) of Hong Kong telegram No 2880 (1985) as referred to in Hong Kong telegram No 2 have taken longer than we thought, largely because we have been awaiting responses from the GATT Legal Department and the Swiss authorities. I am afraid that our researches with the Swiss are still not complete. We will write separately when the results are to hand.

Here, however, are the fruits of our GATT research.

Article XXXV

2.

Hong Kong telegram No 2880, point (A), relates to current policy and practice of major contracting parties with regard to the use of Article XXXV of the GATT. We enclose the GATT Legal Adviser's list of Article XXXV invocations currently in force. The effect of invoking Article XXXV is tantamount to breaking off GATT relations. No GATT rights are recognised by the invoking country against its selected target and no compensation is deemed due for any trade action which, in normal GATT terminology, would be in breach of an obligation (e.g. MFN

The current invocations are, with two exceptions, based on political rather than commercial considerations. brief the explanations are: India against South Africa because of apartheid; Ghana and Nigeria because of Portuguese activities in Africa and Portugal retaliating against both; Czechoslovakia and Romania against Korea because of the political differences between North and South; Egypt against Rhodesia and South Africa for obvious reasons; the US against Hungary and Romania is in line with US policy towards State Trading countries.

•

In

The two exceptions are those of Cuba against the Dominican Republic, FRG, Italy and Uruguay and Cyprus and Haiti against

3.

Japan.

CONFIDENTIAL