On the question of Republican desire to maintain its own
representatives in countries overseas, whilst you will best be
able to judge from local situation how contentious this is likely
to become, it would appear to us that it should not be allowed to
bring about a break-down in forthcoming talks.

We assume that what Republican Government desires is a
continuation of its existing practice of having informal
representatives abroad who do not carry diplomatic status but who
are in a position, like Usman in Australia, to perform a range of
practical functions, e.g. purchasing of supplies and provision of
specialised information. The Dutch, if they do not actually insist
that such overseas representation is unnecessary and undesirable,
will no doubt at least demand that any such Republican
representatives abroad be brought under the direct jurisdiction of
Netherlands diplomatic missions.

There seems to us no reason why, given some degree of mutual trust
between the parties, the present arrangement should not be allowed
to continue and be extended. It is after all not far removed from
the practice whereby Australian States maintain their own separate
representatives in London. Perhaps an even closer parallel is
provided by the presence in Australia of a special representative
of the Sultan of Johore.

In any event we do not see how the Dutch can in the last resort
prevent the Republic from maintaining contact with its own
representatives abroad. If the Dutch were prepared to face
realities they would realise that a flat refusal to meet the
Republic on this point would drive the Republic to maintain
clandestine channels of communication to contacts abroad which
would defeat the Dutch purpose and would at the same time breed
further ill-will between the two parties.