录入者按：红色标记系录入者所加。
1966年9月28日，英国驻华代办处的J. D. I. Boyd向英国外交部远东司的D. C. Wilson（他就是后来于1987年任港督的卫奕信）报告近日北京红卫兵运动情况，主要包括以下内容。
一、工厂罢工
据某9月20日大字报称，北京针织厂的修正主义分子自9月12日发起罢工至今。罢工很可能是由于红卫兵的来访引起的，这也是为何官方连续通过人民日报呼吁不要因革命而妨碍生产。
二、西城区红卫兵纠察队的几个通令
Boyd概要讲了6个通令的内容，但没提到第1、2号通令，很可能和这两个通令都只有3句话，内容非常简单有关。
Boyd对第3号通令的发表时期记忆有误，经查该令发表于8月27日，而非9月初。他提到该通令说“不要强求人们用自行车灯。不要拦截老干部的车”，经查通令原文对应内容是
“五、为了给红卫兵在文化大革命中进行革命造反活动提供交通方便，我们认为，在路灯通明的马路上骑车，可以不必点灯。”和“四、绝不允许任何人无理勒令革命老首长搬家，辞退保姆，交出电视、沙发、汽车等，我们要坚决粉碎敌人的阶级报复，坚决反对绝对平均主义！”该通令还另有6条内容，此处略过不提。
对第6号通令，Boyd记录的内容包括“不要打人、跪、趴、挂黑牌、涂脸”，经查通令对应原文是“跪、趴、弯腰、负重、游街、长时间站立、长时间举手、长时间低头、长时间做重活，等等，都属于体罚及变相体罚，都不是我们所应采取的斗争方法。‘挂黑牌’，‘戴高帽’，‘唱嚎歌’，‘剃光头’等等，都属于侮辱人，都不是我们所应采取的斗争方法。”Boyd还记录到“Do not send letters of
persecution to them.”这条让人不明就里，笔者从未见过这个说法。经查，通令原文中有“不注重调查研究，不注重事实证据，反而片面轻信口供，迷信口供，并用武斗或威胁的方法逼人口供，逼出来了就信，这就叫逼供信。这种做法是盲目的，极易被坏人利用，这不是我们所应采取的斗争方法。”我猜 Boyd有可能是把“逼供信”这个词当作一种信件，译成letter了。
对第7号通令，Boyd记录的内容包括“处理五类分子应该经过公安局，”“对资本家决定监督劳动或驱逐出京时要考虑其家庭困难和身体因素”，和“已处理过的右派不必驱逐。”经查通令，以上三条对应原文分别是“处理（勒令离京回原籍的地富反坏），要与公安机关取得联系，处理办法，由公安机关主要负责决定。在这类人中，丧失劳动能力，原籍又无人抚养者，或原籍就在北京者，为了避免加重农民负担，一般可以不离开北京，就地监督改造。”“资本家不必离开北京，可以继续留在原单位接受改造。”和“右派分子不必离开北京，继续留在原单位，由原单位通过组织系统进行处理，更便于对这类人的斗争、监督和改造。”可以看到Boyd的概括有不准确之处，通令说资本家不必离京，并没有考虑其困难与否或身体情况，原文是说家庭困难的地富反坏可不必离京。
对第8号通令，Boyd记录的内容是“是否适用6号通令所提一般办法要视群众意愿而定”，经查，通令对应原文是“关于第六号通令中的不要长时间低头和站立的决定，应根据斗争的需要，由革命群众权宜处理。”另外，值得注意的是这个通令中再一次解释了为何以前驱逐资本家离京回原籍乡下的做法是不适当
的，通令说到“资本家留在城市里，发动受其剥削压迫，最了解其罪恶活动的工人来监督改造他们。这是符合党的政策的，是行之有效的办法，是资本家所最害怕
的。对于右派分子的处理，原则上与资本家同。我们不应该简单地把矛盾上交、下放，不负责任地把脏水泼到别人的院子里。”这个不要上交、下放矛盾的指示出自
毛泽东，就在这个通令发表的前一天周恩来在首都大中学校红卫兵代表第二次座谈会上引用了毛的话说“毛主席教导我们：矛盾不能上交，也不能下放，要自己解
决，不能以邻为壑。”（见1966年9月10日《周恩来在首都大中学校红卫兵代表第二次座谈会上的讲话》，宋永毅主编：《中国文化大革命文库》，2006年版。）
Boyd记录的第9号通令是关于红卫兵应如何对待外国人的，大概内容是“解释文化大革命，为10月1日做好准备，不要阻拦外国人的车，让外国人照相，尊重别国风俗习惯”。经查，该通令原文副标题是：《首都红卫兵纠察队西城分队指挥部关于“十一”接待外宾工作的意见》，以上各点对应原文是“分利用外宾 参观、访问、开座谈会、个别谈话的机会，大力宣传毛泽东思想，让他们把毛泽东思想的火种带到世界各地，烧起世界革命的烈火。不要阻拦外宾的车，不要围追外
宾，除了个别的别有用心的人之外，一般不阻拦外宾照相，保证他们的正常活动。对于外宾的衣着、装饰、爱好，也不要干涉。”
对于西纠第10号通令，Boyd记录到“不要在意外地来京红卫兵的出身不好问题，要照顾好他们，帮助他们与相应组织取得联系。”经查，该通令对应原文是“我们北京红卫兵和革命同志，应该举双手拥护中央决定，用最大的 革命热情欢迎来自全国各地的革命同学，” “对于一部分出身非红五类的同学，只要他们是革命的，我们也要热烈欢迎。” “全体红卫兵立即行动起来，尽一切可能解决外地来京同学的困难。各单位负责人应当迅速地，尽可能让出房子，和市委取得联系，把外地同学的住、吃、交通、医
药落实下来，并尽力满足他们的交流经验的要求。”
三、北航红旗在中央军委外静坐并同警卫发生争执
Boyd说近来最引人注意的是在国务院外张贴的关于北航红旗与军人冲突的大字报。不过Boyd的记述有些不准确，可能是大字报写的不清楚，或者Boyd不了解情况。实情是北航红旗的学生在8月25日至9月21日连续28昼夜在国防科工委外静坐，而且国防科工委和总参谋部、总政治部和国防部同在旃坛寺的一个大院，但中央军委是在景山前街20号。而Boyd认为北航红旗战斗队既在国防科工委外静坐26天，又有另外一个分队到中央军委外围攻警卫几天。Boyd把北京航空学院翻译成“Air Force Academy”（空军学院）也不恰当。另外，关于北航学生静坐的不同说法，参见原国防科工委副主任罗舜初的《国防部门前的二十八昼夜》和北航红旗戴维堤的《逝者如斯》http://www.cnd.org/CR/ZK08/cr502.gb.html。
四、一起令人沮丧的驱逐出京事件
Boyd向Wilson报告说，Wilson之前住北京时对面的邻居杨秀成（音）被红卫兵勒令离京了。9月15日红卫兵说杨是资本家，用六个名字开了八个账户，在家里地板下还藏了3000元现金，尽管如此还为子女上学申请奖学金。红卫兵要求杨在48小时内离京，第二天杨的四个子女就贴大字报谴责父亲，欢迎驱逐他出京的决定，并说“现在党才是我们的爹妈”。Boyd称此事depressing。
～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～
(1017/66) RESTICTED The Office of the British
Charge d’Affaires,
PEKING.
28 September, 1966.
The following, briefly, are
some further points of interest about the Peking scene.
2. A poster of 20 September
recorded the fact that a strike had been taking place
at The Peking Woollens Factory. The strikers were
"revisionists". Their strike had begun on 12 September and was still
going on. This little incident, presumably sparked off by a Red Guard visit,
shows very well why the authorities had to speak twice, through the People's
Daily, in that same week about not hindering production.
3. We have not reported on the interesting series
of T'ung-ling (commands) issued by the control squad of West Peking (where the
Control Squad movement started). The contents of some were as follows:
(Beginning of September) - No.
3 (from memory): Don't force people to use bicycle
lamps. Don't take away old cadres' cars.
