Canberra, 30 August 1971
865. Secret Priority
Chinese Representation
Your 623.1
Following is answer to your paragraph 4:—
(a) We want to be able to support the Americans, and co–sponsor their two resolutions, if that is at all possible.
(b) Over the past months, we have provided the Americans with suggestions and comment in considerable detail on resolutions and tactics. They know our views on the texts of their two resolutions.
(c) The Americans are still consulting countries on the wording of the resolutions. When the texts have been finalised and when we know whether a large and representative group will co–sponsor, we will then be in a position to decide on Australian co–sponsorship. Your 6272 suggests other countries are in the same boat.
(d) Ministers have not contemplated a vanguard role for us at this stage.
2. Your paragraph 1 (c). Our understanding is that the American IQ (‘any proposal … which would result in depriving’) would apply to the entire AR. Our own text (‘any question of the expulsion’) would be linked with a resolution for entry of the PRC or would be applied exclusively to the ‘expulsion’ portion of the AR.
3. Nishida (Minister, Japanese Embassy)3 told us 26th August that De Palma had told Japanese on 23rd August that current US intention is to submit its two resolutions in early part of September. De Palma added however that, if it were found possible to present only the IQ, it might be advisable not to submit a resolution as such but instead to raise a point of order before the vote was taken on the AR seeking a decision on the majority necessary for the adoption of the entire AR. He mentioned that this possible new tactic was presently being studied by the US.
4. Glad if you would clarify with Americans whether this is in fact part of their planning. In doing so, please protect source of our information. Especially if Americans are thinking of proceeding in this way (that is, to abandon use of the DR), one alternative might be to propose amendments to the AR which, either in combination with a Non–Expulsion resolution or alone, might offer a better chance of protecting the ROC. We are drafting possible amendments which, if you think might be useful, we could pass to you to discuss informally with the Americans.
[NAA: A1838, 3107/38118, xx]
1 25 August. It was written in response to Document 247. Assuming Australia was prepared to accept the US resolutions as a basis for exploratory talks, paragraph 4 asked what changes to the resolutions were desired, while paragraph 1 (c) questioned the notion that the US IQ resolution would ‘be any more mandatory in requiring [a] two–thirds majority for adoption of the entireAR than would our own NE, if it were adopted’.
2 26 August. It reported a working lunch between representatives of Australia, Thailand, Japan, New Zealand and the Philippines, and commented that none had been authorised to co–sponsor draft resolutions, despite insistence by all that every effort had to be made to retain the ROC seat. It also observed that some of the representatives detected suspicion among delegations that the United States would not be wholehearted in efforts to protect the ROC position.
3 Nishida Seiya, Minister, Japanese Embassy, Canberra.