TNAG-1492-FCO40-2050-Future-of-Hong-Kong-General-Agreement-on-Tariffs-and-Trade-(-1986 — Page 10

RESTRICTED

United Kingdom Mission

37-39 rue de Vermont 1211 Geneva 20

Telex 22956

Telegrams Prodrome Geneva

Telephone 34 38 00 33 23 85

M D C Johnson Esq

ΙΤΡΙ

Department of Traderand Industry

1 Victoria Street HKK 12211

London SW1

RECEIVED N EGISTRY

INDE

16 MAY 1986

RY

aken

3В 1675

Your reference

Our reference

Лукок

Cra

Date

2 May 1986

(329)

ра

CATT.

GATT: RENEWAL OF DIRECTOR-GENERAL'S CONTRACT"

1. Please refer to Tony Dell's letter of 17 April. Ambassador Chiba (Japan), Contracting Parties (CPs) Chairman, convened a meeting this morning, which I attended, at which he explained the current state of play. 70 of the 90 CPs had not replied to his enquiry, thus tacitly accepting his proposal. A further 10 CPs had replied positively. Five more had sent disparate replies, asking for more time, etc. There had been five negative responses (Tony Dell's letter refers). Accordingly, although Chiba had hoped to conclude the matter at the April Council, this had not been possible. He was consulting all CPs in roughly five representative groups. The current consultation was the last. There would be an informal meeting of CPs in the GATT on 12 May to establish a consensus. This should enable Dunkel's contract to be formally renewed at a special meeting of the GATT Council on 15 May. (We have, incidentally, checked with the GATT Secretariat that there will be no question of the Hong Kong issue being raised prematurely on this occasion, and indeed, Cartland may well stay away in order to avoid provoking a possible challenge.)

2. Chiba said that, as a result of his consultations to date, he concluded that there was a general readiness to confirm Mr Dunkel's appointment, but for three years only, and a feeling among some CPs that the procedures for choosing and confirming the Director-General should be clarified. He could see some merit in this himself.

3.

All those present (Nicaragua, Israel, Ireland, Ghana, Yugoslavia, Kuwait, Denmark and UK) confirmed their ability to accept Ambassador Chiba's original proposal; and Nicaragua suggested that there should be no question of changing the DG in the middle of the new round.

4.

None of the LDCs present showed any interest in having a debate on procedures. I commented that the existing pragmatic arrangements had worked well for 40 years. I wondered whether it was desirable to try to lay down rules and bureaucratise the system. What mattered was that the DG should be the right man for the job. A process of informal consultation seemed most likely to identify persons of the right calibre. Israel and Denmark endorsed my remarks.

RESTRICTED

/5.