Paris, 12 December 1972

5747. Secret Immediate

China

I saw Huang and his Counsellor at the Chinese Embassy 1600 hours 12 December.

Meeting lasted almost two hours.

2. I began, as instructed, by pleading strongly and at length for the adoption of the Canadian formula. I concluded by pressing Huang to give me specific reasons why this formula could not be used in Australia's case so that I could argue the case further.

3. Huang said that there were, in fact, many such reasons but he had no authority to reveal them to me. If I wished, he would seek such authority from Peking but he had to warn me that I was wasting time. The PRC Government would not (repeat not) agree to employ the Canadian formula.

4. I said that in these circumstances it was in the interests of both countries to turn our attention to the British formula. I reserved the right to return to the Canadian formula if we could not reach agreement on a modified British formula.

5. I then presented Huang with another draft of the last Chinese draft (text follows by separate telegram) revised in accordance with your telegram 6062¹ and incorporating as para 3 the text in para 3 of that telegram. I then spoke to this paragraph as instructed.

6. There then ensued a lot of discussion in which I had to explain many times the reasoning behind the change in this paragraph. Finally, matters advanced when Huang asked whether I could give a commitment on behalf of Mr Whitlam that he would, upon the issuing of the communique, make a statement that relations with Taiwan were being severed and that the Australian Embassy in Taipei and Taiwanese representation in Australia would be withdrawn within five weeks. If I could make such a commitment and in this case only, would he (Huang) refer our new text to Peking.

7. I replied that this was the sense of my instructions. Huang then asked whether the attitude of the Australian Government was the text proposed or nothing at all?
I said that I could not answer this. If Huang now rejected our new text, I could only ask for time to reflect. But I could not understand why he should reject it because with the joint communique and the parallel statement, the Chinese position would be substantially met.

8. Huang said that in all the circumstances he felt justified in referring promptly our new text to Peking.

9. We then got on to the question of the omission of a date from the first paragraph of the revised text of the joint communique [t]hat I had earlier handed over. This led to a long discussion reminiscent of the UN.
I said that the problem was purely legal and technical and explained it fully.
Huang immediately charged that it was not legal at all but political–Australia wanted to drag her feet on the establishment of diplomatic relations. I was only able to budge him from this attitude by letting his Counsellor read para 5(c) of your telegram 597 5.²

10. Satisfied at last on this point, Huang remarked that no country with whom the PRC had relations had taken Australia's attitude and produced a dozen or so illustrations. Why did Australia have such a different legal position (I wonder why myself)? The PRC had to have a date specified.

11. I then tried all three formula[e] mentioned in your telegram 5975 only to have them each rejected. With Huang's temper starting to fray, I suggested that 'to-day' be inserted before 'decided upon' and the addition at the end of the paragraph of 'as soon as possible' . Upon rejection again, I proposed as another alternative the insertion of a comma after 'recognition' . Rejected once more, I suggested the insertion of 'as from to–day' between 'have' and 'decided' .

12. Huang then bad-temperedly asked whether Australia made the absence of a reference to time a sine qua non of the whole communique? I replied certainly not and after further pleading extracted a promise from Huang to refer the amendment 'have as from to-day decided upon ... ' to Peking.

13. Please advise whether you can accept this. It seems to me that at a pinch we could argue that with this version the establishment of relations would not necessarily be the date of the communique. Alternatively, can we not change our legal position and agree in the future that diplomatic relations exist as from when we and another country have agreed to establish them?

14. On the trade aspect, I spoke as instructed (para 7 of your telegram 6062). Huang said that he could only repeat what he had previously said–no offices either in Taiwan or Australia but the PRC recognized that private trade between Australia and Taiwan could not be run down immediately. I riposted that such trade would continue but under private arrangements. Huang asked me to explain 'arrangements' . I replied that by 'arrangements' I thought that what was meant was deals between businessmen not involving Governments as such. Huang seemed satisfied with this.

15. Huang then resurrected the question of preventing the sale of Taiwanese property before the severence of relations with Taiwan. He said that he wanted to warn me solemnly that if such sales took place, the development of relations between China and Australia would be damaged.

16. I replied that the Australian Government had no legal power to prevent such sales. Huang replied that whether the Australian Government had legal powers or not, it could stop the sales if it wished to do so as France had done. I denied this. Huang riposted that the Australian Government should seriously note his warning. I said that I would report this to you.

17. It was agreed that the next meeting would take place at the Australian Embassy when each party had received fresh instructions.

18. Finally, some small drafting changes in the version of the communique I tabled were agreed:–

(a) Change 'on' in the heading to 'concerning' .

(b) Leave out 'the' before 'common desire' .

(c) Change 'have agreed' in the first line of para 2 to 'agree' .

(d) Omit 'through consultations' in the first line of the last paragraph.

Renouf.

[NAA: A1838, 3107/38/18/6, i]

1 Document 364.

2 Document 354.