40
of that Government and Burmese leaders cannot be expected to con- done Thai support for U Nu.
According to several authorities it is in the interest of Thailand to maintain a buffer zone between China and its northern territory. The dissident Burmese groups who are fighting the Communists in eastern Burma fill this role very well. The dissidents need arms and ammu- nition, however, and most of these arms are purchased with money earned from the opium trade.
As a result many U.S. officials were of the opinion that Thai support for U Nu has somewhat diminished the effectiveness of the overall effort to stop trafficking in opiates in northern Thailand.
The United States has been encouraging the Government of Thai- land to develop better relations with Burma but without success.
CORRUPTION IN THAILAND
According to United States and Thai officials there are indications that middle level police, customs officials and Border Patrol police are involved in illegal narcotics transactions. U.S. narcotics authorities indicated, however, that in spite of widespread rumors of high level complicity in the narcotics trade, no evidence exists to substantiate those rumors.
There is a considerable difference between rumor and hard evidence upon which criminal prosecution, or other action, can be initiated, and there is no concrete evidence upon which the Thai Government could take action. According to U.S. officials, the Thais have expressed a willingness to prosecute when there are sufficient grounds.
On October 11, 1972, the Deputy Commander of the Crime Sup- pression Division of the National Police, Col. Pramuan Vanigblandu was relieved because of involvement in illegal narcotics dealings.
Prior to that, on Sept. 30, 1971, General Prasert, Director General of the National Police was retired ostensibly due to his age. According to U.S. officials, Prasert was involved in many corrupt practices but not narcotics.
In a followup interview in Washington a reliable U.S. official told the Survey Team that Prasert had been involved in narcotics and that this was the reason for his retirement.
Other U.S. officials contend that this is not so and that there is still no evidence to implicate Prasert in narcotics. These same officials, however, surmising that Prasert was possibly protecting Pramuan. speculate that Thai authorities knew about Pramuan's involvement but "could not touch him" as long as Prasert remained Director General of the police.
This raises several questions: Were U.S. authorities in Thailand aware of Pramuan's involvement? Was Prasert protecting Pramuan and was this information available to U.S. officials? If the answer to these questions is affirmative, why did U.S. officials in Thailand tell the Survey Team that there was no evidence of high level involvement in narcotics among officials of the Thai Government?
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.