Paris, 23 March 1972
1350. Secret Priority
My telegram 13431 —China
You may possibly wonder why I chose not to rebut some of Huang’s points, notably that about ‘the fallacies’ and that about Vietnam.
2. I had three reasons for not doing so:—
(a) Huang thought that his talk should end when it did.
(b) I felt that ministers should have the opportunity to study what is the first formally–enunciated statement of position by Peking and decide what, if anything, should be said in reply.
(c) If on my own initiative I had decided to rebut the fallacies, an Australian representative could be said to have discussed the conditions China requires for recognition of the PRC, in other words, we would have begun a discussion about recognition.
3. From Huang’s cordiality and from that the fact that we now have a formal statement from Peking, I think the way has been left open for continuing the dialogue, without haste I suggest, if ministers wish to do so. However, the only way to do this, as I see it, would be to rebut ‘the fallacies’ and this would carry the implication in paragraph 2( c) above.
4. You will note that the reference to Vietnam was brought in only as regards the development of trade. This seems to confirm in an oblique way that Vietnam is not an obstacle to the establishment of diplomatic relations.
Renouf.
[NAA: A1838, 3107/38, xi]
1 Document 322.