2月6日和2月18日英国驻华代办Hopson分别在此事进行中和结束后向英国外交部比较详细地报告了事态的发展和总结，除此之外还有3份与此事相关的较短的报告。5份报告分别摘述如下（6日和18日报告全文附后）：
2月2日 Hopson报告：
中国针对法国使馆的抗议仍在持续，昨天法国驻华商务参赞Richard和妻子乘车返回使馆时，在门外被抗议者拦截约7个小时，其中Richard站在车外，他妻子被困在车里。当晚10点他们被军队救出带到派出所，次日凌晨3点被释放。人民日报已经刊登外交部的抗议，要求法方为此挑衅事件道歉和赔偿。
2月6日 Hopson报告：
2月1日，当法国商务参赞Richard和妻子试图乘车进入法国使馆时，使馆已被抗议人群包围住无法通行，Richard只好倒车，但轻微地擦到一辆停着的中国卡车。少年们就用棍棒砸车，Richard夫妇只得下车，而且Richard夫人还从一个少年手中夺下一只棍子，人群变得更加疯狂。Richard试图走入使馆寻求帮助，Richard夫人则回到车内试图把车开到旁边的车库。他俩就这样被分割包围了数小时。警察虽然来了，但仅能保证Richard夫妇的人身安全而已，最终来了一卡车士兵清出道路，先把Richard夫人带到派出所，又过了一个小时左右，才把Richard带出来，他在极端寒冷的天气中总共站了约7个小时。
当Richard夫妇在派出所时，法国驻华大使就被召到外交部会见副外长罗贵波。罗指控Richard夫妇故意挑起事端并致使多人受伤（这一点似乎没有任何事实依据）。法国大使表示抗议，中方然后提出两个所谓受伤的人的名字。副外长要求Richard夫妇承认错误并向伤者道歉，否则一切后果将由法方。在法国大使离开之前（已过午夜），外交部的红卫兵还向他进行了一次小型示威。直到凌晨三点左右Richard夫妇才从派出所回来。
法国人表现地非常冷静，他们决意等待中方先迈出下一步。法方自然拒绝承担责任或道歉。现在Richard夫妇就待在家里，法国使馆前仍然不时有抗议进行。
现在还无法预测事态会如何发展。如果不道歉的话，中国人也可能宣布Richard夫妇为不受欢迎的人，甚至可能在未道歉之前拒绝他们离境。
应法方要求，法国驻华商务参赞Richard及其家人已于2月11日乘机离开北京前往巴黎。虽然他有再度入境中国的签证，看来他不会再回来了，法方希望整个事件到此为止。
2月18日Hopson报告：
在2月1日事件中，Richard夫妇被军人解救到派出所并做了笔录，从事发至他俩回家休息总共持续了12个小时。
法方处理此事的方针是尽量低调，让Richard夫妇待在家里不出门。法国使馆还同中国外交部争辩说，即便确有事件发生，也不过是一起简单的交通事故而非政治或外交问题，所以应该交由有关当局按交通事故的正常程序来处理，而且Richards已经向警方提供了关于此事的说法。2月4日Richard被召到中国外交部，问及为何还未道歉。当他解释后，中方说如果下周还不道歉的话，法国使馆将为此承担责任。于是法方决定最佳的处理办法是将Richard尽快撤出中国。2月9日法方为Richard及家人申请离境和再入境签证。2月10日外交部打电话叫Richard当晚去一趟。当晚Richard在法国文化参赞（相当于律师）和一个会讲中文的法国人陪同下来到外交部。中方出席会见的是3个不透露姓名的人，他们挨个指责Richard故意挑起纷争，要求他道歉和赔偿，当然Richard以原有立场反驳了中方，坚称这只是交通事故、应有相关机构处理。在这3人都讲完后，为首的把带有离境和再入境签证的护照交给Richard，还说“事情并未结束”。Richard一家第二天就离开了中国。
考虑到中国官方已经报道了外交部副部长要求Richard夫妇公开道歉一事（按：参见人民日报1967.2.2《法驻华使馆人员竟驱车撞伤我示威群众制造严重挑衅事件 我外交部副部长召见法大使提出严重抗议》http://rmrbw.info/read.php?tid=364365&fpage=3 ），中方允许他们离境显然是大大降低了事态。我们的猜测是这起冲突完全是偶然的，而且中共高层，周恩来或者陈毅，决定如此重要的中法关系不应因这样一起荒唐的事件而受损。中国外交部可能就此得到指示先尝试让法国参赞道歉，如不道歉就悄悄放参赞走。
法国人对此事的结果很满意，我觉得应该恭喜他们的应对办法。法国使馆说还没决定将来会否让Richard返回中国。我猜他们会等等看中方是否会采取进一步举动，不过Richard很可能不会回来，如果此事一直悬在他头上的话。这非常遗憾，毕竟他为促进法中贸易做出了杰出的贡献，而且他在北京外交圈很有帮助。可以说法中关系已回归正常。
3月前，英国驻法国使馆政治处的Leslie Fielding报告：
法国外交部说Richard在中国的任期原本马上就要结束了，这次被迫离开中国当然不会再返回就任了。
Office of the British
Charge d'Affaires,
PEKING.
RESTRICTED
(10318/67) 18 February,
1967.
Dear Eddie,
You will have seen from my
telegram No. 190 of 13 February that Robert Richard, the French Commercial Counsellor, and his wife and
family finally left Peking on 11 February. I think it may be worth recording
something about this case for future reference.
2.
As you know, the incident,
which took place on 1 February, arose during a demonstration outside the French
