Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T16:47:29.154Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

China and the European Community

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 February 2009

Dick Wilson
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

”France and China,” said Alain Peyrefitte, the Gaullist leader, in Peking two years ago, “ are objective allies.” In a broader sense it could be said today that China and the European Community are objective allies - even though they do not yet enjoy a formal relationship. The Chinese leadership has consistently and strongly supported the enlargement of the European Economic Community (EEC) which from the beginning of 1973 has joined Great Britain, the Irish Republic and Denmark to the original six founders (Belgium, France, West Germany, Holland, Italy and Luxembourg) in a venture which promises at long last an institutional framework within which Western Europe could move towards economic and political unity.

Type
Research Article
Information
The China Quarterly , Volume 56 , December 1973 , pp. 647 - 666
Copyright
Copyright © The China Quarterly 1973

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Ta kung pao (Hong Kong), 28 03 1957Google Scholar.

2. See, for a discussion of this, Findorff, W. B., “China and the European Community, new developments in China's international theory,” The Round Table (London), No. 251, 07 1973, p. 341Google Scholar . See also Yahuda, Michael “Chinese foreign policy after 1963: The Maoist phases,” The China Quarterly (CQ), No. 36 (1968), pp. 93–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar .

3. “A Strong Weapon to Unite the People and Defeat the Enemy: Study On Policy,” by the writing group of the Hupeh Provincial Party Committee, Red Flag, No. 9, 08 1971Google Scholar , and People's Daily. 17 August 1971. The translation cited is taken from CQ, No. 48 (1971), pp. 793–4Google Scholar .

4. Peking Review, 4 November 1972, p. 22.

5. See e.g. Bonavia's, David despatch from Peking in The Times (London), 10 01 1973, and again on 2 October 1973Google Scholar .

6. For arguments along these lines, see Le Monde (Paris), 26 06 1973Google Scholar ; and Asia Research Bulletin (Singapore), Vol. 3, No. 2, 07 1973, p. 1, 890Google Scholar .

7. People's Daily, 7 January 1973.

8. People's Daily, 31 October 1972.

9. See The Financial Times (London), 24 08 1972Google Scholar .

10. New York Times, 22 October 1972 (an AP despatch from Moscow dated 21 October 1972).

11. People's Daily, 12 September 1973.

12. The Times, 1 December 1972.

13. 2 July 1971, p. 36.

14. New China News Agency Bulletin (NCNA), 21 October 1972.

15. Peking Review, 12 January 1973, p. 19; People's Daily, 5 January 1973.

16. Interview on 21 August 1973, reported from The Hague in Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 24 August 1973.

17. The Times (London), 1 12 1972Google Scholar .

18. “From China With Love,” New York Times, 4 February 1973.

19. Le Monde, 12 July 1972.

20. Peking Review, 12 November 1971, p. 22.

21. Ching-chi tao-pao (Hong Kong), 1 01 1973Google Scholar .

22. Friheten (Oslo), 06 1972Google Scholar . See also the reactions of the French Party, L'Humaniti (Paris), 29 05 1973Google Scholar , and Le Monde, 30 May 1973.

23. 15 June 1973, p. 21.

24. The Broadsheet (London: China Political Study Group), Vol. 10, No. 3, 03 1973Google Scholar .

25. Sino-British Trade (London), No. 106, 07 1973, p. 5Google Scholar .

26. 16 May 1972; see The Times, 17 May 1972.

27. Sec China Trade and Economic Newsletter (London), Nos. 207 and 208, 01 and 02 1973Google Scholar , for details.

28. Ibid. No. 208, February 1973, p. 2.

29. The Financial Times, 28 March 1973.

30. Dated 9 November 1971.

31. There was speculation in Geneva in the summer of 1973 that the Americans, whose voice in the GATT is more influential than any other, had become interested in the possibility of inviting the USSR and China to follow the footsteps of the East Europeans into the GATT. The Republic of China was a founder member of the GATT but withdrew by telegram in the early 1960s: it might now be possible to argue Peking's “succession” to the “seat” and to dispute the validity of a telegram from Taipei purporting to give it up. But all this is speculative, since China has yet to weigh up her position on the GATT (which is not yet in the front rank of priorities for her) or to build up a corps of personnel knowledgeable about it. It is of interest, however, that the People's Republic should have approved the secondment to the United Nations (UNCTAD) of Mr Constant Chung-tse Shih, the only Chinese to have served in the GATT Secretariat and therefore the best-informed Chinese on its work, to advise the developing countries on their attitude to GATT negotiations.

32. No. 208, February 1973, p. 5. See also Lee, Christopher in The Times, 5 06 1972Google Scholar .

33. There is, of course, intense competition within the EEC to win big Chinese contracts. But Sir John Keswick, doyen of West Europe's China traders, foresees the day when the EEC countries will stage combined exhibitions in China: The Financial Times, 19 April 1973.

34. The Times, 23 October 1972.

35. Lee, Christopher in The Times, 5 06 1972Google Scholar .

36. Western Europe was, however, aroused by the excesses of the Cultural Revolution, especially the maltreatment of such innocent Europeans as Anthony Grey, the Reuters correspondent, and a number of technicians unlucky enough to be caught in the maelstrom. Traders in London say that liberal trading policies towards China were more difficult to push through their home government machine in the period 1967–71 as a result of this bad publicity.

37. 6 September 1973. Cf. the conclusion of Dubnik, Vladimir Reisky de, “Europe and the New US Policy Towards China,” Orbis, Vol. XVI, Spring 1972, No. 1, p. 104Google Scholar : “A United States detente with China cannot be made at the expense of Europe, but a US-Soviet detente could. For this reason Europe instinctively favours the former over the latter.”

38. Les Informations (Paris), 26 07 1971Google Scholar , reported in Le Monde, 24 July 1971.

39. “China and Western Europe,” Asian Survey, Vol. XII, No. 10, 10 1972, p. 819Google Scholar .

40. 17 July 1971. See also Malraux's, André views in The Daily Telegraph (London), 21 02 1972Google Scholar .

41. “China und Europa,” Neuer Zurcher Zeitung, 6 December 1972 – re-published in English translation in the Swiss Review of World Affairs, 02 1973, and in Current Scene (Hong Kong), Vol. XI, No. 5, 05 1973Google Scholar .

42. See Dubnik, Reisky de, Orbis, Spring 1972, p. 85Google Scholar .

43. Izvestiya, 29 March 1968.

44. Bressi, Giovanni, in Relazioni Internazionali (Milan), No. 43, 1972, and in European Review, Spring 1973, p. 10Google Scholar .

45. The Times, 14 February 1973.

46. Bressi, , in Asian Survey, 10 1972, p. 835Google Scholar .

47. Peking Review, 14 April 1972, p. 16. See also the NCNA correspondent's commentary on “ Mediterranean Hegemony Bid: A Soviet Revisionist Obsession” in Peking Review, 13 April 1973, p. 18.