E.R.
Mr Baas led me to believe that Mr Ingersoll was prepared to participate only on the basis that there would be a counter-weight to him from the United
6. Kingdom. The dates proposed for this meeting are June 4
<
Discussions upon this basis and with this programme would, in the American view, not conflict with the United Nations activity and would be unlikely to raise any difficulties with the People's Republic of China. Mr Baas also mentioned that the American Embassy in Vientiane had proposed that considera- tion should be given to more active intervention of the BNDD in Hong Kong. He also told me in passing that the Americans thought very little of Commissioner Rolph's proposals that the United States and the United Kingdom should join in a scheme for pre-emptive buying of opium in Thailand.
I told Mr Baas that I had received an informal letter from Mr Ingersoll that morning which raised the question of the proposed meeting in Hong Kong (I attach a copy of that letter for your information). As you will see from the letter, Mr Ingersoll suggests that I should represent the United Kingdom at such a meeting. I informed Mr Baas that the question of whether this meeting should be held at all or in the form proposed was not one for the Home Office but for your Department, to be weighed upon the issues raised for Hong Kong itself. I said, however, that so far as the United Kingdom itself was concerned (ie without reference to its responsibilities for Hong Kong) we were aware of the seriousness with which the Americans took the possible threat of heroin traffic coming from Hong Kong to the United States now that the Turkish/European source was depleted, and that we ourselves were concerned to prevent heroin from Hong Kong becoming more widely available on the United Kingdom illicit market. I did not commit us in any way on the question of whether we would participate in such a meeting, and accordingly I did not touch upon the issue of who would represent us if we did, other than to say that we had no exact counterpart to Mr Ingersoll. I advised Mr Baas to get in touch with your Department and told him that I would be letting you have a report of my meeting with him.
As regards the American proposal, the issues are, as I said to Mr Baas, essentially for you. From the purely United Kingdom point of view we see an advantage in doing what we can to help in controlling the Hong Kong drug problem because that will reduce the risk of our own addict population being We also consider it desirable increased by illicit heroin from this source.
to be as co-operative as we reasonably can be with the United States as a
I do not need to stress to you that matter of general policy in this field. the American drug problem is a major political issue for them and that if we were unreasonably or unnecessarily awkward they might well bring political
As regards overlap with the pressure to bear upon us at a very high level.
work of the proposed Ad Hoc Committee for the Far East, it seems to me that the type of discussion that the Americans have in mind, which would concentrate on the domestic aspects of the Hong drug problem, would not be likely to conflict with the work of the Ad Hoc Committee. Indeed, in developing the potential of the drug law enforcement agencies in Hong Kong itself, it could contribute to its work. Your UN Department will no doubt have views on this. On the matter of UK representation in general and in particular, if, that is, you are disposed to agreeing to the American proposal, I would offer some preliminary comments. I suspect that the desire of the Americans for the United Kingdom to be represented in these discussions in some way reflects an underlying feeling that the Hong Kong Government has not been altogether forthcoming in co-operating hitherto (the proposal of the United States
They have Embassy in Vientiane is perhaps significant in this respect).
2