THE TRAFFIC IN NARCOTICS Page 96

The following throw considerable light on the true situation in Communist China:

An editorial in the South China Morning Post, Hong Kong, July 7, 1952, remarks as follows:

"Peking declared these stories were fabrications and insisted that it has 'consistently and determinedly adopted as well as enforced the policy of strict prohibition.' The pro-Nationalist newspapers here recently asserted that poppies were planted in many parts of Kwangtung and that the new authorities like the old were content to tax it heavily rather than enforce the ban. On the other hand the pro-Communist papers say the Regime has made 'definite progress in suppression' since the Suppression Commission was formed in Canton in 1950. It added however that though the peasants had agreed not to plant the poppy, it was necessary that 'the suppression movement must be continued and made into a mass movement for thorough realization.' This indicates that the ban is not effective. But it is significant that when the authorities seized off Penang a single consignment of 6,000 pounds of opium--- half the total world seizures last year--- it was described as 'Burmese opium.' "

Another dispatch from the Hua Chio Jih Pao, Hong Kong, October 22, 1952, is as follows:

"The Chinese Communist authorities appear to be pushing with great vigor the campaign for the suppression of opium in the various hsien on Hainan Island and in southern Kwangtung. Actually the addicts are required to be cured in stages and meantime opium is sold by the authorities to smokers who have been duly registered."

All available reports from the mainland press clearly indicate continued use of and traffic in narcotic drugs within Communist China. The Communists have carefully avoided mention of traffic out of Communist China, but the Nan Fang Jih Pao, Canton, editorial of June 3, 1952, stressed the fact that Canton's proximity to Hong Kong, Macao, and Indo-China facilitated drug smuggling, and added that Canton continued to be the principal center of narcotic traffic in Asia.

On May 19, 1952, the Hankow Ch'ang Chiang Jih Pao carried an article covering a meeting of the Opium and Narcotics Suppression Committee on May 13-16. The chairman of the Committee, Chang Nan Hsien, stressed the need of a mass movement for the suppression of opium and narcotics. The vice chairman followed by analyzing the causes leading to the situation being still serious. He pointed out the failure of the full mobilization of the masses and reliance on them for wiping out the evil. He said the mass movement to be launched beginning

INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION-PART TWO Page 97

with the prohibition of transportation, the prohibition of preparation, and the prohibition of marketing, after which the prohibition of poppy cultivation and smoking and use of narcotics would be easy of accomplishment. Cheng Shao Wen was the official who made this statement.

On June 4, 1952 the same newspaper carried a report by this same vice chairman of the Committee, Cheng Shao Wen. After stating that the prohibition of poppy cultivation had been "basically accomplished in the Central-South region," he gave a resumé which indicates the extent of narcotic traffic within Communist China. In the districts of Honan, Changsha, Liuchow, Nanning, Kwelin, Wuchow, Ichang, Shasih and Yuanling, Cheng Shao Wen stated that more than 18,000 cases of opium trafficking had been disposed of, 2 million taels of opium had been seized and several thousand taels of heroin had also been seized.

In Canton, Cheng continued, from the time the Communists took over until March, 1952, there were 271 cases of opium traffic and manufacture disposed of, 3,943 opium dens were discovered, 7,267 addicts were arrested, and 2,000 taels of opium, 200 taels of morphine, and 300 taels of heroin were seized. He added that of the 5,723 addicts registered in Canton 90 percent had been cured and in a part of Hunan province where 90 percent of the households were opium smoking and 80-90 percent were addicts, in two years the number of addicts was reduced to 3.5 percent and the number of opium smoking households to about 11 percent.

In suggesting that the opium evil is still rampant and suppression must be resolutely carried out Cheng stated "opium and narcotics have been chiefly imported from abroad to the Central-South region." He made this further statement: "When nobody engages himself in opium traffic, poppy growers will not be able to sell their products and will cease to grow poppies. When no opium can be bought, the addicts will certainly cease to smoke opium."

In the Nan Fang Jih Pao, Canton, June 3, 1952, Ku Kuan Hsien, vice chairman, Canton Municipal Committee for Suppression of Opium and Narcotics, stated: "The suppression of opium and narcotic trafficking and manufacturing was carried out together with the suppression of poppy cultivation and the smoking of opium, but this had not been carried out on an organized basis and achievements have not been marked."

Here we have the words of Chinese Communist newspapers in

THE TRAFFIC IN NARCOTICS Page 98

contrast to their Foreign Minister's statement that our report is fabrication.

Further statements made by Cheng Shao Wen as published in the June 4, 1952, issue of the Hankow Ch'ang Chiang Pao, are:

"The opium evil is still rampant, especially opium trafficking. A number of unscrupulous merchants such as Ho Hung Fu have smuggled opium to poison the people and destroy the fatherland with a view to profiteering. Since the liberation, narcotic smugglers have smuggled narcotics through the various railways of the Hengyang Railway Administration amounting to 804,879 taels of opium, 109,414 taels of morphine, and 35,297 taels of heroin which have been distributed to 297 merchants in the cities along the railway lines of the Chengchow Railway Administration. In the past three years a total of 38,028 taels of opium and 13,475 taels of heroin have been smuggled and transported through railway lines.

