Paris, 28 May 1971
2491. Secret Priority
Dialogue No. 4
On reading this morning of Austria’s recognition of the P.R. C., 1 it strikes me that the formula there used is precisely the same as that specified to me by the P.R.C. Ambassador yesterday that the P.R.C. Government should be recognized as ‘the sole legal government of China’. This, of course, begs the question whether or not Formosa is a part of China but in our case we would also be required to break off relations with the R.O.C.
2. There is no doubt from the conversation yesterday that the P.R.C. wants diplomatic relations with Australia. However, there is equally no doubt that the P.R. C. will not permit this unless and until we break off relations with the R.O.C.
It is mainly, I reckon, the existence of these relations that Australia, a country of some importance in the Pacific and in South-East Asia and one of the closest allies of the United States, has with Formosa which explains why the P.R. C. want relations with us. If we were to do as the P.R.C. demands, Peking would gain a political advantage of significance not only as regards Australia but also, they would estimate, as regards the United States and to a lesser extent other countries in our part of the world.
3. This is one of the reasons which makes me doubt whether our present approach will get anywhere. Another reason is to look at the question of relations between the P.R. C. and ourselves logically from their standpoint. In weighing our approach, they will, I imagine, say to themselves that trade and such things as sporting and cultural exchanges can be developed as matters already stand. There would therefore be no advantage to the P.R.C. in discussing the development of them formally by representatives of Governments. They will also argue among themselves (as they probably have done already) that similar discussions with the United States got nowhere: no-one could expect a different result from discussions with Australia.
4. In saying the above which amounts to pointing out that there appears to be little advantage to the P.R.C. in our approach, I am not suggesting any change in policy: to do so is not my job. I am merely explaining why I am pessimistic about the future of further discussions here. 2
5. Whether there will be any further discussions is an open question. When I tried to draw the P.R.C. Ambassador on this aspect in summing up the conversation, he deliberately avoided the future by saying he would report to Peking. We will therefore now have to wait and see whether in a reasonable time he asks for a further meeting. If not, I can, if you wish, ask to see him again on the grounds that you would like to know Peking’s reactions to yesterday’s conversation.
Renouf.
[NAA: A1838, 3107/38/18/2]
1 Austria established diplomatic relations with the PRC on 28 May 1971.
2 In a telephone conversation on 2 June, McMahon indicated to Shann that he disagreed with Renouf about paragraph 4. Shann noted in this record of conversation: ‘Should we not leave it alone now and wait for Renouf to ask Chinese at some social function whether he had reaction from Peking. PM said Yes’.