Canberra, 22 May 1971
2354. Secret Priority
China
Personal for Renouf from Minister
The Government has decided and the Prime Minister has announced that we should attempt to open a dialogue with the Government of the People’s Republic of China. We wish you to make the initial move by approaching the Chinese Ambassador in Paris.
I leave to your judgment whether you approach him informally at some official function or request an appointment in the ordinary way. One means would be for the Deputy Chief of Mission to contact or call on his Chinese counter-part and request an appointment for you with the P.R.C. Ambassador. The initial meeting could be held at either the Australian or P.R.C. Embassies and thereafter by mutual agreement. The important thing is to get talks started and to keep them alive. Douglas-Scott1 might also be present at the initial meeting in case he should be required to stand in later if you are absent from Paris. Care must be taken to avoid any publicity at this stage.
You should keep in mind that while the Government has taken no decision on the establishment of diplomatic relations with Peking—and you should avoid explicit reference to recognition or diplomatic relations—it has stated that our long-term objective is to normalize our bilateral relations with the Government of the People’s Republic. In order to work towards the progressive normalization of our relations, we wish to open a dialogue with the P.R. C. beginning with some of the matters of mutual interest which at present are being either handled through third parties or not handled at all.
You should say that Australia and the P.R.C. have now had a substantial trading relation for a number of years. For your information, Australian firms have in recent weeks sold about dollars 15 million of metal products, including silicon steel, pig iron and aluminum ingots to the P.R.C. We are happy for this trade to continue and we should like to see it expand in both directions.
Our attitude to China and the United Nations has been based on what we believed to be the wishes of the majority of its members and the attitude of the P.R.C. itself. Australian Ministers have looked forward to the day when the P.R.C. would play its role in the international community. If it is now the wish of the United Nations and the P.R.C. that the P.R.C. should enter the United Nations, Australia would certainly not oppose this. (You will know of our attitude on Taiwan’s membership and you will have copies of Prime Minister’s statement of 11 May and speech of 13 May).2
Your need not volunteer our views on the Security Council seat but if asked, should say that we assume that if there is a majority for the P.R.C. it follows automatically that it will assume the Security Council seat.
You should add that in addition to trade, there are various problems such as the presence in the P.R.C. of Australian nationals, cultural and sporting exchanges etc. which could usefully be discussed between us if the Chinese Government is willing.
If the question of recognition of Taiwan is raised you should say that we hope that a mutually satisfactory solution to all concerned could be arranged. You could add that we do not regard the R.O.C.’s claim to be the Government of all China as having any validity. It would be preferable not to be drawn further on these questions at this stage.
We wish for the present to confine knowledge of your approach to the Chinese and of subsequent meetings as closely as possible. We recognize however that the French are likely to learn of these matters very soon and you may think it preferable to take them into your confidence at the outset, without however, elaborating on what you propose to say. We also have in mind that there could be advantages in maintaining close contact with your Belgian colleague and benefiting from his experience. We will advise the United States, Britain, New Zealand and Japan separately.
[NAA: A1838, 3107/38/18/2]
- 1 K.R. Douglas-Scott, Minister-Counsellor, Australian Embassy, Paris
- 2 The existence of this sentence marks the only difference between Document 185 and the draft cablegram alluded to in paragraph 1, Document 184.