1969年5月15日至28日，三名台湾官员出访保加利亚，以中国代表团的身份参加“国际官方旅行组织联合会”大会（即International Union of Official Travel Organizations，它是World Tourism Organization 世界旅游组织的前身），据台湾报纸说这是1949年以来国民政府官员第一次外访共产党国家。
6月13日，英国驻保加利亚大使馆Rycroft女士回电英国外交部东欧和苏联司，报告台湾代表参加会议的情况，指出保加利亚赢得旅游大会主办权的条件就是接受所有会员国到会并给予相同待遇。在会议中有传言说苏联将借机安排台湾官员在返程时经过莫斯科，但未能确定这是否已经发生。不过会议开始时台湾在参会资格上遇到了些麻烦，由于苏联对东德代表团未获准参会感到愤怒，就指示大会资格委员会成员的匈牙利代表团阻挠台湾代表团参会。但台湾官员的资格文件准备齐全，所以很快就通过资格委员会的审查获准以“中国代表团”的身份参会（英国代表未就此发表意见）。在会议期间，保加利亚媒体没有报道参会代表团名单以及会上发生的激烈争论。当大会主席在电视上被问到是否有出乎意料的代表团与会时，他也只是含混带过。台湾代表团与会期间得到与其他代表团一样的对待，参加了保加利亚政府首脑日夫科夫（Todor Zhivkov）为与会者举办的自助餐晚宴。（全文见附件E，出自英国外交部档案FCO 21/457）。
7月3日，英国驻保加利亚大使馆Miss C.S. Rycroft致电英国驻华代办处J.D. Laughton提供台湾官员访问保加利亚的更多细节，比如：保加利亚政府在涉及“两个中国”方面还是比较小心的，虽然台湾代表团被邀请出席所有为会议与会者举行的活动，但保方特意要求台湾代表不要出席日夫科夫举行的某场晚宴，因为中共代表将参加晚宴，保方不希望这个场合出现麻烦；保方事先曾请美国驻保大使馆在必要的时候帮助台湾代表团，但最终台湾代表没有接触美方大使馆，这也暗示台湾方面受到了正常的款待，没有遇到麻烦；他们猜测台湾代表最终没有经过莫斯科返程，美国驻保使馆对此没有消息提供；另外台湾代表和美国、英国代表一样是14个投票反对成立政府间旅游组织的会员国。（摘要见附件H，出自英国外交部档案FCO 21/457）。
自从去年苏联代表维克多·路易斯（Victor Louis）到访台湾和现居美国的原国民党官员顾毓琇同时访问莫斯科（按：对顾访苏时间存疑，据说早在1960年6月顾就出席了在莫斯科举行的第一届国际自动化控制会议，即IFAC, the International Federation of Automatic Control）以来，对台苏新政策的猜测就在台北广泛流传。
Taiwan Shows Signs of Easing Its Rigid Anti-Soviet Attitude
Special to The New York Times
TAIPEI, Taiwan. June 7 — Three officials of the Chinese Nationalist Government recently visited Bulgaria in what some diplomats here regard as the latest step in improving relations between Taiwan and the Soviet Union.
The trip, to attend a convention of the International Union of Official Travel Organizations, is thought to have been the first authorized visit by Chinese Nationalist officials to a Communist country since 1949.
Two of the men, Chen Shu-yu of the tourism council of the Ministry of Communications and Li Cheng, deputy director of the Taiwan provincial government’s tourism bureau, returned to Taipei yesterday after two weeks in Sofia, the Bulgarian capital. The third, Tao Chung-yu, is press officer of the Chinese Nationalist embassy in Beirut, Lebanon.
The men traveled by way of Vienna and did not pass through any other Communist country.
Although the two tourism officials were unavailable for comment, a source dose to them insisted that the visit had no political significance. “It was all very simple,” he said. "We received an invitation to go, so we went.”
"The fact that the conference was in Bulgaria did not matter to us,” he went on. “It would have been the same if our delegates had gone to the United States. There were no political discussions, it was just a tourism conference.”
Long-time observers here are skeptical of this explanation. They note that for years Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek’s regime and the Communist countries have been bitter enemies. A decision to send representatives to Eastern Europe could have been made only at the highest levels of government.
As an American diplomat put it, ‘It looks like another step in the efforts by the Nationalists and the Soviets to come to some sort of understanding.”
“If the Russians really are serious in this policy, they have to enlist support from some other communist country or party.” he went on. “They can't afford to make it look as if it is only their idea. And the Bulgarians, as a good satellite, are a logical choice.”
Since the secret visit of a Russian operative, Victor Louis, to Taiwan late last year and the concurrent visit to Moscow of Ku Yu-hsiu, a Chinese official now living in the United States, Taipei has been filled with speculation about the apparent new policy.
