Historical documents
I have the honour to report that this morning I presented to the
Minister for Foreign Affairs a draft treaty for the abolition of
extra-territoriality between His Majesty's Government in the
Commonwealth of Australia and the Republic of China.
On receipt of your telegram No. SC. 1 of the 16th January, 1943
[1], I at once prepared a fresh draft of the Treaty and
immediately asked for an interview with the Minister for Foreign
Affairs, whom I saw at 11.00 a.m. on Wednesday 20th January, 1943.
The draft treaty which I presented to Dr. Soong included Articles
I, II, III, IV and VIII of the draft which I had the honour to
telegraph to you in my Telegram No. S.149 of the 28th November,
1942. [2]
I interpreted your instructions to negotiate these articles on the
lines of my draft as giving me some liberty in the matter of
verbage and I therefore decided to adopt the wording which had
been accepted in the British Treaty [3] where it differs from mine
only in the matter of drafting. I did this because I felt that the
Chinese, after having had a long bout with the British and
Americans, would resent discussing alternative drafting and might
be more disposed to make this the occasion for introducing new
matters and thus the negotiations would be prolonged and less
satisfactory.
It is necessary to strike while the iron is hot and while they are
in the mood. There is to be a celebration for three days,
commencing on the 5th February, on the abrogation of
extraterritoriality and the Unequal Treaties and I hope that our
treaty will be completed before this date.
I enclose a fair copy of the draft I have presented. Your
amendment to Article I (1) is included. [4] Mistakes seem to have
crept into the original draft from my manuscript.
With regard to Article I (2), the words 'domicile or home' are
inserted in the definition of Australian nationals. I feel sure
that this definition would have been questioned in the case of
Chinese nationals because the Chinese claim to protect Chinese who
have lived overseas for generations and they have the doctrine of
dual nationality. This would have raised a point and might have
caused some trouble. As the phrase 'Chinese nationals' does not
appear in the Treaty as now presented, it seemed unnecessary to
define it so I have omitted it and the same thing applies to
Article I (3). My Telegram No. S.9 [5] explains the position of
other amendments suggested or made.
In Article III of the Sino-British Exchange of Notes, the Chinese
Government agreed to give the British power to acquire land in a
very guarded form-it is subject to Chinese laws and regulations
and about this as you are averse to discussing the matters in
Article V now omitted and the same questions would be raised.
There is no doubt in my mind that the Chinese intend to raise the
question of equality of treatment at some stage and their
withdrawal of Article I in their draft [6] only suggests to me
that they believe a more convenient occasion will arise. They
probably have the peace negotiations in mind. Here, if the
precedent of 1919 holds, they will most certainly get a majority
behind them. This is the reason why I put it to you, as I did to
Mr. W. M. Hughes [7] in 1919, that such a general clause would do
good in satisfying the Chinese with a formal declaration provided
that you get a positive admission that immigration is a matter of
domestic jurisdiction; this would give Australia a very definite
advantage. The latter proposition is one which I think will almost
certainly secure a majority in a peace conference. I regard the
question as postponed.
When I presented the draft, I explained to Dr. Soong that it had
always been the intention of His Majesty's Government in the
Commonwealth of Australia to associate itself in some way with the
abrogation of the 'Unequal Treaties', an act which we had long
felt must be taken. I had now been instructed to ask for the
negotiation of a treaty on this matter and to this end had
prepared a draft which I handed to Dr. Soong. I pointed out that
the draft followed closely on the British and American Treaties.
Dr. Soong expressed his pleasure at the decision of His Majesty's
Government in the Commonwealth of Australia. He added that
Australia was in the position of a successor state to one of the
signatories of the original Treaty and it was, therefore,
desirable, from the point of view of completeness, that we should
be a party to the abrogation. He enquired whether the Exchange of
Notes had been included in the draft and I explained that it had
not, as most of the matters with which we wished to associate
ourselves were covered in the Treaty. He promised to study the
draft.
Copies of this despatch are being sent to His Majesty's Australian
Ministers at Washington and Kuibyshev and the Australian Minister
to the Netherlands.
[F. W. EGGLESTON]
[AA:A989, 43/305/2, v]