1959年3月25日上午11点10分，三名复旦大学的右派学生朱大丰、章鹤立、周铿临进入英国驻北京代办处并寻求政治避难。英国外交官虽然很同情他们，但没有能力给予保护。英国人让他们填下签证申请表，这样显得有正当借口进入代办处。他们不听英国人的劝说，拒绝自愿离开代办处。在英国参赞的同意下，六名公安在中英外交人员的带领下于下午5点左右进入英国代办处，逮捕了这三名右派学生。
他们在被捕前写下呼吁书《向全世界热爱自由和支持正义的人们求助》，请求英国人转交给路透社、BBC和香港媒体，其中写道：
“我们作为政治犯和右派，今天是冒着生命危险和被中国政府定为叛徒的危险闯进英国代办处的。1957年我们在野蛮和强力之下被迫承认是右派。在被迫从事残酷劳动的同时，我们还要报告思想情况。尽管中国政府声称以‘人民内部矛盾’来解决右派问题，但实际上地、富、反、坏、右的遭遇是一样的。
近来当局又在准备把我们关进劳改监狱，无奈之下，我们只好逃到英国代办处寻求庇护。我们逃进代办处才几个小时，中国政府就准备闯进来逮捕我们，这既是对国际法、庇护权的蔑视，也践踏了使馆的神圣权利。
我们听说中国政府已经捏造谣言说我们打倒了代办处门口的警察才闯进来的。可像我们这3个被强迫劳动折磨得没有人样的学生怎么敢攻击全副武装、受过训练的公安呢？我们请求全世界热爱正义、自由和维护人权的人们给予我们道义和法律上的支持。”
四天后，新华社1959年3月29日的《内部参考》第2739期以《三个右派分子闯入英代办处要求“政治避难” 公安机关已将他们全部逮捕》为题报道了此事，但其中不确之处甚多，比如：三个人名就错了两个，朱大丰误为“朱大峰”，周铿临误为“周鉴林”；英国人给他们填写的是签证申请表格而非“加入英国国籍申请表”；其中所谓“他们见代办处门前有不少石灰，即用手帕和纸包住石灰，向警卫人员行凶”的闯关情节也未必真实。
《内部参考》说周在3月23日来到北京当天即到英代办处门前试探，并向“警卫人员诡称：他的亲戚在新加坡被英国人抓去，他来抗议。”这个情节有可能为真，因为周铿临确有个亲戚（aunt）在新加坡，在被打为右派之前他就曾向英国驻上海侨务专员处申请过赴新加坡签证。
据这三名学生所填签证表格和网络资料，整理他们的简历于下：
周铿临，1936年11月2日生，上海人，复旦生物系1956级本科， 1985年在上海市经济管理干部学院工作，自修考上律师，现住上海市静安区。（见《笑谈人生，感恩母校—复旦生物系61届同学毕业五十周年聚会》；周铿临：《以法治厂势在必行》，《华东经济管理》，1986年第1期）；
章鹤立，1934年11月生，浙江绍兴人，复旦化学系1952级本科、1956级研究生, 1980年代曾就职杭州永明树脂厂有机硅研究所（见章鹤立：《306阴离子有机硅羟乳通过鉴定》，《杭州化工》，1984年第3期；《杭州市一九八四年度优秀科技成果奖励项目》，《杭州日报》，1985年12月25日）。
CONFIDENTIAL
FRO PEKING TO FOREIGN OFFICE
Cypher/OTP DEPARTMENTAL DISTRIBUTION
Mr. Wilson
No. 194 D. 2.42 p.m. March 25, 1959
March 25, 1959 R. 3.45 p.m. March 25, 1959
IMMEDIATE
CONFIDENTIAL
Addressed to foreign Office telegram No. 194 of March 25, Repeated for information to: Hong Kong Singapore
This morning three Chinese students from Shanghai made their way into
the compound and took refuge in the Head of Chancery's house demanding
political asylum. One
of these, who has relations in Singapore, had applied at our Consulate in Shanghai
for a visa to Singapore and said that he had subsequently been persecuted as a
rightist. The other two also claimed to have suffered for rightist opinions. We explained to them that there
was very little we could do for them and made them fill in visa application
forms in order to provide some kind of excuse for their entry to the compound. Having done so they refused
to leave the compound in spite of continuous efforts to persuade them.
2. At 11.30 the Ministry of Foreign
Affairs asked the Counsellor to come round urgently. They said that three "gangsters" had
penetrated into the British compound after "injuring" the policeman
on duty at the gate (this is, of course, most unlikely to be true). They asked us to
persuade the people concerned to leave the compound. The Counsellor explained
to them that we had been trying to do so for two hours; it was agreed that we
should make one further effort at persuasion and that, if this failed, the Chinese should send
police to be admitted into the compound by a member of my staff in order to remove the
three students.
3. Final efforts to induce the
students to leave the compound failed and with considerable
difficulty (it was a Chinese half day) we contacted the Ministry of Foreign
Affairs again. At
about 5 o’clock six policemen escorted by a Member of Protocol Department were
admitted into the compound by the Chinese secretary and removed the three
students, who offered no
resistance.
4. The students were almost
certainly bona fide "rightists". They had clearly thought out
their move with some care and quoted to us the case of Nagy and of Four Tsung as well as an alleged statement by the
C.P.G. in 1950 recognizing the diplomatic immunity of Embassies. It was
extremely distasteful to hand them over again to the Chinese authorities, but I
cannot see that we had any choice. We were, in fact, about to
contact the Ministry of Foreign Affairs ourselves when they
first rang us up.