Embassy when the Richards tried to reach the office by car. The crowd would not
let them through; Richard reversed, slightly brushing a stationary Chinese
lorry; they were then more or less dragged out of the car; Richard was isolated
on his way to the Embassy and Madame Richard was isolated on her way to the
garage; they were kept surrounded for up to seven hours in a sub-zero
temperature; were eventually extricated by a posse of troops who took them to
the police station where they gave their depositions; and finally got back to
bed 12 hours after the incident had started. Meanwhile the Ambassador had been
called to the Foreign Ministry and been told that the Richards must make a
public apology for injuring a number of the demonstrators (which was quite
untrue) or take the consequences.
3.
The French decided to play this as quietly as possible. The Richards
stayed at home and the French argued with the Ministry that if anything had
happened at all it was a mere traffic incident
and not a political or diplomatic question at all. It should therefore be dealt with in the normal way by the competent authorities
for dealing with traffic incidents to whom the Richards had already made a
statement. The French Counsellor was summoned
to the Ministry on 4 February and asked why
apologies had not been forthcoming. When he
explained why, the Ministry officials said that if no apologies were forthcoming
during the next week the French Embassy would have to take the consequences.
The French then decided that the best thing would be to get
the Richards out of China if possible. On 9 February they therefore applied for exit
and re-entry visas for Richard and his family. On 10 February the Ministry
telephoned to say that they wished to see Richard at the Ministry that evening.
He therefore went, together with the Cultural
Counsellor (who is a bit of a lawyer), and a French Chinese-speaker. When they arrived they were
confronted with three nameless gentlemen who, one after another, accused
Richard of creating a deliberate provocation, demanded apologies and
compensation, etc., etc. Richard denied this and refused to make any apologies,
taking the same line as previously that this was a traffic incident and should be dealt with by the
competent authorities as such. After all three of the Chinese
had said their piece, the first speaker then handed Richard his passport with
an exit and reentry visa in it, saying that the “matter was not yet closed”. The Richards left the next day without further ado.
4.
