Apr 28, 1984
INDUSTRIAL COUNTRIES ASSESS GSP POSITIVELY BUT ...
GENEVA, APRIL 26 (IFDA/CHAKRAVARTHI RAGHAVAN) -- Industrial countries have assessed positively the usefulness of the Generalised System of Preferences benefiting the Third World, but while speaking of its evolution and improvements, gave little indication of meeting Third World viewpoints on issues of graduation or reciprocity.-Spokesmen of various Industrial countries were outlining in the Committee on Preferences the working of their respective schemes.- The United States, while outlining some of the new proposals to be incorporated in U.S. GSP schemes, conceded that the "broad discretion" to be vested in the president was liable to "several interpretations" and needed continuing dialogue with beneficiaries.- The new proposals, the U.S. delegate claimed, would liberalise GSP imports and at the same time provide for product-specific and country-specific graduation.- Earlier, the Netherlands, speaking for the OECD group, viewed the GSP as "evolving positively and contributing to increased access in industrial markets for Third World exports".- Japan saw the GSP as "one of the effective vehicles" to promote Third World exports and thus contributing to the economic development of the developing countries.- Hungary, speaking for the Socialist group, underlined that the GSP schemes of the Socialist countries did not exclude any category of goods or place any discrimination or safeguard mechanisms.- The effectiveness of the GSP could not, however, be divorced from the general trade environment whose rules and principles increasingly reflected protectionist and discriminatory elements affecting flows of all trade.- The United States, reviewing the operation of its own schemes, said that its policy of "discretionary graduation" had the built-in safeguard of completely transparent public procedures, and thus safeguarded against discrimination and uncertainty in its operation.- Before sending its proposals to the Congress for renewal of the authority to continue GSP for another ten years, the administration had held formal hearings, and had invited 140 beneficiary countries to participate in them and make their views known.- Over 100 beneficiaries had done so directly, or through their business communities. U.S. importers and producers had also presented their viewpoints.- These had shown that "the GSP was important to the economic interests of the preference-receiving and preference-giving countries".- On this basis the administration had sent proposals to the Congress.- These proposals envisaged changes to foster the economic development of the developing countries and encourage their further integration in the international trading system. It provided for both liberalisation and product-specific graduation.- The president of the U.S. would be able to waive completely product-specific competitive need limits, on specific criteria, including its effects on the U.S. industry and the extent to which the beneficiary was providing "equitable and reasonable access" in its markets for U.S. products.- The "discretionary graduation" would also be applied on specific criteria, including the general level of development of the beneficiary, its competitivity in the product, and the extent to which the beneficiary provided equitable and reasonable access to its markets.- The amendments to these proposals, under the consideration of the Congress, would if enacted "jeopardise the continued eligibility of certain beneficiaries and the GSP eligible products".- The secretariat views of these proposals differed considerably from that of the U.S. government. This was not surprising since the "broad discretion" to be granted to the president was open to several interpretations.- The U.S. recognised in this regard the need for "dialogue" with the preference-receiving countries and had sought a plurilateral discussion during the session with the developing countries.-