"During the 5-anti movement in Hankow, according to data and materials from denunciation and frank exposures by the merchants, there were 451 traffickers and smugglers who had smuggled and transported 559,421 taels of opium, 278,731 taels of morphia, and 302,540 taels of heroin. During the 5-anti movement in Nanning, according to data and materials from denunciations and frank exposures, of the 32 categories of trade, 459 firms smuggled and transported a total of more than 800,000 taels of narcotics. As the quantity of narcotics smuggled was so great there must be a large number of addicts. According to estimates of the Department of Public Security of the Central-South MAC there are 81,300 addicts in Honan Province, constituting approximately 27 percent of the population.

In the Canton Nan Fang Jih Pao, June 3, 1952, it was stated:

"The organizations and machineries for the suppression of opium and narcotics have not been established, or are not developed in a wholesale manner. Too great leniency has been adopted in the disposal of drug cases." The following statement is also made: "The traffickers used Canton as the center to distribute the drugs to leading cities in the Southwest, Central-South, East China and North-West regions. Many of the unscrupulous merchants have colluded with corrupt elements in shipping, railway and highway organs to carry out the evil traffic. They have even bribed some of the retained personnel in the organs of public security, tax revenue and maritime customs to harbor them. The data and materials exposed through the 3-anti and 5-anti movements have evidently shown that this situation is prevalent in large cities, as well as in medium and small cities. The amount of

INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION-PART TWO Page 99

narcotics smuggled each time has been estimated at more than 1,000 taels, and even as much as from 40,000-100,000 taels. The narcotic 'king' even dared to sneak into Canton to make arrangements for his narcotic traffic. The use of opium and narcotics is still being constantly discovered in cities."

These lesser officials must indeed be naive to make such statements when the Communist Government of China is doing everything possible to cultivate and encourage traffic in narcotics, at least outside China, with China.

Against all the evidence contained herein the statements of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Chinese Communist Regime, as published in United Nations Document E/2233, May 27, 1952, that "the sale of opium and other narcotics is thus completely illegal in Communist China" and "the Chinese Communist Regime, together with the whole Chinese people, protests in the strongest terms against the lying report directed against Communist China by the representative of the United States Government" have little weight indeed.

The evidence for 1952 is in and prior years, is irrefutable.

MR. ZONOV (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) said that his statement at the previous meeting had evidently been misunderstood by the French representative. He wished to make it clear that, in referring to accusations brought against the People's Republic of China, be had had in mind political accusations against a specific country and government and not individual violations of narcotics regulations.

He failed to understand the assertion which the United States representative had made at the same meeting that the USSR had not submitted a report for the year 1952. The USSR invariably submitted an Annual Report, which always included information relating to chapter V. [Here and elsewhere reference to the chapter is to the Annual Report of the individual country wherein the same subject matter is treated in the same chapter as a uniform pattern for all Reports.]

THE TRAFFIC IN NARCOTICS Page 100

The CHAIRMAN welcomed the observer for Thailand and recalled the invitation the Commission had extended to the Government of Thailand at the beginning of the session to be represented at the conference table during the discussion of item 8 of its agenda--- abolition of opium smoking in the Far East.

In reply to MR. VAILLE (France) and MR. OR (Turkey), MR. DEVAKUL, (Thailand) said that opium was not cultivated in Thailand except in the north of the country where, as in neighboring countries, control was difficult.

MR. ANSLINGER (United States of America) pointed out that Thailand was the only country which still permitted opium smoking and enquired how supplies of opium were obtained for smoking dens, if neither the cultivation nor the importation of opium was authorized.

MR. DEVAKUL (Observer for Thailand) replied that, while raw opium was occasionally imported into Thailand, the supplies for smoking dens were mainly derived from seizures.

Since many factors which were not purely technical were involved in the situation in Thailand, he felt that a public statement on the matter would be somewhat embarrassing and that it would be more appropriate for the information requested by the United States representative to be obtained through diplomatic channels. As the United States representative was aware, the Government of Thailand was attempting gradually to suppress the traffic in opium. Legislation would not be effective for the purpose and might in fact make the situation worse. The traffic in opium did not originate in Thailand and had increased substantially since the war, a state of affairs to which political conditions in northern Burma and Indochina had contributed.

MR. ANSLINGER (United States of America) proposed that further discussion of the matter should be postponed until the Commission was dealing with item 8 of its agenda relating to the abolition of opium smoking.

The CHAIRMAN commented on the small number of countries which had responded to Economic and Social Council resolution 436 (XIV) C and said that any further replies received by the Secretariat would be submitted to the Commission at its next session.

MR. KRUYSSE (Netherlands) suggested that, in circulating replies from governments, it would be useful if the Secretariat in future reproduced the resolution to which the replies related.

INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION-PART TWO Page 101

MR. CELINSKI (Secretry of the Commission) said that the Neterhlamds representative's suggestion would be noted.

MR. NIKOLIC (Yugoslavia) enquired why there was no reference to Yugoslavia in chapter II of the document, since to his certain knowledge Yugoslavia had submitted an annual report for 1952.

