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3日，新华社发表中共外交部新闻司发言人声明谈话，抗议保加利亚制造两个中国。（全文见附件A《强烈抗议保加利亚政府无耻反华》，1969年6月4日《人民日报》第5版）
6月8日，《纽约时报》发表文章《有迹象表明台湾缓和其强硬的反苏立场》。（英文全文和中文摘要见附件B，转自英国外交部档案FCO 21/520）
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）。
6月13日，英国驻美国大使馆向英国外交部远东司送去了4月19日《华盛顿邮报》和6月8日《纽约时报》报道的影印件（见附件F，出自英国外交部档案FCO 21/520）。
6月24日,英国外交部远东司Orr谈顾毓琇访苏和台湾官员访保，指出顾虽然侨居国外，仍然是国民党政权的一员，据1967-1968年中国年鉴，他还是国大会代表。Orr认为台湾政权对苏联和东欧政策的变化源自认识到美国对华政策长远来看必将变化，为此要为台湾对共产党国家的外交政策留有余地（见附件G，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）。
7月29日，英国驻华代办处Laughton致电英国外交部远东司Boyd，说负责对外联系的苏联驻华公使说国民党官员没有访问莫斯科，因为他们没有被邀请来。公使言谈间给人的印象是与蒋介石政权打交道是一件太琐碎无聊（frivolous）的事情，俄国人不想牵涉其中（摘要见附件I，出自英国外交部档案FCO 21/457）。
～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～
A. 1969年6月4日《人民日报》：强烈抗议保加利亚政府无耻反华
新华社三日讯 中华人民共和国外交部新闻司发言人三日发表谈话，就保加利亚政府追随美帝、苏修公然邀请蒋介石匪帮所谓“政府代表团”参加在索非亚召开的“世界政府间旅行会议”，制造“两个中国”阴谋的极其严重的政治事件，向保加利亚政府提出强烈的抗议。谈话全文如下：
最近，保加利亚政府公然邀请蒋介石匪帮所谓“政府代表团”参加于五月十五日在索非亚召开的“世界政府间旅行会议”，演出了一场制造“两个中国”的反华丑剧。保加利亚政府竟把早已被中国人民唾弃的政治僵尸蒋匪帮的“代表团”捧为上宾，“热情接待”，多次邀请其参加保官方的活动。这是保加利亚政府追随美帝、苏修制造“两个中国”阴谋的一个极其严重的政治事件，是对中国人民的无耻挑衅。对此，我们表示极大的愤慨，并向保加利亚政府提出强烈的抗议。
保加利亚政府早就亦步亦趋地紧随美帝、苏修干着制造“两个中国”的罪恶勾当。他们曾通过各种途径多次同蒋匪帮进行勾搭。保报刊还一再把中国的台湾省称为“国家”，公然刊登中国人民公敌蒋介石的照片。现在保加利亚政府又不顾中国政府的一再警告和强烈抗议，一意孤行，坚持把蒋匪帮的“代表团”邀请到保加利亚，塞进由日夫科夫亲自主持策划和保方担任主席的“世界政府间旅行会议”。这是保加利亚政府蓄意制造“两个中国”，敌视社会主义中国的又一新的罪行。
保加利亚政府这次制造“两个中国”的严重事件，是在苏修指使下干的。长期以来，苏修就积极配合美帝阴谋制造“两个中国”，同蒋匪帮勾勾搭搭。早在一九六三年苏修叛徒集团就公然让蒋匪帮作为一个“主权国家”在臭名昭著的所谓部分禁止核试验条约上签字；多次同蒋匪帮“代表”坐在一条板凳上开国际会议；最近又专门派“记者”去台湾活动，直接同蒋匪帮进行反革命勾结。苏修报刊还多次刊印蒋匪帮的旗子，把蒋匪帮盘踞的我国领土台湾省称作“国家”，把蒋介石称为“总统”。在这次“世界政府间旅行会议”上，苏修代表团团长特地代表包括蒋匪帮在内的各“代表团”，向会议的组织者——保加利亚政府“表示感谢”。据报道，蒋匪帮的“代表团”在这次会议结束后，还将去苏联活动。这就充分说明，保加利亚政府这次制造“两个中国”的反华丑剧是苏修一手导演的。这个事件告诉人们，那些还挂着“社会主义”招牌的叛徒们，已经堕落到何等可耻的地步！
谁都知道，保加利亚日夫科夫修正主义集团是苏修一手扶植起来的走狗，一贯追随苏修猖狂反华、反共、反人民。他们在去年八月就曾经充当苏修社会帝国主义武装侵略捷克斯洛伐克的帮凶。他们一直跟随苏修象狂犬吠日一样疯狂诬蔑攻击伟大的中国共产党和伟大的中华人民共和国。他们在苏修一手制造了武装侵犯我国领土珍宝岛事件以后，连篇累牍地发表反华文章、讲话、声明，为苏修新沙皇侵略行径摇旗呐喊。这次他们又跳出来充当美帝、苏修制造“两个中国”的可耻工具。
世界上只有一个中国，这就是中华人民共和国。中华人民共和国政府是代表全中国人民的唯一合法政府。台湾从来就是中国领土不可分割的一部分。蒋匪帮只是在美帝刺刀保护下的一具政治僵尸，根本不代表任何政权和任何人。用战无不胜的毛泽东思想武装起来的中国人民一定要解放台湾，坚决反对任何制造“两个中国”的阴谋。美帝国主义和苏修社会帝国主义及其走狗妄图制造“两个中国”的阴谋是永远不能得逞的。我们要严正警告保加利亚政府，保加利亚是同中华人民共和国持有外交关系的国家，你们必须立即停止制造“两个中国”的活动，否则将对由此而产生的一切后果承担全部责任。
B. 1969年6月8日《纽约时报》：有迹象表明台湾缓和其强硬的反苏立场
最近，3名中国国民党政权的官员到访保加利亚首都索非亚，参加“国际官方旅行组织联合会”大会。据信这是1949年以来中国国民党政权官员第一次获许到访共产党国家，他们是经维也纳前往索非亚的，途中未经过其他共产党国家。驻台湾外交圈认为这是台湾与苏联改善关系的最新一步。