There have been numerous signs that President Chiang’s regime was moderating its hostile attitude toward the Soviet Union. During the Chinese-Soviet border clashes on the Ussuri River last March, the Government-controlled Taipei press sympathized with the Russians, and the Foreign Ministry here dropped its contention that the disputed area was Chinese territory.
A textbook entitled “A History of Russian Imperialist Aggression in China,” which outlined these Chinese charges, has been dropped as required reading for college students. Equally significant, the Nationalists’ basic political slogan, “Anti-Communism and Resist Russia,” once seen on billboards throughout the island, was shortened to simply “Anti-Communism.” Recently this has been altered to “Anti-Mao.”
‘Only Enemy Is Mao'
In his New Year's Day message this year, President Chiang gave official confirmation to this new theme. “Our only national enemy is Mao Tse-tung,” he declared, “and we have innumerable anti-Mao comrades everywhere."
It is now believed here that the Russians have been quietly making overtures to the Chinese Nationalists since 1965 when they invited some Chinese representatives to a Soviet Embassy reception in Tokyo.
The Nationalist Government officially denies that any of the recent changes are significant and insists that too much has been made of them. But many observers here feel that the Nationalists' moves reflect a growing concern over possible modification of the United States’ China policy.
C. 1969年6月9日英国驻华代办处J.D. Laughton致电英国外交部远东司Boyd
2. As seen from here, the Bulgarians seem to have gone a long way in showing courtesy to what must be regarded as an official Nationalist delegation, and they seem to have pressed ahead in full awareness of Chinese objections. According to a Yugoslav source here, even his Communist colleagues, who seem to have known about what was going on for some little time, have been surprised by Bulgarian temerity.
3. Not only does Bulgarian action seem to have been incautious, it makes little sense except as part of a Soviet-instigated policy of flirtation with the Nationalists. We shall see in due course whether the allegation that the Nationalist delegation is going to the Soviet Union for "activities" after the conclusion of the conference in Bulgaria turns out to be true. My Yugoslav source said on 5 June he believed they would. This would make the cancellation of Victor Louis' second trip to Taiwan pale into insignificance. (You will have noticed that the NCNA items of 4 June referred to "missions" in the plural by a Soviet correspondent to Taiwan, and, for the first time I think, described the recent visit to Moscow by an ex-Nationalist professor now living in the United States as a Taiwan-inspired event.)
4. Only speculation is at present possible about Soviet motives. Ostentatiously "clandestine" visits in both directions and other minor contacts would have the effect of irritating and worrying the Chinese. It might also provide the Russians with some additional intelligence on China. If the Soviet Union went further, for instance in the direction of investments and oil supplies for an as alleged by NCNA, this would be more significant. I take it that the short to middle term economic gains (given that on present political assumptions, an independent Taiwan to which the Soviet Union has access is only a short to middle term proposition) would not themselves be a major consideration for the Russians. A more interesting, though at first sight slightly improbable explanation, is that the Russians might for strategic reasons want to bring influence to bear to ensure an independent successor regime when Chiang goes, and take on partly or wholly the mantle of the Americans. The likelihood at that moment seems to be that, with relations at rock bottom with Peking, the Russians see nothing to be lost in a flirtation with Taiwan, and possibly some economic (and intelligence) gains, and are keeping open their options.
The Chinese were apparently incensed by the Bulgarian invitation for what they described as a “so-called government delegation of the Chiang Kai-shek bandit gang to attend the World Inter-Governmental Conference on Tourism" and they suggested that the Bulgarians" thereby staged an anti-China farce of creating two China”.
2. The New China News Agency carried, on 3 June, a “Statement by the spokesman of the Information Department of Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Peoples' Republic of China on the grave anti-China political incident of creating 'two Chinas' engineered by the Bulgarian Government intailing after U.S. imperialism and Soviet revisionism". The statement claimed that the Bulgarian Government had gone to the length of treating as its distinguished guests the delegation from Taiwan and had invited it on many occasions to take part in official functions organised by the Bulgarian side. It suggested that in the past the Bulgarian Government had repeatedly engaged in underhand dealings with Chiang Kai-shek, through various channels, and that Bulgaria's press had ‘time and again called China's Taiwan province a "country"'. The statement suggested that the present incident had been engineered by the Soviet Union and it finished with an attack on Soviet revisionism.
3. In light of all this it would be interesting for us to have your comments on the activities of the Taiwan delegation to the IUOTO conference, both within the Conference itself and outside. Did the Bulgarian press pay any attention to the delegation and was it at any stage described as a "government delegation"?
Thank you for your letter of 10 June enquiring about the treatment and activities of the Taiwan delegation to the IUOTO Conference.
