TNAG-2752-FCO40-3967-Organisation-for-Economic-Co-operation-and-Development-(OECD-1994 — Page 19

191293A1:021/

Ms J Wright ITP/2c DTI

19 December 1993

Dear Jan,

нке

In Whitney Occ IN Berrrow-Sand FED=

to be aware.

En Ruff

Sochl

j

fa OELD.

दर

HUTS 091/2

нив

UOJAL 1994

United Kingdom Delegation to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development

19 rue de Franqueville

75116 Paris

Telephone: 45 24 98 28

Facsimile: 45 24 98 37

OECD/CIME

1.

15/16 DECEMBER: CHINA

My Note of 5 December and letter to you of 10 December plus Jean Currie's (ES/2) reply to me of 14 December (not to all) all refer.

2. I spoke as agreed on the possibility of linking the proposed CIME and Trade Committee work programmes on China (set out respectively in papers DAFFE/IME (93)32 and TD/TC/WP(93)71). It was clear that no-one else in the room was aware of the latter. I stressed that linking the work might nevertheless still involve two separate papers at the end of the day and certainly did not necessitate a joint committee process; rather it was a matter of economies of scale and avoiding unnecessary duplication on areas where there was an inevitable overlap of interest. Of others who spoke all supported the CIME proposal and no-one spoke against linkage; all wanted to avoid unnecessary duplication. Ley (DAFFE) agreed that they would look into the modalities but (sensibly) refused to commit himself to joint work.

3. The only delegation to raise problems on the proposed study was the US (Dunscomb). They had no objection to it going ahead but it must not involve any contact between members of the Secretariat and Chinese Government officials. Nor should it draw on OECD's existing resources but must be paid for by voluntary funding; the US was hoping to make a small contribution.

Comment

4.

How the US expects to do a study of this sort, even where the frontline work will be done by consultants, without any contact between Secretariat and officials is not clear; nor does such a line sit easily with their APEC stance. But then they may not have thought it through. We should, however, support them on the principle of this not becoming an OECD/China Dialogue.

5.

Nor am I convinced of the consistency of the US position on finance inasmuch as they have supported in Council the FF1.2m allocated to DSG Taniguchi's interlinkages work which will look at China, India and Indonesia in particular. If the CIME project can be financed by. voluntary contributions alone so much the better. But it would be a shame if it had to be put on a backburner for want of cash if there were Taniguchi money available.

/6.