(9 September) No. 6:
Don't beat people, make them kneel and bow their heads, hang placards on them,
smear their faces. Do not send letters of persecution
to them.
(9 September) No. 7: Handling of Five-Bad Elements should be done through the
Public Security authorities. Hardship and sickness are to be taken into
account when expelling capitalists from Peking or making them work. Rightists
dealt with once need not be gone over again.
(11 September) No. 8:
(A step back). No. 6 referred to gentle methods. Whether or not these are used
depends on will of masses.
(14 September) No. 9:
Treatment of foreigners: explain Cultural Revolution; make Peking nice for 1
October; don't pester foreigners and meddle with their cars; let them take
photographs (except badly disposed persons); respect different customs and
habits.
(14 September) No. 10:
Never mind bad background of many Red Guards from outside Peking. Look after
them, help them to liaise with appropriate organisations.
4. There is also a poster dated 10 September
listing specific points to look for when dealing with foreigners. Guarantee
their safety; respect their odd clothes and habits; don't close shops and
restaurants which they use. This poster is displayed
prominently outside the Friendship Store and similar organisations.
5. A most intriguing series of posters outside
the State Council recorded the siege of the Military
Affairs Committee, and more particularly its guardhouse, by 200 "Red Flag
Combat Troops" from the Air Force Academy for several days after 25 August
(a similar siege outside the Scientific and Technological Commission went on
for 26 days). The incident was deplored by Red Guards from the same
Academy. The "Red Flags" came to the M.A.C. on 25 August in search of
a man called Chao Ju-chang. When stopped at the guard-post, they camped on the
spot and made a nuisance of themselves, handing out leaflets, demanding to eat
in the guard-post and sticking up posters there. They disregarded the rules 0f
the guard-post. They quoted tendentiously from Mao, confusing contradictions
within the people with those between the people and the enemy. They said
"when the enemy is sharpening his knife we must sharpen ours" (which
was interpreted as a threat to the troops guarding the M.A.C.). They stopped
official cars and consistently refused to go to the appropriate reception room.
An officer called Chang, head of the guard-post, spoke to them in unofficial
terms on 3 September, making the points that the purpose of the unit was to defend
Mao, the M.A.C. and the Central Committee, and that the national good must
limit the actions of the "Red Flags". The problem of the man Chao was
an individual one and should be settled without involving the guard-post.
6. The final event worth reporting is the expulsion from Peking of the man who used to live
opposite you, Yang Hsiu-tseng. On 15 September the Red Guards demanded
his departure within 48 hours. He was a capitalist, had "eight Bank
accounts in six different names and 3,000 Yuan buried under the
floor-boards". He had collaborated with the Japanese but had later posed
as a progressive, finally applying for admission to the Party. Despite his
resources he had asked for scholarships for his children. The demand of the Red
Guards was quickly executed. The next day his four small children stuck up
their poster denouncing their father, welcoming his expulsion from Peking and
ending "The Party is Daddy and Mummy to us now". A depressing episode.
7. I am copying this to
Emrys Davies in Hong Kong, Information Research Department and Joint Research
Department.
(J. D. I. Boyd).
To: D. C. Wilson,
Esq.,
FAR EASTERN DEPARTMENT,
Foreign Office.
RESTRICTED
出处：英国外交部档案FO_371_186982
没有评论:
发表评论