TNAG-0504-FCO40-569-Review-of-narcotics-problem-in-Hong-Kong-1974 — Page 39

DDA/64 3/69/23

(54) in SCR 4/1316/73

NG Rolph Esq

Commissioner for Narcotics

Colonial Secretariat

Hong Kong

SECRET

Drugs Branch Home Office Romney House Marsham Street

London SW1

21 March 1974

16

Dear Norman

Thank you for your letter of 15 March with which you sent me a draft note of what we provisionally agreed with Jack Cusak in Geneva about the future of the Anglo/US/Hong ing exercise.

I am returning the spare copy which you sent me with some suggested amendments and additions, upon which I have the following comments:-

(i) I think that we should avoid giving the impression in any way either that there is in any sense a formal agreement between the three Governments or that this is a permanent arrangement. what we are proposing might be established is an ad hoc machinery to consider the immediate situation of heavy trafficking into Hong Kong and of sporadic and illdefined trafficking out of Hong Kong to the United Kingdom and the USA. We need clear guidelines for our discussions to avoid misunderstandings. This is the limited purpose of the note. Hence a number of my proposed amendments, particularly at the beginning of paragraph ↑ and the definition of "participants", which enables us to avoid speaking of "parties to the agreement'

(ii) I suggest that we avoid altogether reference to the deployment of resources

(except to make clear that the discussions will in no way infringe upon the responsibilities of the operational heads). I have reworded the last part of paragraph 1 accordingly.

(iii) Although we did discuss the matter in Geneva, on reflection I do not think we need mention bilateral meetings. They complicate the issue. Accordingly I suggest the omission of paragraphs 4 and 7.

(iv) The rest are drafting amendments.

As regards tactics, I shall now consult here, on the basis of the note as proposed to be amended, to determine the United Kingdom view, and I expect that Andrew Stuart will be in touch with the Colonial Secretariat in due course when the United Kingdom view has been formed. I would have thought, therefore, that it would be preferable not to send the agreed note to the USA until after that round of consultation has been completed.

Yours sincerely

C. J TRAIN