顾维钧在1919年巴黎和会上的即席演讲（中英文）
古事今事，独家关注大事；事势时势，独立分析大势；正理悖理，独特道出大理。 关注微信日知新（微信号：rzx366)，知大事，识大势，明大理。喜欢，就关注一下。好东西也要分享呦。
神州日知 喁喁
顾维钧说，他非常高兴有机会代表中国把中国山东问题提交大会。他刚才很有兴趣地听取代表几百万人民的英联邦自治领的发言人谈话。
而代表占人类人口四分之一，也即四亿中国人说话，这一事实使他感到自身的责任格外重大。
中国代表团要求和会归还胶州租借地、胶济铁路，以及德国在大战前所占有的其他一切权利。
为了不占用“十人会”太多的时间，他愿意只讨论某些大的原则问题。至于技术性的细节问题，他在提交大会的备忘录里将有全面的阐述。
该租借地是中国完整不可分割的一部分。它们是山东的一部分，该省有3600万常住居民，其在种族、语言和宗教上都属于中华民族。
毫无疑问，大家对德国山东租借地的历史不会陌生。该租借地是德国用武力强行夺取的。之前德国舰队占据了山东沿海，其登陆士兵深入到中国内地。德国以勒索胶州租借地作为其撤兵的条件。
那次出兵山东的借口是两位德国传教士在中国内地乡村被意外杀害，这起事件完全超出中国政府的控制能力之外。
按大会所接受的民族自决和领土主权完整的原则，中国有权要求山东主权的归还。中国代表团将认为此举符合正义的和平要求。
反之，如果大会另眼相看，并把山东主权转交给任何其他一个强国，在中国代表团看来，那将是错上加错。
胶州和胶济铁路所在地的山东省是中华文明的摇篮，孔子和孟子的诞生地，对中国人而言，这是一块圣地。全中国人的目光都聚焦于山东省，该省在中国的发展中起着重要的作用。
就经济而言，该地区人口稠密，在只有3.5万平方英里的土地上居住着3600万人。其人口的密集导致了竞争的激烈，也使得该地极不适合殖民。某个强国的介入只会造成对该地居民的盘剥，而非真正的殖民。
就战略而言，胶州可谓华北的重要门户之一，它控制着从海边到北京的最短通道之一，也就是通过胶济铁路，并在济南连接通往天津的铁路而直达首都。为了中国的国防利益——中国终要形成自己的国防——中国代表团不能允许任何列强强求如此重要的地方。
中国完全清楚英勇的日本陆海空军为把德国势力清除出山东所作出的贡献，中国也深深感激英国在她自己在欧洲面临危险之时对此给予的帮助，中国也没有忘记其他协约国军队在欧洲为她所作的贡献，即牵制了敌军，否则他们就会轻易地向远东增派援军，从而延长那里的战争。
中国尤其感激这些贡献，因为她在山东的人民在夺取胶州的军事行动中，也曾遭受苦难和牺牲，尤其是在各种劳动力和物资供给的军事征用方面。
尽管深怀感激，但是中国代表团认为通过出卖同胞的天生权利，借以对协约国表示感恩，这将是对中国和世界的失职行为，并因此播下未来混乱的种子。
因此中国代表团相信大会在考虑处理德国在山东租借地及其占有的其他权利时，能充分重视中国基本和天然的权利、政治主权和领土完整，以及中国为世界和平事业服务的强烈渴望。
当胶州要塞的归还问题被提出后，顾维钧认为读一下日本给德国的最后通牒是有用的，因为该通牒表明了它的意图：
“按照目前的局势，采取措施清除那些影响远东和平的所有动乱之源，捍卫英日盟约所构想的总体利益，以确保东亚持久而稳定的和平——确立东亚和平正是英日同盟的目的所在——是非常重要的。因此日本帝国政府真诚地认为给德帝国政府如下两条建议是他们的责任：
（1）立即从日本和中国的水域撤退德国陆军和各种战舰，并当即解除那些不能撤退的德军的武器。
（2）至迟在1914年9月15日，须无条件无补偿地把胶州全部租借地交给日本帝国政府，以便将其最后归还给中国。”
自占领胶州后，日本事实上一直占据着这里，牧野男爵认为根据中日两国政府既已达成的所有协议，中国完全明白日本占据意味着什么。
双方关于该问题已友好地交换了意见，并且日本已经同意一旦日本能自由处置胶州，就尽快将其归还中国。关于胶济铁路问题，也已达成若干协议。
鉴于中日之间已经交换照会，顾维钧认为对中日的这些交涉作出声明，是值得“十人会”成员考虑的。
顾维钧说在归还胶州问题上，中国与牧野男爵持不同的观点。他在关于中国问题的声明中，并不愿表明日本在从德国获得胶州租借地及其他权利后，不会把它们归还给中国。
他又说，因为事实上中国完全信任日本对中国和世界的保证，即日本不会占据山东；而且他特别高兴地听到牧野男爵在大会上确认了这些保证。但是在直接和间接归还问题上存在着选择，中国宁愿采取第一个选择，即直接归还。如果两者的目标相同，一步到位总是较容易的。
至于日本全权代表所指的那些协议，顾维钧认为这应当是1915年因“二十一条”谈判所产生的若干条约和照会。没有必要对当时环境加以详细描述，说到底，中国政府是在日本最后通牒后于惊恐失措中被迫同意它们的。
除了条约、照会当时产生的情境，在中国政府看来，它们充其量只是临时的、暂时性的协约，并将由这次大会的最后讨论来决定，因为它们都是大战所产生的问题。
而且，即使这些条约和照会一直是完全有效的，中国对德宣战的事实根据情势变迁原则也已经改变了原来的形势，今天它们已经无须遵守。
中国过去曾被迫同意她将完全认可日本与德国在山东的权利、特权和租借地等问题处理上所达成的任何安排。但是该规定没有排除中国加入大战，也没有阻止中国作为参战国参加此次和会；它也因而不能妨碍中国要求德国直接归还山东权利。
更何况，中国在对德战争宣言中，已明确声明根据中德战争状态，两国间以往达成的所有条约和协定都视为无效。
既然租借协定已被废除，那么作为领土主权完整，胶州租借地以及其他德国在山东享有的类似权利和特权都全部归还给了中国。
即使租借条约不因中国的对德宣战而终止，德国也无权替代中国，将山东权利转交给其他强国，因为条约里已经就此作出了明确规定。
英文版
M.Clemenceau said that this part of the discussion was now adjourned. The Council would proceed to discuss the question of the German possessions in the East, together with the Chinese Delegates.
Mr.Koo said that he was very glad, on behalf of China, to have the opportunity of putting the case of his country before the Conference. He had heard with interest the Dominion speakers, who spoke on before of a few million people. He felt his own responsibility was enhanced by the fact that he was the spokesman of 400 million people, one quarter of the human race.
The Chinese Delegation would ask the Peace Conference for the restoration to China of the leased territory of Kiaochow, the railway of Shantung, and all other rights Germany possessed in that Province before the war. He would confine himself to broad principles in order not to employ too much of the Council’s time. Technical details would be explained in full in a memorandum which he proceeded to submit.