2. The Bulgarian press never listed the delegations attending this Conference. The lack of reference to Taiwan throughout signified little in itself since the press did not give any hints of the other stormy controversies and discussions of views within the Conference. When Petko Todorov, President of the Committee for Tourism, was asked on television whether there were any surprising delegations, he gave an evasive answer.
3. Bulgarin was only chosen as host country on condition that
she accepted delegations from all countries which had tourist organisations members of IUOSO, and gave them equal immunities and privileges. This promise was probably made in their eagerness to be hosts and not to spite the C.P.R . However, there were rumours during the conference that the Russians would take advantage of the visit to Sofia of the Taiwan delegation to arrange their return via Moscow. We have n t been able to ascertain whether this took place or not.
4. The Taiwan delegation did run into some trouble early on in the Credentials Committee (my letter 22/5 of 4 June to Anne Stoddart in Trade Policy Department). At the time it was said that the Russians, angered by the frustration of their attempt to introduce an East German delegation, had told the Hungarian delegate, member of the Credentials Committee, to try and block the Taiwan delegation. The Hungarian delegate was quickly silenced, as the Taiwan papers were completely in order, and the first report of the Credentials Committee declared the credentials of China, along with the bulk of the other countries (but excluding the British representative) in conformity with the provisions of Article 4 of the Standing Orders of the Conference. I gather there was further criticism in the main Conference before she was finally accepted. A Rumanian delegate ingenuously asked my why Taiwan had been invited: when I explained on the lines of paragraph 3, he said he quite understood but his country had to protest as a matter of form.
5. Throughout the conference the Taiwan delegation was given the same treatment as all the others, including a buffet dinner given by Todor Zhivkov.
I have had a somewhat guilty conscience that we did not in fact send the article which appeared in the Washington Post on 19 April which referred to Victor Louis' intended return to Taiwan. The report seemed to us to say little that was not already known but in the lighht of Kerr's letter of 27 May (not the first to refer to the article) I enclose a photocopy so that everyone is aware of what was in fact said.
2. A report of more immediate and associated interest appeared on 8 June in the New York Times, datelined Taipei, which refers not only Victor Louis’ visit last year, but to a number of visits by officials of the Nationalist Government to Eastern Europe. Whether or not there is any deeper significance in the visits to Bulgaria, time alone will tell, but the suggestion that a new alignment is perhaps emerging is not implausible.
3. I am sending a copy of this letter, with enclosures, to Hong Kong, Peking and Tamsui, as well as to Kerr in Moscow.
Please refer to Mr. Laughton's letter of 9 June under the same heading.
2. The three Nationalist officials who went to the conference on tourism in Bulgaria were, according to a Nationalist newspaper, the first Nationalist Government employees to attend an international conference in a communist country for twenty years. I would agree broadly with Mr. Laughton's assessment of Russian motives in allowing this flirtation to develop. However, I think it is worth pointing out that such events as this, taken together with our Victor Louis' visit last year, are equally indicative to a change of attitude on the part of the Nationalists. I would think that the Nationalists are aware of possible long-term shifts in American policy towards
China and are equally anxious to keep their own options open. They can certainly have nothing to lose by indicating to the Americans that they could look elsewhere for some form of protection.
3. With reference to paragraph 3 of Mr. Laughton's letter it might be worth pointing out that, as far as we know, the professor who recently visited Moscow, although expatriate, is still an active Nationalist. Professor Ku Yu-Hsiu is listed on page 518 of the 1967-68 China Year Book as a delegate to the National Assembly. Perhaps Research Department may be able to find out when he became a delegate and whether he now occupies a position of any importance in the Nationalist hierarchy (in the 1961-62 China Year Book he is not listed as a member of the National Assembly).
the Bulgarians were net deliberately setting out to formulate a two China policy. Apparently although the Taiwan delegates were asked to all the functions given for participants by the Bulgarian Government, they were specially requested by the Bulgarians not to attend the dinner given by Todor zhivkov, not withstanding their invitation to it, since some Communist Chinese would be present and the Bulgarians did not want to have any trouble there.
The Americans have told us that they were asked beforehand to offer help and facilities to the Taiwan delegation should they need it. However, in the event the delegation did not approach the Embassy. This would seem to suggest that they were given perfectly normal treatment during the Conference, and had no dfficulties,
We rather think that the delegation did not in fact return via Moscow. The Ambassador checked up on 30 June with the American Embassy and they had had no further information on this.
Taiwan was one of the 14 delegations which voted with us and the U.S.A. against the setting up of an inter-governmental tourist organisation.
For what it is worth, the Counsellor dealing with external affairs in the Soviet Embassy says the Nationalists did not visit the Soviet Union, "because they were not invited". He tried to convey the impression that dabbling with Chiang Kai-shek was much too frivolous a business for the Russians to get involved in.