Paris, 11 December 1972
5730. Secret Immediate
Your 59751 —China
Chinese Ambassador, accompanied by his Counsellor, called on me 1500 hours 11 December. Meeting lasted for nearly two hours.
2. He passed over a reply from Cho[u] En–lai to Mr Whitlam’s letter (my 5727).2 Before presenting a revised version of the first Chinese communique,3 he made the following comments on our original communique:4
(a) At the end of our para (1), the Chinese wish to add the phrase ‘in conformity with the interests and common desires of the two peoples’ .
(b) In our para (2), the Chinese wish to delete the phrase ‘in accordance with the principles of the United Nations Charter and .. .’ . The reason for this change was that the PRC has made no mention of the UN Charter in previous joint communiques with other countries:
(c) Also in our para 2, the Chinese have amended our version of the Five Principles of peaceful coexistence as follows:
‘ The two Governments have agreed to develop their diplomatic relations, friendship and cooperation between the two countries on the basis of the principles of mutual integrity, mutual non–aggression, non–interference in each other’s internal affairs, equality and mutual benefit and peaceful coexistence.’ . Their comment was that they did not wish to refer to third countries in this type of communique.
(d) They wish to combine our paragraphs (3) and (4) because they had difficulties in agreeing to our wording. Their version to replace our paras (3) and (4) was as follows:
‘ the Government of Australia recognises the Government of the PRC as sole legal Government of China and Taiwan as a province of China. The Government of the PRC appreciates the above stand of the Government of Australia.’ .
(e) They wish to delete the entire last paragraph of our draft on the grounds that the sentiments expressed therein have been included in the declaration of the decision to establish diplomatic relations which encompasses the concept of friendship and co–operation between our two countries. The developments in relationships referred to in our paragraph are matters which should and could be discussed after diplomatic relations have been established.
3. The Chinese Ambassador went on to say that the PRC welcomed Australia’s proposal to sever diplomatic relations with Taiwan once it had been announced that diplomatic relations were to be established. He added that although the PRC understood that Australia would not be able immediately to cut all private ties with Taiwan, the PRC was unable to agree that Australia and Taiwan would continue to have unofficial (underlined one) trade offices in Taiwan and vice–versa in the future.
4. Having made these points on our draft, the Ambassador handed over the revised version of their draft which covered the points above and reads as follows:
‘ joint communique of the Government of the People’s Republic of China and the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia on the establishment of diplomatic relations between China and Australia (revised draft).
The Government of the People’s Republic of China and the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia, in conformity with the interests and the common desire of the two peoples, have decided upon mutual recognition and the establishment of diplomatic relations as from …
The two Governments have agreed to develop their diplomatic relations, friendship and cooperation between the two countries on the basis of the principles of mutual respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity, mutual non–aggression, non–interference in each other’s internal affairs, equality and mutual benefit, and peaceful coexistence.
The Government of the Commonwealth of Australia recognizes the Government of the People’s Republic of China as the sole legal. Government of China, and Taiwan is a province of China.
The Government of the People’s Republic of China appreciates the above stand of the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia.
The two Governments have agreed through consultations to exchange Ambassadors as soon as the administrative formalities and practical arrangements have been completed, and to provide with each other all the necessary assistance for the establishment and the performance of the functions of diplomatic missions in their respective capitals on the basis of equality and mutual benefit and in accordance with international law and practice.’ .
5. I then went through the points made in your 5975. There was no difficulty over amending the appellation of the Government to ‘the Government of Australia’ . I said that I could see no difficulty with the addition proposed in (a) nor did I think that you would have problems over rewording the reference to the Five Principles. I expressed regret at their wish to delete our final paragraph because it added strength and depth to our intention to establish full and wide-ranging relations with the PRC right from the start. I then left the suggested amendment to delete reference to the UN Charter aside and moved straight to the question of the ‘recognition formula’ but indicated that deletion of UN Charter would pose no problems if we could settle on all the other matters.
6. In summary, the Chinese position on the formula which they put to me in answer to the points I made as contained in paragraph (9) of your cable, was that they could not accept as a precedent the wording from what they regard merely as joint statements or declarations with other countries for language in a communique concerning the establishment of diplomatic relations. The two things were for them fundamentally different in nature. The Chinese would not accept therefore wording either along the lines of the Japanese formula or anything approaching the American formula.
