Nov 9, 1985
OECD COUNTRIES DISINCLINED ON STRONGER RBP CONTROLS.
GENEVA, NOVEMBER 8 (IFDA/CHAKRAVARTHI RAGHAVAN)— Beyond a readiness to continue annual exchange of experiences and information at level of experts on Restrictive Business Practices (RBPs), the industrial countries appear to be disinclined for any stronger measures to control RBPs in international trade.-This indication was given at the UN Conference to review the control of RBPs Thursday by the Australian delegate, Merv Keehn, who was speaking for the OECD group off countries.- Keehn was presenting his group's assessment of the implementation of "the set" (the set of multilaterally agreed equitable principles and rules for the control of RBPs).- He questioned the view of the UNCTAD secretariat and the Group of 77, that there was a rethinking on RBPs in the industrial market economy countries, and a relaxation in application of control laws.- The set, Keehn stressed, did not apply to any restrictions arising out of agreements between governments, and hence did not cover the Voluntary Export Restraint agreements (or VERs), whose proliferation had been cited as an example of expansion of RBP practice in international trade.- The Conference itself was concerned only with the review of the implementation of the set, and of actions of enterprises, and thus protectionist actions like VERs, etc, sanctioned by governments, were outside its scope.- The set itself was voluntary, and proceeded on the realistic assumption of the differences among states on the implementation of their commitments to protect market competition.- Keehn referred to a number of bilateral agreements among the OECD countries, and the annual consultations of the Intergovernmental Group of Experts (IGE), and said such informal cooperation could continue to be extended between industrial and Third World countries.- The members of his group had also provided bilateral technical help and training programmes to third world countries in the control of RBPs, Keehn added, while remaining silent on the question of provision of multilateral technical assistance and training programmes called for in the set.- The IGE should be maintained and utilised to a greater extent, and the exchange of views and experiences on control of RBPs, could best be done at the level of experts, Keehn added in a reference to the G77 view that the monitoring of the implementation of the set, and intergovernmental consultations on control of RBPs, should be done through a special Committee of UNCTAD.- The G77 representative, Mahmoud Assran of Egypt, said the interpretation of the OECD countries that the set was voluntary and optional, and hence a state might choose to apply what it liked out of the set was not acceptable to Group of 77.- The set was not a legally binding instrument, but those states who had accepted it were morally bound to implement its provisions.- As to the OECD group's view that the set had been implemented, Assran pointed to the reports of the IGE (which had evoked the praise of the OECD countries), and underlined that the IGE had deplored the fact that it had not been possible to control or eliminate the RBPs.- While the G77 agreed that the informal exchange of views (began in 1984) at the IGE had been usefully this did not mean that intergovernmental consultations could be done only at the level of the IGE.- Indonesia’s Mrs Saodah Sjahruddin said the RBPs had now become one of the main barriers faced by the third world in international trade transactions.- The set had been inadequately implemented during the last five years, and a more comprehensive application of the set was necessary, and hence the view that making the set a mandatory and legally binding instrument would help.- It was also necessary to ensure collection of information of use of RBPs in all import and export transactions, and publish such information.- Ashok Chawla of India said that during the last five years RBPs had become "an increasingly important component of, international trade policy".- This trend, he said, was the result of "a dichotomy between theory and practice - while the former advocates free market forces in international trade, in actual operation strong protectionist measures are allowed to operate overtly or covertly".- Adequate implementation of the set would have averted this unfortunate trend.- The painfully slow implementation and the "dismal international scenario for the future" underscored the need for a legally binding set, as distinct from a morally binding one, Chawla added. A large proportion of international trade was intra-firm trade, often controlled by the TNCs.- As a result, the competitive milieu, an underlying assumption in international trade, had been transformed, and the incidence of RBPs was on the increase.- There was currently a lack of an organisational set-up that could address the problem of RBPs, and this could best be done through the proposed special Committee, in India's view.- In other remarks, U.S. delegate Craig Conrath again took the floor to insist that there had been no change of policy or attitude under the Reagan Administration towards enforcement of anti-trust laws. But some of the restraints so far imposed on vertical integration had been given up, on a case-by-case examination, when this had shown that such vertical integration helped rather than hindered competition.- As to the Soviet charge that the U.S. was not enforcing control on RBPs in international trade, Conrath argued that no country enforced RBP laws when their sle effect was on foreign markets, and if the U.S. were to do so it would amount to playing the world policeman.-