MR. HUANG (Secretariat) replied that the report for Yugoslavia had been received by the Secretariat on 3 March 1953. It had not been included in chapter II of the document because it had provided no information on chapter V.

MR. ANSLINGER (United States of America) pointed out with reference to chapter III of the document that by far the largest seizure of prepared opium had been reported by Iran. He wondered what the reason for that was.

MR. KIRISHNAMOORTHY (India) and MR. ANSLINGER (United States of America) noted that in three of the cases of the smuggling of raw opium and morphine by air mentioned in chapter V of the document, the aircraft had come from Bangkok. In view of the fact that Thailand neither cultivated nor imported opium, some explanation seemed indicated.

MR. EZZAT (Egypt) drew attention to the statement in paragraph 42 (1) in chapter V that raw opium had, as usual, been smuggled into Egypt from the East. The phrase "as usual" was particularly appropriate, since 95 per cent of the narcotic drugs entering Egypt did so across its eastern borders.

MR. ANSLINGER (United States of America) said with reference to chapter VII clandestine manufacture was extremely important. He congratulated the French Government on its reports on clandestine laboratories which contained all the needed information and hoped that Other governments would emulate the French example..

MR. SHARMAN (Canada) endorsed the United States representative's remarks, adding that under the International Conventions governments had agreed to report on important cases Of illicit traffic. He thought that any case involving a discovery of a clandestine laboratory should be deemed important and reported automatically.

MR. NIKOLIC (Yugoslavia) pointed out that at the previous session the Economic and Social Council, at the recommendation of the Commission had adopted largely at the insistence of the United States representative, a resolution on illicit trafficking by the crews of merchant ships and civil aircraft (436 (XIV)). He wondered, therefore, how to interpret the fact that, according to chapter VIII of document E/CN.7/252, over half of the ships reportedly implicated

THE TRAFFIC IN NARCOTICS Page 102

in seizures during 1952 were of United States registry. Even more disquieting was the fact that certain ships of United States registry had been mentioned over and over again in the reports. He thought the intention in adopting the resolution (436 (XIV)) had been to ensure that such persons lost their seamen's licenses.

The CHAIRMAN pointed out that under the resolution governments were required to report only on crewmen convicted on or after I January 1953.

MR. ANSLINGER (United States of America) said that the United States had enacted legislation providing penalties of $50 per ounce for the master of any ship involved in the smuggling of narcotic drugs. He pointed out that seizures were often made in ports outside the United States. It would greatly help the fight against the illicit traffic if other countries would adopt penalties as heavy as those imposed in the United States. Before the Second World War certain captains had been fined as much as $750,000 and the shipping companies had cooperated very effectively in eliminating smuggling. Legislation which provided penalties only for drugs found aboard without imposing a fine on the master of the ship was inadequate.

There was no doubt that smuggling by seamen constituted the largest source of drugs for the illicit traffic and in compliance with the Council resolution the United States would submit by 1 July 1953 a lengthy list of seamen convicted on charges of smuggling whose licenses had been revoked. He hoped that other governments would act promptly under the resolution and submit similar lists to the Secretariat as soon as possible for immediate circulation to governments. That was essential to prevent persons convicted in one country from seeking berths on ships of other nationalities.

MR. SHARMAN (Canada) pointed out that the nationality of a ship was not always indicative. For example, the ship of Canadian registry mentioned in chapter VIII was beyond the control of the Canadian Government. It was not manned by Canadians and had not approached Canadian waters for many years but operated in the vicinity of Macao far beyond the limits of Canadian jurisdiction. He assured the Commission that the Canadian Government would very much like to get control of the ship.

MR. NIKOLIC (Yugoslavia) observed that under maritime law a ship was subject to the laws of its country of registry.

The CHAIRMAN said that the Secretary-General had communicated Economic and Social Council resolution (436 (XIV)) to governments and was awaiting their replies.

INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION-PART TWO Page 103

MR. ANSLINGER (United States of America) suggested that the memorandum on the illicit traffic prepared by the Secretary-General for the Commission's next session should contain a special chapter on smuggling by seamen.

The CHAIRMAN proposed that the foregoing discussion should be considered as disposing of item 7 (d) of the agenda.

MR. KRUYSSE (Netherlands) said with reference to chapter IX that he had noted with interest that prices for illicit drugs had been quoted per unit of weight which made it possible to make certain comparisons. Of course, as prices were affected by rates of exchange, the figures would have to be interpreted with that in mind. The chapter showed a distinct improvement over the former method of presentation.

MR. EZZAT (Egypt) drew attention to the great difference in the prices of opium and Indian hemp in Israel and in Egypt. In Israel, opium was quoted at approximately $200 to $250 per kilogram and Indian hemp ranged between $330 and $400 whereas in Egypt the price of opium per kilogram ranged from $13,000 to $15,000 while Indian hemp fetched from $900 to $12,000. That reflected the excellent work being accomplished by the Egyptian anti-narcotics administration and the Narcotics Bureau of the Arab League.

MR. SHARMAN (Canada) referring to chapter X said that the Canadian report had mentioned the effectiveness of whippings in deterring certain criminals who had been inducing young people to take drugs and he asked that the paragraph on Canada should be amended to refer to the penalty.