Considering that the Chinese Vice-Minister of Foreign Affairs had been officially reported
in the Chinese press as requiring an apology from the Richards, this was a pretty remarkable climb-down on the
part of the Chinese. We can only assume that the
whole of the French business was in fact accidental, and that someone on high,
either Chou En-lai or Ch’en Yi or both, decided that Franco-Chinese relations were too important to be
jeopardised by a silly incident of this kind. The Foreign Ministry were
therefore presumably instructed to get an apology if they could but if not, to
let the Richards go quietly.
5. The French are naturally
delighted with the outcome and I think they may be congratulated for playing it
so coolly. They say it has not yet been decided whether Richard himself will
return to China. I suppose they will wait and see if the Chinese take any
further action on the traffic incident, but it seems doubtful whether he will in fact come back, at any
rate as long as this is hanging over his head. This would be a pity because he
was an extremely helpful colleague and has done a first class job in promoting
Franco-Chinese trade. Meanwhile, I think we can say that Franco-Chinese
relations are back on an even keel.
I am sending a
copy of this letter to Leslie Fielding in Paris.
Yours Donald
(D. C. Hopson)
E. Bolland, Esq.,
Far Eastern Department.
RESTRICTED
Office of the British
Charge d’Affaires,
PEKING.
(10318/67) 6 February, 1967.
You will have seen all the fuss about the incident in Paris involving
Chinese students and the subsequent demonstrations against the French Embassy
in Peking (my telegram No. 143 of 2 February).
2. The nastiest incident took place on 1 February when the French Commercial Counsellor and his
wife tried to reach their Embassy in their car while a demonstration was going
on. They were unable to get through the crowd and in reversing slightly brushed
a Chinese lorry. Children then started hitting the car with sticks so they got
out and Mme. Richard removed a stick from one of the children. The crowd then
became menacing and Richard tried to get to the Embassy on foot to seek
assistance while Mme. Richard tried to drive the car to the nearby garage. They were then
isolated and kept surrounded for several hours. Police arrived, but only enough
to ensure their physical safety. Eventually a lorry-load of
soldiers arrived who managed to clear a way for Mme. Richard who was taken to
the police station, but it was another hour or so before Richard himself was
extricated. He had been standing in the street on an extremely cold day for
nearly seven hours.
3. While they were at the police
station the French Ambassador was summoned to the Foreign Ministry to see
Vice-Minister Lo Kuei-po who
accused the Richards of deliberately provoking an incident and injuring several
people in the process. (There seems to be no basis of truth for this at all.) The Ambassador
protested in his turn and the Chinese then produced two of the people who were
supposed to have been injured in the incident. The Vice Minister demanded that
the Richards should admit their mistake and apologise to the injured,
"otherwise they would be held fully responsible for any outcome of the
incident". Before the French Ambassador left (it was now after midnight)
he was presented with a small demonstration by Red Guards at the Ministry. The
Richards eventually got back from the police station at about 3 a.m. the next
morning.
4. The French are taking this pretty calmly and seem disposed to leave it
to the Chinese to make the next move. The French have naturally refused to admit
responsibility or apologise. The Richards meanwhile are staying at home and spasmodic
demonstrations continue in front of the French Embassy.
5. It is impossible to say at
present what the outcome will be. If no apology is made the Chinese may decide
to declare the Richards p.n.g. They might even give them the Jongejans
treatment and, having declared them p.n.g., refuse to allow them to leave until
an apology is forthcoming.
6. The French think, and I am
inclined to agree, that the incident in Paris was probably caused by some over enthusiasm on the part of the
Chinese students and was not deliberately instigated. The Chinese would, I think, have preferred to
concentrate on the Russians as their target. However they have been caught up
in their own propaganda machine. The fact that nothing happened in London would
seem to bear this out. The result in any case must be a deterioration in
Franco-Chinese relations, though how serious this will be and how long it will
last it is impossible to say at present.
I am sending copies of this letter to Bernard Ledwidge in Paris and
Nigel Trench in Washington.
Yours Donald
(D. C. Hopson)
E. Bolland, Esq.,
Far Eastern Department.
出处：英国外交部档案FCO21/31
没有评论:
发表评论