pnarc180.pdf

the input of the USOM/Bangkok, AID/W, Bangkok Bawk Lti.
in New
York, and the Thai Board of Investment in Bangkok -. n
supervising CIPM. Their activities (i.e., Coppinger bnd Spmbr,:.k),
among oth--r things, included, but was not limited to, the follow r:
insuring compl"i-ce with A.I.D. policy; assirting with qnd qrranging
the contract with CIPM; demloping budgets; kWeping USOM/
Bangkok informed; negotiating with A.M.A.; proparing new release:;
and arranging for publicity through USIA, Voice of Am-ricn and
Oliver Beckman,
Inc.; initiating hotel reservations; hondling
inquiri-s from industry sources and trying ho a tcipate where
problrms might arise.
Through agreement with Dr. Amnuay, the
Thai Board of Investment was to sponsor the MLSii.
, but it was
to be in association with A.I.D. and Bangkok Bank Ltd.
Because
it was clearly understood that the Investment Mission was sponsored
solely by the Thai Board of Investment, AID/W invriably concurred
in the proposed action so long as it did not conflict with A.I.D.
policy.
Also because of BOI sponsorship, AID/W insisted that the
proposed program by CIPM receive the unqualifipd .pprovql qnd
endorsement of Paul Sithi-Amnut i in New York and Dr.
Amnuay in
Bangkok before it would permit CIPM to even make contact with
the individual business firms in the proposed program and to
firm up the arrangements.
Although this endorspment of the
program by the BOI did eliminate most of the conflicts and
some of the confusion in the program, nevertheless;, the situations
in Cleveland and Atlanta, which have previously been reported, did
occur.
- 36 ­