MR. HUANG (Secretariat) said the necessary corrigendum would be issued.

MR. NIKOLIC (Yugoslavia) said it would seem from the report on Hong Kong either that narcotics offenders were subject only to fines or that there had been no offenses in 1952 serious enough to be punished by imprisonment.

MR. HUANG (Secretariat) said that chapter X did not refer to legislation in general but was merely a compilation of the penalties mentioned specifically in the seizure report.

MR. ANSLINGER (United States of America) said he was not satisfied with the penalties imposed in the United States on narcotic drug ,traffickers although they were usually heavier than those imposed

THE TRAFFIC IN NARCOTICS Page 104

elsewhere. He suggested that the Commission might consider that question when it took up the problem of laws and regulations. It was encouraging to note the United Kingdom report that a sentence of three years had been imposed for the unlawful possession of Indian hemp.

MR. WALKER (United Kingdom) said that that was the highest sentence yet recorded in the United Kingdom for that offense. The court had taken into account the fact that the person concerned was of bad character and had been previously convicted for the same offense. It had also been aware of the social menace of Indian hemp.

MR. EZZAT (Egypt) said that the penalties reported in the paragraph on Egypt had been imposed under the old, comparatively lenient legislation. Decree Law No. 351 promulgated on 25 December 1952 imposed much higher penalties including a maximum sentence of life imprisonment and fines ranging from £E 3,000 to 10,000.

MR. SHARMAN (Canada) thought the reports on Hong Kong should be reviewed as it was his impression that prison terms had also been imposed in 1952.

MR. WALKER (United Kingdom) pointed out in connection with Hong Kong that the summary of annual reports of governments for 1951 referred on page 49 to penalties including fines up to $HK 10,000 ($1,750) or imprisonment for terms up to two years, or both and in many cases banishment had been imposed.

MR. HUANG (Secretariat) said that prison terms had been mentioned in the Annual Report for 1951 in conjunction with penalties imposed in Hong Kong.

The CHAIRMAN suggested that the Commission should note the various documents it had considered on the illicit traffic with appreciation, subject to the comments made by the various members during the debate. The question of the illicit traffic in Italy and the Far East was still pending.

MR. ZONOV (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) pointed out that the Commission had not yet finished with chapters V of Annual Reports for the year 1952 or with the summary of Annual Reports of governments for 1951. He had said at the very outset of the debate that he had a few comments to make on the summary and he wondered when he would be given an opportunity to speak.

MR. WALKER (United Kingdom) suggested that the Commission should postpone taking note of the summary of Annual Reports of governments for 1951 until it had finished its consideration of the item on illicit traffic.

INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION-PART TWO Page 105

The CHAIRMAN pointed out that at the previous meeting he had specifically called for comments on the summary of Annual Reports Of governments but as no one had asked for the floor he had assumed that the debate was concluded. The Commission could, however, postpone its final action on the various documents until the debate on the illicit traffic had been concluded.

MR. ZONOV (Union Of Soviet Socialist Republics) suggested that the Commission should follow its customary procedure of putting the question to the vote after the debate had been concluded.

MR. ANSLINGER (United States of America) suggested that the most convenient procedure in the circumstances might be to take up the item concerning illicit traffic in Italy at the present meeting, reserving the item on illicit traffic in the Far East for the following one, at which there would be Opportunity for the USSR representative to bring up the points he had in mind.

MR. VAILLE (France) supported the United States proposal.

* * * * * * *

MR. VAILLE (France) said that the French newspaper France-Soir of 18 March 1953 contained reports concerning attempts to cover up illicit traffic in heroin in Italy, the drug being put on the market, at a low price, as codeine. He doubted the veracity of the reports, which he had compared with those submitted by the Italian Government to the Secretariat, but hoped that the Observer for Italy would have an opportunity of clarifying the situation.

MR. CANAPERIA (Observer for Italy) was glad of the opportunity accorded him to make a statement to the Commission on behalf of the Italian Government. His presence indicated his Government's respect for the Commission and its desire to cooperate in the suppression of illicit traffic.

His Government's main work in that connection was recorded in the various reports which the Commission had recently examined. He thanked the United States representative for his words of appreciation regarding that work. During the last twelve months twenty-nine police operations concerned with illicit traffic had been carried out, leading to the seizure of 22 kilograms of heroin, 1 kg. 650 gr. of opium, 627 grams of cocaine, and some smaller quantities of other drugs. All those responsible were prosecuted in the courts. He felt that those activities were proof of his Government's increased

THE TRAFFIC IN NARCOTICS Page 106

efforts and a successful contribution to the campaign against the international drug traffic.

