「欽差」使命：沈宗濂在西藏(1943-1946)

1943年10月，沈宗濂取代孔慶宗成為蒙藏委員會駐藏辦事處處長。此項人事異動的消息公布後，引起了各界的矚目，其特殊之處，在於沈宗濂原係蔣介石的秘書，出任此職係由蔣介石直接指派，而非如慣例上由蒙藏委員會所任命。沈宗濂駐藏時期，西藏各界對國民政府的態度均有好轉，其原因固然是由於抗戰勝利，中國躍於強國之林，藏人目睹印人反英浪潮澎湃，對於英人在印勢力是否能持久產生疑慮，而沈宗濂在藏期間表現優異，也是原因之一。沈宗濂及其工作團隊，一反前任處長孔慶宗的官僚心態和大漢沙文主義，對於西藏問題抱持著承認現狀的務實態度，加上他們的身段柔軟，因此能夠迅速獲得藏人的好感。更重要的是，由於沈宗濂出身侍從室，能夠獲得蔣的充分信任與支持，以致於他所掌握的駐藏辦公室，不論是編制、人員或經費，均較前任處長孔慶宗時期充裕，並且用人自主，遇有問題尚可直接致電侍從室，而不需要層層請示。雖然如此，沈終其任內，在西藏問題上仍無法有所突破，推其原因，大致有以下幾項：（一）國府的邊政未上軌道，對藏情認識不足；（二）西藏堅守自主原則，對中、英採取「不即不離」的等距關係；（三）中、英雙方均堅守其國家利益，不肯讓步。

關鍵字

沈宗濂；西藏；蔣介石；孔慶宗；蒙藏委員會

並列摘要

In October 1943, Shen Zonglian replaced Kong Qingzong as the Director of the Mogolian and Tibetan Affairs Commission's Office in Tibet. Shen's appointment attracted the attention of political circles in Chongqing, the capital of wartime China, because he was directly appointed by Jiang Jieshi (Chiang Kai-shek) to take on a position that had normally been filled through nomination by the Mongolian and Tibetan Affairs Commission itself. During Shen Zonglian's residency in Tibet, the attitudes of Tibetan authorities and monastaries toward Nationalist China became positive. There are four major reasons for this attitudinal change. First, China had become one of the ”Big Four” in 1940s. Second, the Tibetan people started to doubt Britain's capacity to dominate India after having witnessed the rising of anti-British sentiment there. Third, Shen did an excellent job during his residency in Tibet. In contrast to the bureaucratic mentality and Han chauvinism of Kong Qingzong, Shen Zonglian and his team adopted a practical and flexible approach in dealing with Tibetan issues; accepted the existing relations with Tibet; and quickly earned the trust of Tibetan people. Finally, Shen Zonglian used to be on the personal staff of Jiang Jieshi and had Jiang's full trust and support, which gave Shen considerable autonomy in staffing and budgeting. Nevertheless, Shen did not made a breakthrough in solving the major Tibetan issues due to the three following reasons. First, the frontier administration under Nationalist rule was not on the right track, suffering from a poor understanding of Tibetan affairs. Second, Tibetan authorities had maintained an equal distance from China and Britain and preserved their autonomy. Third, neither China nor Britain was willing to make any compromises on questions of national interest in dealing with Tibetan issues.