CONFIDENTIAL
4
C
No one here knows anything of paragraph 31(i) in the context of P.A. However, we are constantly receiving colleagues from overseas to undertake study attachments at our various facilities and they are welcome. Applications should be made to me in the first instance since my secretariat arranges and co-ordinates these matters.
To invite Burma to go to Thailand as in paragraph 31(ii) to observe and study the U.N./Thai opium crop substitu- tion programme is tantamount to waving a red flag at a bull at the present time so deep seated are the animosities between these two countries, not least over the imbroglio of the illicit arms and narcotics trades. I doubt very much whether the Burmese would go to India either. There is little love lost between these two historically and on a present day-to- day basis, Laos may be more disposed to attend notwithstanding the fairly blatant exploitation of Laos by Thailand which is the cause of a fair amount of friction one way and another, But the Laos are a pleasure loving lot who aren't averse to a day out for any or no reason provided someone else is picking up the tab.
Regarding (i) and (ii) at the top of page 16, since the U.N. annual law enforcement meeting is concerned almost exclusively with the problems arising from the golden triangle, the intervention of P.A. to secure invitations for such countries as Bhutan, Fiji, Papua and others unspecified seems to be waste- ful in terms of money if nothing else. And does the meeting really want a platoon of observers in addition, I strongly doubt it. I thought the idea was to keep the gathering as compact as possible and therefore a strictly working and workmanlike body of operational officers, And incidently the recommendation at paragraph 25B (ii) is not interpreted as meaning another Bangkok style Colombo Plan meeting in this region so far as law enforcement is concerned. The annual U.N. meeting will take care of this aspect. Perhaps our delegate s should have this point clarified for the record, Hong Kong is unlikely to attend any further Colombo Plan law enforcement conferences preferring to put its money on the U.N. horse instead. The dividend looks more promising.
I understand that the Americans pay the Drug Adviser's salary and expenses. They know our views about the present incumbent, but I suppose they will continue to fund the post if a majority of countries in the Plan want it to continue. This may be a case for some lobbying in the corridors, but frankly I do not trust the Americans over much in this matter. Their words and actions about P.A, do not match up too well in my experience. Please see the opening of paragraph 32.
The study/observation tour at paragraph 32(i) looks like a good swan to me. A fatuous type of exercise in terms of cost effectiveness and having regard to the enormous wild and uncontrolled cannabis growth taking place in Asia which is unamendable to discipline in the main in the foreseeable future. I believe the project should be discouraged.
(GI TIDENTIAL
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.