Concerning the Schiapparelli case, he stated that the Schiapparelli firm, an old-established Turin firm of pharmaceutical and chemical products, had been granted the authorization to extract and transform alkaloids from opium in 1942. Like all such firms, it was under strict periodical inspection and nothing irregular had been found during the inspections carried out in 1952 and in previous years. Investigations carried out towards the end of 1952 following the discovery of a case of illicit traffic by a wholesaler had disclosed a connection between the proprietor of the firm concerned and Professor Migliardi, technical director and general manager of the Schiapparelli company. A further inspection of the Schiapparelli company at the beginning of 1953 had revealed that a quantity of heroin, estimated by the Financial Police at 350-400 kg., had been manufactured and illegally disposed of by Professor Migliardi since 1948, who, taking advantage of his position, had been able to divert from normal production a quantity of morphine to be transformed illicitly into heroin. Although the initial inquiries had indicated that Professor Migliardi was solely responsible, the operations of the firm had been suspended by the competent authorities; further inquiries had confirmed the exclusive responsibility of Professor Migliardi, who had been prosecuted for the clandestine production of and illegal trafficking in narcotics, and the suspension had therefore been of limited duration. The exact quantity of heroin illegally manufactured was being determined by a commission of technical experts at the request of the judicial authorities. Since the Financial Police's estimate, which had been based on indirect calculations, might have been exaggerated, it was probable that the episode, which had been exploited internationally by rival national firms, would be reduced to more modest proportions. In any event, the Italian Government would take any further action required.

Concerning the Commission's recommendation that the Italian Government should completely prohibit the manufacture of heroin in Italy, he recalled that production had been suspended since July 1951. Stocks at that time had been 78 kilograms, representing approximately a one and a half year's supply for normal consumption, but of that total, 28 kilograms still remained at the present date. Seventeen kilograms of that were held by the military medical authorities and the remaining 11 kilograms were divided in small

INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION-PART TWO Page 107

quantities among narcotics manufacturers, pharmaceutical firms (for use in the production of medicines), and registered wholesalers. The heroin held by narcotics manufacturers was used exclusively by the National Public Health Department for the direct replenishment of the stocks of hospitals and sanatoria on the basis of periodical and appropriately certified requests. The question of complete prohibition was still under consideration by the Italian Government. As objections had been raised by the medical authorities on the grounds that it was not possible to replace heroin for therapeutical purposes by synthetic products, the question had been placed before the National Council of Health which had then requested further information on the subject. He was confident that at the next WHO Assembly, in May, the Italian Government would be able to give a favorable answer on the subject, but at present it was awaiting the advice of the National Council of Health, which would hold its session on 21 April.

MR. ANSLINGER (United States of America) thanked the Observer for Italy for his information. In view of the large diversion of heroin into the illicit traffic he would like to know what the position of the Schiapparelli firm would be in the future. He understood that another firm had been involved in a drug contravention two years ago but that the court had not yet reached a decision in the case. He was particularly interested in those matters because much of the heroin which entered the illicit market in Italy was later smuggled into the United States. He hoped the Italian Government would give favorable consideration to the complete prohibition of the manufacture of heroin.

MR. CANAPERIA (Observer for Italy) explained that after the second police investigation in the Schiapparelli case, as a result of which Professor Migliardi was found to be the only member of the firm involved, it was not possible, under the law, to maintain the suspension of the firm's activities. He was fully aware of that deficiency in the Italian legislation and said that new legislation was being prepared which would provide for such cases. Concerning the second query, the facts were that court proceedings had been taken against Mr. Calascibetta, a director of the S.A.C.E. firm of wholesalers, for illicit traffic in narcotics and the license of the firm had been revoked.

MR. KRISHNAMOORTHY (India), answering a question raised by the Canadian representative at a previous meeting concerning the seizure of a quantity of opium at Simla, said that the latest information from his Government was that the case was still under trial. If he received

THE TRAFFIC IN NARCOTICS Page 108

further information before leaving New York he would report it to the Commission.

* * * * * * *

MR. ANSLINGER (United States of America) referred to a case of substantial diversions of narcotic drugs imported into Ecuador on certificates issued by the United States, the United Kingdom, and Switzerland and asked the Secretariat to request the Ecuadorean Government for a seizure report concerning them.

MR. WALKER (United Kingdom) supported the United States representative's request.

The CHAIRMAN said that the Secretariat would take note of the request.

* * * * * * *

MR. VAILLE (France), continuing the previous day's discussion [situation in Italy], asked the Italian Observer for additional information on the Schiapparelli case. He wished to know what quantities of heroin had been diverted, whether Professor Migliardi had been arrested, and whether he had been convicted, and if so, what penalties had been imposed. Furthermore, he was surprised that the firm in question, which had failed to exercise effective control over its staff and the outgo of narcotic drugs, had not been prosecuted. If it was not possible under Italian law to revoke the firm's license, he wondered what methods were followed in Italy with regard to licenses and whether the number of manufacturers in that country would not increase unduly, contrary to the spirit of the conventions.

MR. CANAPERIA (Italy) stated that it was difficult to estimate exactly the quantities of heroin diverted, for they could be established only on the basis of the quantities of reagent used. That was a complicated procedure and the Italian authorities had had to appoint a committee of experts to look into the matter. The first investigation had been made by the fiscal squad of the police who specialized in the field. The members of that squad had some knowledge of the methods of production and extraction but they were not technicians. Consequently, the quantities of heroin diverted could not be definitely established until the results of the inquiry of the committee of experts were available.

In reply to the French representative's second question, he said that Professor Migliardi had not been arrested. He was at present under police surveillance and his passport had been withdrawn.

INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION-PART TWO Page 109

Under Italian law, a person could not be arrested unless he had been caught in the act. Professor Migliardi would be brought to trial shortly, as soon as the judges were in possession of all the complex facts of the case.

With regard to the granting of licenses, five firms had been authorized to manufacture opium alkaloids, the number having been determined with due regard to the volume of production and consumption of those products in Italy. Licenses were granted in accordance with the provisions of the 1925 Act. The Italian Government had been concerned with the lacunae in that Act and had prepared a new bill which, taking into account the recommendations of the Commission on Narcotic Drugs, provided for more severe penalties and would give the High Commissioner for Hygiene and Public Health the power to withdraw a manufacturing permit if any irregularities were suspected.

MR. ANSLINGER (United States of America) observed that, according to the investigation that had been carried out, Calascibetta had received from Migliardi the large quantity of 875 kg. of heroin, which be had then resold to various traffickers, many of whom had been convicted. It was now two years since Calascibetta had been denounced and the Italian Government had been in possession of evidence against him. He wondered why the trial had bee delayed. He also wished to know whether the firm of Schiapparelli still held a license for the manufacture of heroin.

MR. CANAPERIA (Italy) explained that the first investigation had established that only 350-400 kg. of heroin had been clandestinely manufactured. The figure cited by the United States representative was that appearing in the report on the Calascibetta case, which included quantities of heroin that the accused had procured from other sources. The case had been handed over to the court the previous year. His trial would not take place until the results of the investigation of Migliardi were available, for the authorities intended to have both tried at the same time, as the two cases were connected.

Scbiapparelli's authorization to manufacture heroin had been suspended. There had been no authorized manufacture of heroin in Italy since July 1951. He assured the Commission that the Italian Government exercised strict control over the production of the five firms in question. Two specialist inspectors had been detailed to supervise all operations with regard to drugs, from the stage of manufacture to that of distribution. It had not yet been possible to forbid the consumption of heroin because of the opposition of the medical

THE TRAFFIC IN NARCOTICS Page 110

profession but the remaining stocks were distributed only in hospitals and sanatoria and it was almost unobtainable in pharmacies.

MR. ANSLINGER (United States of America) said that the heroin estimates submitted by the Italian Government to the Supervisory Body and to the Permanent Central Opium Board from 1946 to 1950 had been 200 kg. per year. That production had probably been divided among different firms. He wondered how Migliardi had been able to divert such large quantities.

Furthermore, the figure of 200 kg. per year was very high compared with the corresponding figures for Switzerland and France. He had the impression that the diversion had been possible because the estimates had been too high.

MR. SHARMAN (Canada) shared the United States representative's view of the Italian estimates. As a member of the Supervisory Body, be was in a position to say that both the Supervisory Body and the Permanent Central Opium Board had been disturbed by that figure, which appeared to be excessive. Annual world consumption being about 400 kg., Italy's estimated consumption had for several years been about half that of the whole world.

Generally speaking, he was concerned about the situation in Italy, where there seemed to be very peculiar ideas with regard to the granting of licenses. The firm of Schiapparelli had not been closed. Its managing director and its technical director seemed to have some share of responsibility for the diversion; in any case, there were certainly others guilty beside Migliardi, since it was unlikely if not impossible that he could operate all by himself. Yet the two directors of the firm had not been indicted.

MR. VAILLE (France) stated that the annual consumption of heroin in France and the French Union was 13 kg. and was tending to decrease. France felt, however, that it was premature to prohibit the use of heroin for medical purposes.

He was surprised at the laxity of Italian courts, which permitted a man like Migliardi, who had put millions of ampoules of heroin into circulation and who was obviously more guilty than a petty trafficker or an addict, to remain at large. The reports submitted by Italy for 1952 showed that there was apparently no question of convictions.

He wished to know whether the firm of Schiapparelli, which no longer manufactured heroin, was manufacturing other drugs, such as codeine or dionine, since in that case further diversions were to be feared.

INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION-PART TWO Page 111

MR. MAY (Permanent Central Opium Board) shared the views of the preceding speakers. The Italian Government should respect public opinion, which could ill conceive that a man who was responsible for the misfortune of thousands of persons should remain at large and should not yet have been tried.

MR. CANAPERIA (Italy), in reply to the United States representative, stated that although Italy had indeed consumed 200 kg. of heroin in 1946, the annual consumption had since then been reduced to 50 kg. The allocation of raw materials was effected by dividing the quantities of raw opium imported among the five firms, each of which was authorized to manufacture a certain quantity of the various narcotic drugs for therapeutic purposes. The quantities were fixed by the High Commission for Hygiene and Public Health.

Some representatives felt that Italy's production was too high in relation to its population. In that connection, he drew the Commission's attention to document E/OB/8 (page 9), which gave figures showing the consumption of diacetylmorphine per million inhabitants. Italy appeared among the countries with a high consumption, although lower in recent years than that of Finland, Sweden, Australia, and the United Kingdom. The important thing, however, was that since 1951 Italy had reduced its consumption of diacetylmorphine to 50 kg.

