CO129-622-1 War damage compensation- U.S.S.R. claims 25-5-1948 - 22-1-1949 — Page 14

15

1.

2.

I agree generally with the action proposed.

But I do not think we should even comment on the vexed question of the argument between

the Russians and the British War Risk Insurance Office this is no business of ours at all as far as I can see.

3. I think, to avoid confusion, we ought to deal at rather more length with the claim in respect of the third vessel - the "Sergei Laso".

4. I think we ought to ask the Foreign Office for a copy of the instructions they will be sending to the Moscow Embassy, for our own information and so that we can send a copy to Hong Kong (e. f. 11 on the 1947 file).

5. And, finally, I think we must give Hong Kong rather more' interim information than merely to announce the receipt of the cheque. We should express our doubts about the validity of the legal basis they have put forward for justifying the sale of the vessels by them without Soviet agreement and we should also say that we agree that Soviet agreement to the sale should be sought and that in fact it is being sought.

6. I have put in amended Drafts A and B which cover these points. I pass through Sir Sidney Abrahams in view of the legal point. Sir Sidney saw (13) before issue.

Vimeen

10.11.48.

Mr. Radst

17. Rae F.O. We aft for

18 Haigh M.OT.

M Bryant

ene

stamp. Y

The cheque

for $25415

15:

H.K. Goot: Funds.

endorse t

Crown Agents!

is

9

15. 11.48

attached above,

ţ be

agguime

necessary

credited to

will

you and pass &

BR

16/11