May 1, 1984
U.S. KEEN TO EXTEND ITS GSP FOR ANOTHER TEN YEARS.
GENEVA, APRIL 27 (IFDA/CHAKRAVARTHI RAGHAVAN). The U.S. administration was keen to extend its scheme of Generalised System of Preferences favouring the Third World, for another ten years, and the proposed changes in the law were aimed at securing congressional approval. This view was reported to have been given Thursday by Thomas St. Maxens, of the office of the U.S. Trade Representative in Washington, at a meeting of the U.S. delegation with developing country beneficiaries of the U.S. schemes. The plurilateral meeting of the U.S. delegation with Third World countries was held, as customary, during the current meeting of the of the special committee on preferences of the UN Conference on Trade and Development. At the Committee, Thursday, the U.S. delegate had said that the very wide public hearings and consultations, conducted by the administration prior to the development of its proposals for extension of the legislative mandate for renewal of the GSP for another ten years, has shown that "the GSP is important to the economic interests of the preference-receiving and preference giving countries". The authority of the U.S. president to extend GSP benefits, and the schemes under it, are due to expire on January 3, 1985. According to participants at the plurilateral meeting, the U.S. delegate mainly explained, as he had done in the special Committee itself, the various changes proposed to Congress by the administration, for a renewed mandate over the GSP. The U.S. delegate was reported to have underlined the fact of 1984 being an election year in the U.S.A. The administration was keen to renew the GSP for another ten years, and the changes proposed were essentially aimed at securing congressional assent to it. He is also reported, to have explained that the proposals for "discretionary graduation" and the "reciprocity" in terms of access for U.S. products in the markets of the beneficiary countries, were not really new. These concepts were already being practised by executive decisions. The wide public inquiry proceedings in the U.S., before taking such decisions, had in fact ensured greatest possible "transparency" and assured "security", he was reported to have added. Only six or seven countries had been "graduated" on the basis of products specific competitiveness of their imports in the U.S. market. A number of amendments to the law had been proposed in Congress to the administration’s proposals, and if enacted, they would jeopardise the GSP schemes. But the administration was hoping that these amendments would not be incorporated. It was in this context that the U.S. delegate would appear to have referred to the "election year" politics in his country. On the issue of "reciprocity" and the criteria to be applied to judge "equitable access" to U.S. products in beneficiary markets, the administration had not developed any criteria, and would do so only after the enactment of the congressional authorisation. The judgement whether or not a country was providing access would have to be decided on a case-by-case basis. At the special Committee, the U.S. delegate had acknowledged that the "graduation" and "reciprocity" principles would vest "broad discretion" in the administration, capable of several interpretations, but had underlined the administration's desire for "dialogue" with beneficiaries in this regard. Some of the Third World participants were reported to have pointed out, in this connection, at the plurilateral meeting, that any restrictions they had on imports were essentially related to their balance of payments problems.