The territories question were an integral part of China. They were a part of a province containing 36 million inhabi tants, of Chinese in race, language and religion. The history of the lease to Germany was doubtless familiar to all. The lease had been wrung out of China by force. The German fleet had occupied the coast of Shantung and landing parties had penetrated into the interior. The lease had been extorted as a price for the withdrawal of the expedition. The pretext for this proceeding was the accidental killing of two missionaries in the interior of the country in a manner quite beyond the control of the Chinese Government. On the principles of nationality and of territorial integrity, principles accepted by the Conference, China had a right to the restoration of those territories. The Chinese Delegation would feel that this was one of the conditions of a just peace. If, on the other hand, the Congress were to take a different view and were to transfer these territories to any the power, it would, in the eyes of the Chinese Delegation, be adding one wrong to another.
The Shantung Province, in which Kiaochow and the railway to Chinanfu were situated, was the cradle of Chinese civilization, the birthplace of Confucius and Mencius and a Holy Land for the Chinese. All eyes of the people in China were centered on this Province which had always taken an important part in the development of China.
Economically, it was a densely populated country, with 36 million people in an area of only 35 000 square miles. The density of the population produced an intense competition and rendered the country quite unsuitable for colonization. The introduction of a foreign Power would only lead to the exploitation of the inhabitants, and not to genuine colonization.
Strategically, Kiaochow commanded one of the main gateways of North China. It controlled one of the shortest approaches from the sea to Peking namely the railway to Chinanfu which, at its junction with the railway from Tientsin, led straight to the Capital. In the interest of Chinese national defense which in time would be organized, the Chinese Delegation would be unable to admit that any foreign Power had claims to so vital a point.
China was fully cognizant of the services rendered to her by the heroic army and navy of Japan in rooting out German power from Shantung. China was also deeply indebted to Great Britain for helping in this task at time of great peril to herself in Europe. China also was not forgetful of the services rendered her by the troops of the other Allies in Europe, which had held in check an enemy who might otherwise have easily sent reinforcement to the Far East and thereby prolonged hostilities there. China appreciated these services all the more because her people in Shantung had also suffered and sacrificed in connection with the military operations for the capture of Kiaochow, especially in regard to requisition for labor and supplies of all kinds.
But, grateful as they were, the Chinese Delegation felt that they would be false to their duty to China and to the world if they did not object to paying their lots of gratitude by selling the birthright of their countrymen, and thereby sowing the seeds of discord for future. The Chinese Delegation therefore trusted that the conference, in considering the disposal of the leased territory and other rights held by Germany in Shantung, would give weight to the fundamental and transcendent rights of China, the rights of political sovereignty and territorial integrity, as well as to her earnest desire to serve the cause of universal peace.
