Memorandum regarding a Discussion by Comrade Karl, Head of the China Section, with First Secretary of the Embassy of the PRC Qi Huaiyuan On October 2, 1973

[GDR Ministry of Foreign Affairs]

Far East Department

Berlin, August 3, 1973

Memorandum

regarding a discussion by Comrade Karl, head of the China Section, with First Secretary of the Embassy of the PRC Qi Huaiyuan On October 2, 1973

In place of the originally invited Counsellor Wang Yupei [sic], the First Secretary Qi turned up. Qi justified his appearance with the fact that the Amb. Pen Guangwei was traveling to Beijing for vacation today and since he still wanted to offer his condolences in conjunction with Comrade Ulbricht’s passing, Counsellor Wang could not come. Because of the presented situation and since the conversation was already rescheduled once, Comrade Karl conducted the discussion after he emphasized that he was actually tasked with speaking with Counsellor Wang. 

Comrade Kehr (deputy head of the West Berlin Section), Comrade Schael (China Section), and a Chinese translator also participated in the discussion. 

First Secretary Qi first expressed his condolences vis-à-vis Comrade Karl regarding the passing of Comrade Ulbricht. 

After some introductory words, Comrade Karl  verbally presented according to his assignment a statement from the Foreign Ministry of the GDR regarding the status of West Berlin and regarding a diplomatic activity of the Chinese ambassador to the FRG vis-à-vis the sitting mayor of West Berlin. For the exact wording of the statement, see the attached. 

Qi accepted the statement and expressed his readiness to convey this to the leadership of the embassy of the PRC in the GDR. Regarding one notice he added also “for conveyance to the Foreign Ministry of the PRC.”

Qi then expressed the following “personal opinions” (summary): 

The PRC is proceeding with the West Berlin question on the basis of the real situation which has not arisen due to the policies of the PRC. As is well known, the PRC does not have any diplomatic relations with West Berlin. Therefore, all contacts between the PRC and West Berlin were conducted through diplomats in the PRC embassy in the FRG or in the PRC embassy in the GDR. There is in his opinion nothing unusual about this. 

The PRC has always supported the GDR’s position on the question of West Berlin, its policy of defending its sovereign rights. The PRC did not create the current situation. The GDR recognizes this situation. The PRC is not bound to the Quadrilateral Agreement. As a foreign state, however, the PRC handles West Berlin according to the current situation. If the GDR has objections against certain things, it should not turn to China. 

For the stated reasons, he could neither understand nor accept the regret and surprise of the Foreign Ministry of the GDR in connection with normal diplomatic activities. He could, above all, not understand that with such activities the interests of the GDR would be damaged. He regretted for his part the “conclusions of the Foreign Ministry of the GDR which do not correspond to the facts.”

The PRC wants to further develop normal relations with all states and regions on the basis of peaceful coexistence. That also counts for West Berlin, in so far as that is of interest on the West Berlin side. If the statement of the Foreign Ministry of the GDR serves the purpose of restricting the normal diplomatic activity of the PRC on the pretext that these activities would be used by the FRG against the GDR, he cannot not accept that. The PRC also does not give itself the right to counter the diplomatic activities of diplomats from GDR embassies in countries with which the GDR still does not maintain diplomatic relations. In conclusion, he added that the PRC is practicing a policy on principle, it is their sovereign right to carry out activities through this or any embassy and that the GDR should not orient itself according to interpretations of the FRG. 

The Comrades Kehr and Karl affirmed again the fundamental position of the GDR in the respective question and underscored that the GDR was not proceeding from the interpretations of publications in the FRG or West Berlin but rather from the facts. It was explained that the GDR in no way had objections to contacts with West Berlin as long as these did not touch on the status of West Berlin. The GDR must turn against all steps that compromise its legitimate interests and against efforts of certain forces in the FRG to aid in undermining the Quadripartite Agreement. On top of this it was pointed out that the FRG repeatedly attempts to treat West Berlin like a federal state and would like to direct relations of other countries with West Berlin through the FRG. Therefore, relations with West Berlin should be so shaped that the intention of the FRG to declare relations of other states with West Berlin as relations with a federal state not be accommodated. 

The discussion once more  went into the basic element of the status of West Berlin, which had been confirmed as binding under international law by the Quadripartite Agreement and according to which West Berlin is not an element of the FRG and may not be governed by it. The basic fact should be considered in the shaping of relations of other states with the FRG and with West Berlin. One had to proceed from the fact that the FRG is not just any country but the country that undertakes activities aimed against the GDR and which seeks to handle West Berlin like a federal state in the FRG. Therefore, the expressed activity of the ambassador of the PRC to the FRG vis-a-vis, the governing mayor of West Berlin gives the FRG the opportunity to make full use of this in their sense against the GDR. 

The atmosphere of the discussion was calm and matter of fact, on the side of the First Secretary and his interpreter, however, also tense. 

[signature]

Karl

Section Head

[…]