dti
the department for Enterprise
I should add that neither the European Community and nor, as far as I am aware, any other major GATT Contracting Party is in the same position as the USA of having a formal "sub-MFN" status.
Conclusion
10 The granting of MFN status to GATT members is normally a key GATT right. The US administration has compelling domestic reasons (a legal requirement) for not granting China full MFN status, and has taken the same action on previous occasions, in similar circumstances.
11 China has two options for formally resuming GATT membership, either reaccession or a de facto accession (which might have a more acceptable name). A fuller examination of the implications of the former option make this course less attractive to China than is apparently being claimed at present. However either way the chances of the Chinese continuing to be subject to an annual review of their MFN status by the Americans looks quite strong.
12 But this is probably not relevant to the immediate problem of an anticipated tougher US
tougher US Congressional stance towards granting China MFN status, as it seems highly unlikely that China will have resumed its GATT membership by summer 1993, when the next "Jackson-Vanik" review is due.
Yours sincerely иг
ROBIN IMPEY
International Trade Policy Division
CC
Mr Johnson ITP
Mr Fletcher ITP
Mr Crowhurst ITP
Mr Murray OT2/2
Mr Smith ECD (E) FCO
Mr Morris FED FCO
Mr Madelin UKREP Brussels
Mr Hayes UKMIS Geneva Ms Life Washington Peking
Hong Kong
Recycled Paper
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.