Baron Makinmo said that he had listened with great attention to what had fallen from his Chinese colleague concerning the direct restitution of Kiaochow to China. In the statement put forward on the previous day, he had explained the reason for which the Japanese Government had undertaken the reduction of this German stronghold.
As the question to the restitution of the fortress had been raised, he thought it useful to read the words of the Japanese ultimatum to Germany, because it had a bearing on the purpose in hand:
“Considering it highly important and necessary in the present situation to take measures to remove all causes of disturbance to the peace of the Far East and to safeguard the general interests contemplated by the agreement of the Alliance between Japan and Great Britain, in order to secure a firm and enduring peace in Eastern Asian, the establishment of which is the aim of the said agreement, the Imperial Japanese Government sincerely believe it their duty to give advice to the Imperial German Government to carry out the following two propositions:
(1) To withdraw immediately from Japanese and Chinese waters German men o war and armed vessels of all kinds, and to disarm at once those which cannot be withdrawn.
(2) To deliver on a date not later than the 15th September, 1914. To the Imperial Japanese authorities without condition and compensation the entire leased territory of Kiaochow, with a view to eventual restoration of the same China.”
Since the occupation of Kiaochow, Japan had been in actual possession. In view of all that had passed between the Government of China and Japan, Baron Makino thought that China fully realized the import of Japanese occupation. The friendly interchange of views on this subject had been entered into, and Japan had agreed to restore Kiaochow as soon as Japan had free disposal of the place. Agreements had been reached with regard to the leased railways.
As notes had been exchanged, he thought that a statement of these engagements might be worth the consideration of the members of the Council.
President Wilson asked Baron Makino whether he proposed to lay these notes before the council.
Baron Makino said that he did not think the Japanese Government would raise any objection, but as the request was an unexpected one, he would be compelled to ask its permission.
President Wilson asked on before of China if Mr. Koo would do likewise.
Mr. Koo said that Chinese Government had no objection to raise.
M. Clemenceau asked both the Japanese and Chinese Delegates to state whether they would make known to the council the conditions of the restoration agreed between them.
Baron Makino said that he would do so, provided his Government would make no objection. He did not think it would. If it were within his power, he would produce these documents as soon as possible. There was, however, one point he wished to make clear. Japan was in actual posse ssion of the territory under consideration. It had taken it by conquest from Germany.
Before disposing of it to a third party, it was necessary that Japan should obtain the right of free disposal from Germany.
President Wilson pointed out that the council was dealing with territories and cessions previously German without consulting Germany at all.
Baron Makino said that the work now in hand was one of preparation for the presentation of the case to Germany. It followed therefore that the cession of Kiaochow would have to be agreed upon by Germany before it was carried out. What should take place thereafter had already been the subject of an interchange of views with China.
Mr. Koo said that China did not quite the same view as Baron Makino regarding the restoration of Kiaochow. He was far from desiring, in his statement of China’s cases, even to intimate that Japan, after obtaining the leased territory and other rights in Shantung from Germany, would not return them to China. In fact, he added, China had every confidence in Japan’s assurance to her and the world that she, Japan, would not retain them herself; and he was particularly glad to hear Baron Makino confirm these assurances before the Conference. But there was a choice between direct and indirect restitution. Of the two China would prefer the first. It was always easier to take one step than two if it led to the same place.
As to the agreements referred to by the Plenipotentiary from Japan, Mr. Koo presumed that reference was to the treaties and notes made in consequence of the negotiations on the twenty-one demands in 1915. It was not necessary to describe in detail the circumstances which were, to say the least, disconcerting to the Chinese Government, as the latter was constrained to agree to them only after an ultimatum from Japan. Quite apart from the circumstances of their making, however, they were at best, in the view of the Chinese Government, only provisional cause they were questions arisen from the war.
Furthermore, even if the treaties and notes had been entirely valid, the face of China’s declaration on Germany had altered the situation in such a way that on the principle of rebus sic stantibus they could not be enforced today. China had been made to agree with Germany on the disposition of Germany’s rights, privileges and concessions in Shantung. But the provision did not prelude China’s joining the war nor did it prevent China from participating in this Conference as a belligerent; nor could it therefore prelude her from demanding Germany direct restitution of her rights.
Moreover, in her declaration of war against Germany, China expressly stated that all treaties and conventions concluded between China and Germany should be considered as nullified by the state of war between them. If then the leased convention had been so terminated, the leased territory of Kiaochow and such other rights and privileges enjoyed by Germany in Shantung had all reverted to China as the territorial sovereign.
Even if the lease had not been terminated by China’s declaration of war, Germany would be incompetent to transfer it to any other power than China because of an express provision therein against transfer to another power.
本号所发文章除特别署名外，均为原创，未经许可，不得转载。观点仅代表作者本人，不代表本号立场。本号内容及商务合作热线：18911155596，邮箱：1115557898@qq.com。欢迎投稿，开展商务合作。
喜欢这篇文章，点赞一下。关注本号，请长按或扫一扫下面二维码。
好东西要分享呦。