[On 6 June 1939, Stephenson wrote to Whiskard on the question of
Menzies's view that if a Minister were accredited to Japan one
should also be accredited to China (Document 77). He said that the
Foreign Office 'do not feel at all happy at the possibility of
separate Dominion representation in China in the peculiarly
difficult conditions which exist there', and explained the Chinese
attitude to extraterritorial rights and their likely refusal to
extend such rights to Australia. Stephenson asked Whiskard to use
his discretion in raising this question with the Commonwealth
Government, especially if there seemed to be any danger of a
precipitate decision or a premature announcement that a post would
be established in China. (See PRO: F0372/3319.)]

In conversation with the Prime Minister [1] today, I reminded him
that he had told me that he thought that if and when a
Commonwealth Minister is appointed to Tokio, one ought also to be
appointed to China, and asked him whether that was still his view.

He said that in any case he did not think a simultaneous
appointment would be possible nor was he at all sure that a
Minister would be necessary; quite possibly it would be found more
convenient to arrange for some Australian Liaison Officer to be
attached to the British Embassy.

I said that, speaking offhand, the latter suggestion seemed to me
to avoid the difficulties which would be created by the proposal
to appoint a Minister. I then sketched very briefly the points
raised in your letter of the 6th June. So far as I understood,
these difficulties were not necessarily insuperable; but in any
case, if any question of appointing a separate Minister arose,
they would need very careful consideration beforehand.

The Prime Minister fully concurred and said that, if and when the
question arose again, he would certainly let me know.

I took the opportunity of expressing the hope that there would be
no premature disclosure of the names of the men to be appointed to
Washington and Tokio. The Prime Minister replied that he was fully
aware of the extreme importance of obtaining the agrement of the
Heads of State concerned before any such announcement was made.

The difficulty was that he was finding it extremely difficult to
keep anything at all secret once it had reached the stage of
discussion in Cabinet! The Prime Minister intended, however, to
impress this point firmly on the minds of his colleagues.

I may add that the two names he now has in mind are Casey [2] for
Washington and Sir George Pearce [3] for Tokio. He himself thinks
the latter appointment would be admirable, but the difficulty is
that, for some reason or other, Sir George Pearce has never been a
particularly popular figure in Australia.

G. W[HISIKARD]