7. When I referred to Mr Whitlam’s understanding based on his conversations with Chou En–lai and the Foreign Minister5 in Peking last year that the Canadian formula would be acceptable to the PRC, the Chinese Ambassador stated that Peking had carefully examined the detailed record of those conversations and while they would agree that Mr Whitlam had discussed the Canadian formula with Chou En–lai and the Foreign Minister, the latter did not express either specific agreement or disagreement.
8. After further batting this ball backwards and forwards, the Chinese Ambassador asked me whether I could agree to all their points except that made concerning the ‘formula’ . Naturally I could go no further than saying that I could see no great difficulty for Australia on any of the other points. However, on the question of the ‘formula’ . I argued that Australia could not be seen to be equated by China with the Maldives. As I understood it, the essence of the PRC’s position was that Australia should give up her previous policy. This the Australian Government was fully prepared to do. But Australia should not be asked, in addition, to accept explicitly the Chinese position as China was proposing. Some middle ground had to be found. Moreover, the present Australian Government was not to blame for the fact that this whole issue of recognition and relations had not been settled long ago. If China insisted on her formula about Taiwan, it would look as if Australia was being penalized for the policy of others and even discriminated against. I had no further compromise to propose and if the PRC Ambassador did not have one, which I said would be sympathetically considered, I could only refer for further instructions.
9. This was sufficient to draw from the Chinese Ambassador a further proposal. This proposal was that we use the formula agreed between the UK and the PRC in March this year when they agreed to exchange Ambassadors. This formula would substitute the following paragraph in place of the third paragraph in the draft set out above:
‘ the Government of Australia recognises the Government of the People’s Republic of China as the sole legal Government of China.
The Government of Australia acknowledges the position of the Chinese Government that Taiwan is a province of the People’s Republic of China, [and] has decided to remove its official representation in Taiwan on …..
The Government of the People’s Republic of China appreciates the above stand of the Government of Australia.’ .
10. I thanked the Ambassador for the suggestion and said that I would immediately seek instructions upon it.
Trade Relations
11. The Chinese Ambassador placed considerable emphasis on the PRC’s firm wish that no trade offices at all would be established in either Taiwan or Australia after recognition. When the Japanese example was mentioned, the Chinese merely stated that the Australian case on diplomatic relations was different to that of the position of Japan. When I suggested that the problem might be one of wording and that ‘liaison office’ might be better than ‘trade office’ . the Ambassador disagreed and repeated no (underlined) offices for trade. This matter will need consideration by you in the light of what other countries such as Canada now do about whatever trade ties they may still have with Taiwan.
Disposal of Taiwan Property in Australia
12. This subject gave rise also to discussion. I explained clearly that our difficulty in agreeing to the PRC’s request was a legal one and said that until relations with Taiwan were severed, we had no power to prevent the representatives of Taiwan from selling property. I said that this was yet another reason for both our Governments to move quickly to establish relations.
13. The Chinese Ambassador said that he did not find my explanation satisfactory and that although he understood the legal position, he believed that out of friendship for the PRC, the Australian Government should be prepared to take steps to influence property agents and others against making a deal with the Taiwan representatives to sell their properties. I replied that friendship was not involved. It was a question of law. The Ambassador summed up by saying ‘we agree to disagree’ .
14. We agreed that we would have our next meeting at the Chinese Embassy as soon as I had further instructions. On departing, the Chinese Ambassador said that he thought it would be appropriate to sign the communique in our Embassy when that moment arrived.
Comment
15. Regarding the final paragraph of our draft communique, please see the last paragraph of Chou En–lai’s letter to Mr Whitlam. This seems to give us what we want publicly—if it can be used publicly.
16. The same friendliness prevailed as at the first meeting of this series. It is my impression that as regards ‘the formula’ . the Chinese will not (repeat not) move any further. As regards trade offices, they were very firm and I can see no give also on this aspect. I have the feeling that as regards Taiwanese properties in Australia, the issue is closed and I recommend we make no further response unless we have to do so.
17. If you are prepared to accept the British formula and decide not to ’stick’ on the trade office question, the way should now be clear to concluding and signing the communique by the end of this week.
18. The press here is ignorant of this second meeting.
19. To be crystal–clear, I am sending the full text of the final revised Chinese draft of the communique by separate telegram.
Renouf.
[NAA: Al838, 3107/38118/6, i]
1 Document 354.
2 See footnote 2, Document 347.
3 See Document 352.
4 See Document 348.
5 Chi P’ .ng–fei.