1967年1月苏联撤离驻华外交官的妻子和儿女，于是中共针对他们在北京机场进行了丑陋的抗议表演，当时Boyd还是一名英国驻华外交官。直到1968年3月苏联才允许一些外交官的妻子到中国探亲，可就在4月6日当两位苏联外交官夫人乘苏联飞机抵达北京机场时，却遭遇了大约500名身着制服的航空学院（the Aviation Institute）革命派的抗议，他们挥舞着毛语录高喊“滚回去，苏修婊子”。不过示威者明显是有秩序的，他们没有对在场的苏联人动武。
另一件事情和捷克驻华大使Kristek有关，他打算搭乘4月7日返航的这架苏联飞机回布拉克一趟。可中方告诉他飞机已客满，大使回应说那他可以替换下已定好该航班机票的捷克外交信使。但中方不同意，理由是还有三十人排队等退票呢，大使不能插队，这时苏联航空公司介入说如果是这样的话他们可以调来一架更大的飞机把这三十人也带走。无论如何，捷克大使经过一番与中共激烈的交锋还是在4月7日乘机离开北京。
Whitney建议对这些事件不要过分解读，责任人可能是北京机场或者民航总局，但他个人认为这和外交部再度出现的批判陈毅之风有关系。
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
RESTRICTED
(PEK/8) Office of the British
Charge d’Affaires,
PEKING.
9 April, 1968.
Dear John,
You will recall that when the wives and children of Soviet Embassy personnel in Peking left China in January 1967, the Chinese staged ugly demonstrations at Peking airport at the time of their departure.
2. During the last few weeks some of the Russian wives, but no children, have been allowed by the Soviet Government to return to Peking to spend a month or two with their husbands. The Soviet plane which arrived, some thirteen hours late, on Saturday, 6 April, carried two of them. According to reports from various colleagues, when the women got out of the plane they were treated to a hostile demonstration by about 500 uniformed revolutionaries from the Aviation Institute, who waved their red books at them and shouted such things as “Go home, revisionist bitches”. The demonstration was orderly and there was no violence used either against the wives or the Russians who were at the airport to meet them.
3. A second story concerned with the airport is currently going the Peking rounds. The Czech Ambassador here, Mr. Kristek, intended to return to Prague for a short visit and proposed to leave on the Aeroflot plane I referred to in paragraph 2 when it left on 7 April. The Chinese told him that the plane was fully booked. The Ambassador replied that in that case he would take over the seat of one of the two Czech diplomatic couriers who already had reservations for the flight. The Chinese said they could not agree to this as there was a waiting list of thirty would-be passengers who must have priority over the Ambassador. According to one embellishment of the story, Aeroflot then stepped into the picture and said that if that were the position they would lay on a larger plane which could take the thirty extra passengers. Whatever may be the truth of this last part of the saga, the fact remains that in the end the Ambassador did manage to leave on 7 April but only after some bitter exchanger which could have done no good for Sino-Czech relations.
4. Taken by themselves one cannot read too much into these incidents. They may conceivably be the work of a few revolutionaries at Peking airport or in CAAC, the Chinese airline company. It seems more likely, however, that they are a manifestation of a slight resurgence of revolutionary pressures in foreign affairs circles which has been noted in our letter (sent under this reference today) reporting the attacks on Ch’en Yi.
I am copying this letter to Colin Wilson in IRD, Frank Brewer in JRD, George Walden in Hong Kong and to Chanceries at Moscow, Prague and Washington.
Yours ever
Ray
(R.W. Whitney)
Far Eastern Department.
出处：英国外交部档案FCO21/31