In reply to the French representative's remarks, he repeated that under Italian law only those persons could be arrested who had been caught in the act, i.e., who had been found to be in possession of narcotic drugs or against whom there was conclusive proof that they engaged in illicit traffic. That was not the case with Migliardi; in that case there was only circumstantial evidence, based on the difference of the reagents used; but many points remained to be cleared up. That was why the Italian Government had transmitted only a preliminary report to the Secretariat, hoping to be in a position later to transmit a final report.

In his opinion, the aim of the Commission and of the other international organs engaged in combatting illicit traffic was to ensure effective international cooperation in preventing and hindering illicit traffic, since prevention was preferable to suppression. If that were so, it mattered little whether a firm continued to manufacture while the inquiry was in progress. The main thing was to make sure that no quantity of the narcotic drugs produced could be diverted from its proper destination. On behalf of his Government, he formally assured the Commission that the firms were subject to such strict

THE TRAFFIC IN NARCOTICS Page 112

control that it was no longer possible for a single milligram of narcotic drugs to be diverted. In addition, he emphasized that his country would always be ready to cooperate with the Commission in its work and to follow any suggestions the Commission might wish to make.

MR. ANSLINGER (United States of America) was not satisfied with the explanations of the Italian observer and regretted that Italy's conception of the control of manufacture of narcotic drugs was different from that of other countries.

MR. VAILLE (France) shared the United States representative's view. There could be no permanent control over a firm if the honesty of its directors could not be relied on. A firm holding a license must be above suspicion, for, even when it was, offenses were sometimes committed. In a large enterprise it might well happen that a worker stole a few grams or even kilograms of narcotic drugs, but the diversion of the entire production of a firm by its managers could not be treated lightly. He cited, in that connection, a case which had occurred in France. It had been found that a firm had not furnished accurate accounts of its stocks and, although an investigation had shown that there had been no diversion, the firm's license had been revoked and its directors had been indicted and convicted. He drew attention to the danger of countries not complying strictly with the conventions and not imposing the necessary penalties, for that would encourage the manufacturers and traffickers to move to those countries where they could be assured of impunity.

MR. CANAPERIA (Italy) said that he would certainly transmit the views expressed by the Commission to his Government. The investigation of the case in question was not yet completed and he assured the Commission that his Government would make it its business to send a final report which would undoubtedly satisfy the Commission.

The CHAIRMAN pointed out that the Commission had not finished the consideration of the above chapter [on illicit traffic of document E/NR.1951/Summary]. At the 203rd meeting the USSR representative had submitted a proposal on which the Commission had yet to take a decision. The USSR representative had asked for the deletion of various passages which he felt contained a number of false and slanderous allegations against the People's Republic of China.

At the CHAIRMAN's request, MR.CELINSKI (Secretary of the Commission)

INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION-PART TWO Page 113

read out the relevant passage of the provisional summary record of the two hundred and third meeting, which ran:

It (the USSR delegation) therefore proposed that all such references should be deleted from E/NR.1951/Summary now before the Commission and that document E/CN.1951/101 should be removed from the records. The same should apply to the references to the smuggling into Japan of heroin alleged to have come from China (page 46 of E/NR.1951/Summary) and to other false statements contained in the sections of the document which summarized the reports on the United States and Hong Kong.

MR. LIANG (China) opposed the USSR representative's proposal for the following five reasons.

The data given in the Chinese Government's Annual Report for 1951 were for the most part based on confidential information collected on the mainland by secret agents of the Chinese Government; the remaining information came from Hong Kong. While be could say no more about how the information was obtained, its authenticity was beyond doubt.

Furthermore, the information furnished by the Chinese Government for 1951 tallied with that provided the preceding year.

Thirdly, it was corroborated by certain facts cited in the reports of other Governments for 1951. In that connection he quoted the sixth paragraph of the summary concerning the United States, which reported the seizure of 627 grams of diacetylmorphine; the bags in which the drug had been concealed had borne the stamp of the Red Lion Company, which showed that the drug had been manufactured on the Chinese mainland. Likewise, in the summary of the Japanese Government's report it was stated that almost all the diacetylmorphine confiscated in Japanese territory had been of Chinese origin. Lastly, he cited a passage concerning Hong Kong, which referred to smuggling from China.

In the fourth place he noted that no one, not even the USSR representative, had been able to prove that the Chinese Government's statements were inaccurate on a single point.

Lastly, he recalled that, as the Canadian representative had acknowledged on several occasions, his Government had been fighting against the illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and the clandestine cultivation of the opium poppy for twenty-five years. To withdraw its report from the files and to give no credence to the information it supplied would be a totally undeserved act of censure.

THE TRAFFIC IN NARCOTICS Page 114

With regard to that part of the Chinese territory which was under his Government's control, namely Formosa, neither the opium poppy nor Indian hemp were cultivated there. The use of heroin had been prohibited for a long time and traffickers were severely punished.

MR. VAILLE (France) said that he would vote against the USSR proposal because it would imply that the Commission had the right to change at will the texts of reports submitted by governments to the Secretariat. His vote had no political implications whatever.