虽然未能联系上这几名官员进行评论，但台湾消息人士表示此行没有任何政治意义“非常简单，我们接到邀请，就去了。至于会议是在保加利亚举行，我们并不在乎，如果会议是在美国举行我们也一样去。这仅仅是一次旅游会议，没有任何政治讨论”。
但在台观察家对此解释表示怀疑，毕竟长时间以来蒋介石政权视共产党国家为死敌，派官员到访东欧的决定只可能是政府最高层才能做出。一位美国外交官认为“看起来国民党和苏联就达成某种共识更进了一步”，“苏联要是真相缓和对台关系，就必须征求其他共产党国家和政党的支持，而不能使外界认为是苏联的单方面行动”，而“保加利亚作为苏联的卫星国（采取主动邀请台湾代表）无疑是很好的选择”。
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。
众多迹象都表明蒋介石政权在缓和对待苏联的敌意。在今年三月份中共与苏联在乌苏里江的边境冲突问题上，受到官方控制的台湾媒体对苏联表示同情，而且台湾外交部也不再提起这片有争议的领土属于中国的说法。
一本名为《沙俄帝国侵占中国史》的教材也不再被列为台湾大学生的必读书目。原本到处可见的国民党基本政治口号“反共抗俄”已被简化成“反共”，最近又加上“反毛”。蒋介石在今年的新年致辞里就讲到“我们唯一的公敌就是毛泽东，现在到处都有我们反毛的同志。”
据信俄国人过去几年来一直在悄悄地改变对国民党政权立场，他们在1965年就开始邀请国民党驻日本代表出席苏联驻日大使馆的宴会。国民党虽然正式否认不存在对苏联政策改变，但很多观察家都认为国民党在采取行动应对美国改变对中共政策。
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.
Significance Denied
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. “Theycan’t afford to make it look as if it is only their idea. And the Bulgarians, as a good satellite, are a logical choice.”
Speculation Rampant
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 theChinese-Soviet border clashes on the Ussuri River last March, theGovernment-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 officialconfirmation 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
China/Bulgaria/Taiwan
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.
～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～
D. 1969年6月10日，英国外交部东欧和苏联司Bache致电英国驻保加利亚大使馆Rycroft女士
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”?
～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～
E. 1969年6月13日英国驻保加利亚大使馆Rycroft回电英国外交部东欧与苏联司Bache
Thank you for your letter of 10 June enquiring about the treatment and activities of the Taiwan delegation to the IUOTOConference.
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 inthe 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.
～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～
F． 1969年6月13日英国驻美国大使馆Spendlove致电英国外交部远东司Boyd
Victor Louis
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.
～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～
G. 1969年6月24日英国外交部远东司Orr谈顾毓琇访苏和台湾官员访保
China/Bulgaria/Taiwan
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).
～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～
H. 1969年7月3日英国驻保加利亚大使馆Rycroft致英国驻华代办处Laughton
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.
～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～
I. 1969年7月29日英国驻华代办处Laughton向英国外交部远东司Boyd报告：
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.