5. The students left behind with us statements
which they wanted to be issued by Reuters and B.B.C. I think it possible that the
two Western Press correspondents in Peking will hear something of what happened
and will
make enquiries
of us. I would recommend that, if possible, no publicity be given to the case and
that I should only give the bare facts in answer to enquiries. Only if, as I
think unlikely, the Chinese publicize the case should we consider giving
further details likely to discredit the Chinese Government. I would be grateful
for immediate guidance on this.
Foreign Office please pass to Hong Kong as my telegram No. 97.
[Copy sent to Telegraph
Section Colonial Office for repetition to Hong Kong],
DISTRIBUTED TO: ADVANCE COPIES:
Far Eastern Department Private Secretary
South East Asia Department Sir F. Hoyer Millar
Information Policy Department Mr. MacDermot
Information Research
Department Head of Far eastern
Information Executive
Department Department
News Department Head of News Department
Protocol Department
7777777 CONFIDENTIAL
______________________________________________________
AN APPEAL POR
ASSISTANCE TO PEOPLE ALL OVKR THE WORLD WHO LOVE FREEDON AND
SUPPORT JUSTICE
We, three
students of Futan
University, Chinese political offenders, Rightists, today, at the risk of our
lives, at the risk of "being condemned "by the Chinese Government as traitors,
without any weapons or money, ran through the front gate of the British Charge d’Affaires’ compound. In 1957, during the period of the
Rightist struggle which was to decide who were "probable" criminals, we were picked out
as Rightists, at that time under the pressure of force and barbarism we were
compelled to admit that we were Rightists. After we were recognised, we were subjected to a life of cruel
forced labour. We needed permission to go more
than half a mile from our place of work, our daily hours of work were
normally 12 or
more, to speak even the most
ordinary sentence was to ask for criticism of our thoughts. We usually returned exhausted from our work, but we still
had to write reports on our thoughts and to perform various other
tasks. Moreover, despite the fact that the Chinese Communists and Chinese
Government had said that
they would use "the methods of internal contradictions among the people" to
solve the Rightist problem; in fact the treatment given to landlords,
rich peasants, counter-revolutionaries, bad elements and Rightists was exactly the
same.
Furthermore,
recently
preparations have been put forward to collect us into labour prisons. The so-called "Education
through Labour" is as described above and we had no choice but to flee to
the British Charge
d'Affaires’ office and request asylum. The power to grant asylum is that decided on
in the "Decisions
of the Standing Committee of the 44th Session of the Society for the Study of
International Law" and this decision has been recently published in a
book of ’Collected Material on International Law’ published by the Chinese
People’s
University. But a few
hours after we had escaped into the Charge d’Affaires’ Office, the
Chinese Government was preparing to enter and detain us. In doing this they are showing their
fundamental contempt for international law and the right of asylum as well as trespassing on the sacred
rights of embassies.
At present it is very difficult to forecast our fates, we have heard
that the Chinese Government has fabricated a rumour that we struck the
policeman at the gate and has told this to the
British Charge d’Affaires. In fact, are 3 students who have suffered the ill treatment of compulsory labour
still not human beings, how would they dare strike an armed and trained
ordinary policeman? We especially request lovers of justice, freedom and those
who
maintain human rights all over the world, to give us their utmost moral and
legal support.
We urgently await (a response?)
SIGNED Chang Ho-li
Chu Ta-fang
Chou K’eng-liu.
T0 BE SENT TO REUTERS, HONG KONG NEWS AGENCIES AND THE B.B.C
______________________________________________________
T0 BE GIVEN TO REUTERS OR HONG KONG NEWS AGENCIES OR THE B.B.C
Three Chinese Rightists - political offenders, at 10.10 a.m. Peking time today, fled into
the compound of the British Charge d’Affaires, determined to demand asylum and
assistance in leaving the country according to the basic international law as
enunciated in "The Decisions
of the 44th
Session of the Standing Committee of the Society for the Study of International
Law - Asylum
under International Law”.
These three Rightists are members of Futan University, Shanghai:
Chang Ho-li, of the Chemistry Research Institute;
Chu Ta-feng, a student of the Department of Journalism; and
Chou K’eng-lin, a student of the Department of Biology.
They state that from 1957, when they were accused
without reason of being Rightists, they have endured inhuman compulsory
supervised labour, political control and discrimination. Moreover, informers
among them have sent accusations to the Central Committee with the result that they have suffered
very severe persecution, the accusations have been alike in that they too have
been entirely without
foundation.
In fleeing to the compound of the British Charge d’Affaires, they have exposed
themselves to very great danger. Moreover, they have only demanded asylum after
first consulting international law and the decision of the 44th Session of the Standing
Committee of the Society for the study of International Law, which has been
published in a recent publication of the People's University "Collected
Material on International Law", But a few hours after the three offenders
had entered the Charge d’Affaires’ compound, the Chinese Government still rigidly
insisted they could not find asylum in the compound. Moreover, the Chinese
Government slandered these three saying that "they were deranged and that
because of ill treatment while doing compulsory labour are completely exhausted
and had also struck the policeman at the gate.
These three students have lived safely in the compound for 3 hours
but their fate when they leave will be extremely difficult to forecast; but they
hope public opinion in the whole world will give them the strongest
possible support.
出处：英国外交部档案FCO 371/141321
没有评论:
发表评论