TNAG-0561-FCO40-656-Review-of-narcotics-problem-in-Hong-Kong-1975 — Page 164

HOME OFFICE

Tel art.

My Walter))) A tel to Hang

about

REC.VE Rompey House, Marsham Street, LONDON S.Wengering

A/N 52 Telephone: 01-799-3488, ext. 212 8920 *Y+2 please

Telex: 24986

X4+2

Our reference: Your reference:

- 3 MAY 1975

1-XX 19/1

PL O'Keefe Esq

Hong Kong and Indian Ocean

Department

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE

London SW1

6 May 1975

Dear O'Keefe

On my return from a week's visit to Pakistan I have found copies of your exchange of telegrams with the Hong Kong Government about the next meeting in the US/UK/Hong Kong series to discuss drug trafficking in the Far East. I note that the Hong Kong Government is in agreement with the line that we want to take on the sugges- tion that the Canadians should be invited to join and I shall take steps to arrange this accordingly.

I have also done some soundings here to find out what would be a convenient date. As you will note from the copy of Bartels' letter of 21 April which I sent to you with my letter of 25 April, he indicates that the United States officials will be in Europe early in June and could come to London either at the end of May or for meetings on June 9 and 10. The date at the end of May is inconvenient here but we could manage June 9 and 10 and there are, from my point of view, some advantages in getting this over and done with, as quickly as possible and not delaying until early July. I should be grateful if you could discover from the Hong Kong Government as quickly as possible (preferably before the end of this week, so that we can set in hand arrangements for accommodation, conference rooms and entertainment) whether the Hong Kong Government could be represented at meetings in London for the two days Monday and Tuesday 9 and 10 June. It is not altogether clear to me from the Narcotics Commissioner's telegram number 425 of 2 May whether he wishes Peter Law to attend the

Perhaps you

Y meetings in addition to himself or as a substitute.

21

could confirm this as well.

You will also note from the penultimate paragraph of Bartels' letter to me that he hopes that Rolph can be present at the London meeting. Personally I have no particular objection to this, but it occurs to me that it might place the new Narcotics Commissioner, if he is attending, in a position of some difficulty and I should be grateful if you could discover discreetly whether the Hong Kong Government would like us to invite Rolph. I believe that Rolph is still in the Service of the Hong Kong Government and they would, I imagine, be responsible for paying his subsistence - I doubt

if F&CO will be willing to help with this.

As soon as dates are confirmed I shall arrange for you to be informed so that arrangements for accommodation and other matters may be set in hand.

Yours sincerely

Train

(C J TRAIN)