MR. WALKER (United Kingdom) associated himself with those observations. The Commission was not competent of its own will to change official reports from governments. Anyone who felt that a report contained false allegations was free to prepare another document refuting those accusations and to ask that it should be circulated as an addendum to the report which had been questioned. Needless to say, governments must in turn be careful not to make charges, even by implication, against other countries or territories unless they could substantiate them by solid proof.

He regretted that the USSR representative had described certain information contained in the summary of the report for Hong, Kong as false and slanderous without trying to prove those affirmations. The report spoke of the illicit traffic in opium along the Hong Kong land frontier. The Government of the Colony had simply described an actual situation, which was in no way surprising. It was a known fact that opium smuggling was rife along many frontiers in the Far East. The Government of the Colony had not made the slightest accusation against the Central People's Government of the People's Republic of China. The report did not even say, as it might have said, that more cooperation from the Central People's Government would greatly assist in suppressing illicit traffic in that region.

In conclusion, he said that his Government rejected certain allegations regarding Hong Kong and Singapore contained in the Chinese Nationalist Government's report for 1951. He himself had had inquiry made into some of the facts mentioned in the report and had found numerous inaccuracies. It would take too long to refute point by point the Formosa Government's assertions and to save time he would deal with a few of them only. On pages 4 and 5 of the report much emphasis was placed on labels which supposedly proved that the, opium was of Chinese origin. While those labels bore the well-known marking 1-3-8, that was no guarantee of the contents of the packages. Other opiums were in fact sold under the same label.

The prices referred to in the same part of the report did not correspond

INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION-PART TWO Page 115

to the usual Hong Kong prices, which were $HK55 per tael (37.8 grams) of opium and $HK8,000 per tael of morphine. The prices quoted in the report were much lower.

Other inaccuracies were to be found in paragraph 4 of page 6 of the report. The remarks about illicit traffic in the Shum-Chun area were not correct. The Ta-ch'ang Company had been dissolved in November 1951 and there had never been any evidence that it had engaged in traffic in narcotic drugs. Most of the persons mentioned in that passage were unknown to the Hong Kong authorities. One of them was known to reside at Macao and not at Hong Kong.

The information given in the Chinese Government's report concerning Singapore also called for the most formal reservations.

By virtue of its situation, Hong Kong was inevitably one of the centers of illicit traffic not only from China but also from Thailand. The authorities of the Colony were among the first to deplore that state of affairs. In cooperation with Japan and the United States, they had made tremendous efforts to suppress the traffic. In any case, the Chinese Nationalist Government had no right to make inaccurate and irresponsible statements which implied criticism of the authorities of certain British territories.

MR. ANSLINGER (United States of America) regretted that the USSR representative was again trying to expurgate reports transmitted by other governments in order to delete any passages which displeased him.

MRS. KOWALCZYK (Poland) recalled that at the 203rd meeting she had given the reasons for her support of the USSR proposal. Nothing had occurred since then to make her change her view; the Kuomintang representative had added nothing new to the discussion. It was clear, therefore, that before it could approve the reports in question the Commission must decide to suppress the slanderous passages.

MR. ZONOV (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) noted the United Kingdom representative's statement to the effect that the Hong Kong authorities had not intended in their report for 1951 to make any accusations against the Central People's Government of the People's Republic of China. He had also rightly stressed the need for governments to exercise great caution in drafting their reports. Each year the Kuomintang representatives repeated the same slanderous accusations, which, they claimed, were based on secret information. The Commission could not regard reports which rested on such a shaky foundation as reliable. The United Kingdom representative had just

THE TRAFFIC IN NARCOTICS Page 116

shown how little credence could be placed in document E/NR.1951/ 101. After that statement, there was nothing left of the report.

No one would dream of denying that there was illicit traffic in the Far East. It was scandalous, however, that the Kuomintang clique, which had no right to speak on behalf of the Chinese people, should, in cooperation with the United States and Japan, make accusations against the Government of the People's Republic of China, which was not represented on the Commission and was therefore unable to defend itself.

MR. ANSLINGER (United States of America) pointed out that it had originally been the USSR representative who had introduced a political aspect into the debate. The Commission had heard from the USSR representative propaganda concerning the illicit traffic rather than statements of fact.

With regard to the question of hearing a representative of the Communist Government of China, if all that representative could contribute to the debate was the statement issued by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (E/2233) which contained little but abuse and vilification, he thought the hearing would not lead to any constructive action. He wondered in fact why that regime had not submitted a factual report to the Commission on the subject if it sincerely wished to contribute to the elimination of the illicit traffic.

The USSR delegation had raised the political issue many years earlier. In fact at the previous session he had been attacked by Communists because of the statement he had then made concerning the illicit traffic in the Far East. All kinds of denunciations and insolent distortions had been made indirectly. They were obviously traceable to the fact that be personally had submitted a factual statement on the subject. He suggested that if the Chinese Communist regime wished to reply to his report, it might take up his statements paragraph by paragraph. That was the usual method of procedure. Charges of slander were not sufficient answer to the facts he had cited.

The CHAIRMAN put to the vote the USSR proposal that the Annual Report of the Chinese Government for 1951 should be removed from, the records and that certain passages concerning China in the summary of Annual Reports should be deleted.