TNAG-0506-FCO40-571-Review-of-narcotics-problem-in-Hong-Kong-1974 — Page 44

A

CONFIDENTIAL

COLOMBO PLAN CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE

CONSIDERATION OF DRUG ADVISER'S REPORT

163

BACKGROUND

The Drug Adviser

1. The Drug Aaviser was appointed in August 1973 as a direct result of United States' pressure, and his operations since then have been financed by the United States. At the 1972 meeting of the Consultative Committee in New Delhi, the United States attempted to introduce as a Special Topic for 1973 the subject of drug abuse. This was part of their world-wide effort to involve every international organisation in this matter. Their proposal did not win acceptance, but, as a sop to the United States, it was agreed that a Drug Adviser should be appointed to the Colombo Plan Bureau for a short period to develop Colombo Plan-sponsored activities in the arug abuse field. Unfortunately, the adviser, who was to have produced a report for discussion at the 1973 meeting of the Consultative Committee, was not easy to recruit and did not take up office until August 1973. In consequence he produced only an interim report at the 1973 meeting, and the report before the Committee in Singapore will be on the first iull year of his work.

2. Underlying the terms of reference of this appointment was the clear implication that the adviser would attempt to identify how the Colombo Plan could make a distinct contribution in this field. His programme has, however, been based upon the prospectus for a Special Topic which was canvassed by the United States in 1972, and he has interpreted it as no more than a mandate for holding a series of conferences in the region. His programme for the past year and the programhought to

for the future show little sign of his having given any original or detailed any particular role that the Colombo Plan might play in the region.

3.

The 1974 Frogramme

The Drug Adviser's activities over the last year have been confined to three events of substance, viz., the meeting in Colombo in Uctober 1973 (paragraphs 5-11 of the report), the workshop in the Philippines in May 1974 (paragraphs 14 20) and the regional narcotics conference in Bangkok in July 1974 (paragraphs 23 - 28). For the rest, he has arranged facilities for some law enforcement officer visits, and has himself attended a number of conferences or meetings. The three substantial events which he has organised appear to have been of little value. In the drug abuse field, the holding of conferences is often only a substitute, unu a relatively expensive one, for action. The discussion at the Colombo conference was too wide-ranging to be other than superficial, and very little of value emerged. It is understood that, despite the claim in paragraph 8 of the report, the tangible results have been limited, since as late as the middle of September 1974 neither the Government of Sri Lanka nor its police force had a narcotics bureau. Nothing is known of the meeting in the Philippines, but the meeting in Bangkok also gives the impression of superficiality. Its limited success in the law enforcement field, which is reported by the officer from Hong kong who attended it, may be attributable to the fact that the Drug adviser had anticipated the programme for a similar meeting of the heads of drug law enforcement agencies to be held under United Nations auspices in Bangkok in September and had borrowed the programme devised by the United Nations Ad Hoc Committee for the Far East for that meeting.

1,

CONFIDENTIAL