Ottawa, 12 February 1969
115. Confidential
For Plimsoll from Bailey
Canada–Recognition of Peking1
You will have seen from my series of telegrams last week about the recognition of Peking2 how acute a dilemma Mitchell Sharp has posed in relation to the territorial claims of Peking and Taipei respectively. Pointing out that both claim to be the Government of China, which means that each claims to be the de jure ruler of territory actually governed by the other, Mitchell Sharp has said categorically that Canada cannot recognise two Governments in respect of the same territory.
2. Thinking over the problem of mixed law, politics and metaphysics that this situation involves, I have harked back in memory to the difficulties Australia and Ireland encountered a few years back in finding a formula which would enable Australia to accept a new Irish Ambassador, and likewise enable Ireland to accept a new Australian Ambassador. How could we accept credentials in the name of the soi disant President of all Ireland (i.e. including the six counties)? How could they accept credentials from a Queen whose very title, even whose Australian title, asserted her sovereignty in the six counties of Northern Ireland?
3. When I was Solicitor-General,3 I did a good deal of work on this question with Attorneys-General Spicer4 and O‘Sullivan.5 My recollection is that the Government eventually found a solution on the basis of an exchange of letters to the effect that the reciprocal acceptance of ambassadors was without prejudice to the constitutional position of each in relation to the territorial limits of the Republic of Ireland. But I do not now have the text clearly in mind. If a solution could be achieved along similar lines in relation to the Governments at Peking and Taipei respectively, the similarity of names would not seem to me to constitute a serious difficulty. The People’s Republic of China and the Republic of China are, as titles very nearly as different as the designations of the two Congolese Republics.6
5. Admittedly, the Irish “parallel is not altogether exact. The Republic of Ireland does claim sovereignty over the whole island, whereas the Queen claims it only in the six counties, and there are in the China case not two states only but a third party as well. But the two Chinas do not have to be brought into contact, still less recognise each other. Would it not be a proper position for Canada to inform both Governments that—
(a) Canada’s new recognition of Peking was not to be taken as implying recognition of its sovereignty in Taiwan;
(b) Canada’s continuing recognition of the Government of the Republic of China was not to be taken as implying recognition of its sovereignty in mainland China (perhaps described generically as territory in which it was not in fact exercising political authority and control)?
6. I mentioned this piece of Australian–Irish history to Collins7 on a personal basis, and without any documents or memoranda, suggesting only that he might look at their own history regarding representation in Ireland and vice-versa. He seemed so interested that I have thought it useful to raise the matter with you. I have not tried to investigate what resources we may have here on file or in the library. But if you and the Minister think there is anything useful in this, perhaps you could send me urgently any necessary texts.
7. I do not think for a moment that Peking would be interested in an exchange of letters of this character. It did occur to me, however, that to put forward such a suggestion might help Canadian relations with Taipei. Mitchell Sharp has already said plainly that Canada’s future relations with Taipei would have to be consistent with the terms of any recognition that Canada accords to Peking. The offer of a formula like our Irish one might just conceivably help to avoid the withdrawal of R.O.C. representation from Canada.
[NAA: A1838, 3107/33/1/1, xix]
1 See Document 128.
2 Not published.
3 Bailey was Commonwealth Solicitor-General, 1946–64.
4 Justice John Spicer, Commonwealth Attorney-General, 1949–56.
5 Sir Neil O’Sullivan, Commonwealth Attorney-General, 1956–58.
6 That is, in 1969, the Republic of the Congo (Brazzaville) and the Democratic Republic of the Congo (Kinshasa).
7 Presumably, Justice Franklin Kay Collins, Judge of the Supreme Court, British Colombia.