Your article on the International War Crimes Tribunal (November 25) raises many serious and thoughtful questions. You ask why the tribunal has received a bad press and has been the subject of much criticism. One important reason is that the press itself has much to answer for with respect to the war in Vietnam. There is a certain analogy with the press response to the criticisms of the Warren Report. Much of the reporting then, as now, has been tendentious and our statements and data have received less than fair play. I have the unusual responsibility of mentioning that The Guardian was fair and Le Monde gave 4 dispassionate and largely factual account. The worst offenders have been The Times and The New York Times, which gave almost no information and indulged in petty abuse. The relationship between the Bertrand Russell Peace Foundation
and the tribunal is not so difficult to understand. The initiative in calling for the tribunal has been Bertrand Russell's. The preparatory work for bringing the tribunal into existence has fallen to the Bertrand Russell Peace Foundation. The tribunal, however, is an autenomous body. Its eminent members are deeply involved in every facet of the proposed work. Now that the tribunal is formally constituted, the Russell Foundation's relationship to the tribunal is that of a sympathetic body with no control over the tribunal's activities. I can assure you that during the four days of private sessions of the tribunal the most touchy and explosive issues were debated intensely and without any advance indication as to how they would be resolved. The decisions are the result of consensus and are those of the tribunal alone. This is as it should be and as it will be to the end. I have been elected secretary-general of the tribunal. This is an administrative post. It authorises me to assist the tribunal in its preparatory work, but entirely precludes any ability to predetermine procedure, let alone the conclusions of the tribunal's investigation. It is not clear to me why you raise the question of impartiality. The tribunal was most explicit and precise on this point. All of the members of the tribunal have strong views which have been expressed privately and publicly. In his speech opening the tribunal, Bertrand Russell said:
"I feel certain that this tribunal will perform an historic
role, if its investigation is exhaustive. We must record
the truth in Vietnam. We must pass judgment on what we
find to be the truth. We must warn of the consequences
of this truth. We must, moreover, reject the view that only
indifferent men are impartial men. We must repudiate the
degenerate conception of individual intelligence which
confuses open minds with empty ones. I hope that this
tribunal will select men who respect the truth and whose
life's work bears witness to that respect. Such men will
have feelings about the prima facie evidence of which I
speak. No man unacquainted with this evidence through
indifference has any claim to judge it." It seems to me that this passage from Bertrand Russell's opening address answers completely the question raised by Peace News regarding the problem of “impartiality.” There are few tribunals, trials or commissions of investigation whose members do not have views bearing on the subject under inquiry. It is a bit hypocritical of the established press to pose this question, when they report daily the judgments of judges whose opinions are well-known on a range of political questions. There is no possibility of "impartiality" in the sense discussed in your article, and it is accepting fallacious assumptions to allow the streagth or weakness of the tribunal's investigation to be assessed on the basis of such erroneous criteria.
You raise the further question of our “a priori conclusion about what constitutes a war crime - that it is a crime committed by an aggressor." By inference, you suggest that acts of violence themselves constitute crimes and, thus, the distinction between the aggressor and the victim of the agyrecssion is an insufficient one. I understand your position but, speaking for myself, cannot agree with it. Certainly, the resistance of the Warsaw Ghetto and partisan groups in occupied countries of Europe was seen in a fundamentally different way than the actions of the Nazis. You must be clear, however, that the tribunal stated it would have no reluctance to examine the resistance of the Vietnamese in all its aspects and, thus, to establish the pattern of behaviour in Vietnam. You may decide that the facts about the Vietnamese resistance constitute crimes. Others may decide in another way. The real question is whether the tribunal's investigation admits all relevant evidence as to the war in Vietnam and, on this, the tribunal has allowed no doubt whatever. I must ask you to distinguish the opinions of Bertrand Russell or of myself from the findings of the tribunal. It is not necessary for you to be confused about this issue. Our previously expressed opinions constitute no barrier to the exhaustiveness of the tribunal's investigation. If you oblige us to be blank slates, you will not satisfy anyone who is really hostile to a thorough investigation, because the problem rests not with the investigation but with their hostility to it. You appear to be slightly ill-informed about Lord Russell's oft-repeated remarks concerning the precedent of Nuremberg. These opinions of Bertrand Russell have anopeared in the London Times, The New York Times and in a long article in Le Monde on October 15:
"There was, however, a moral ambivalence rooted in
the nature of the Nuremberg trials. Nuremberg was a
trial conducted by the victorious party over the
defeated. Nuremberg was conducted by a real-politik
alliance of powers and yet, through the legalisms of
force majeure, crept the voice of humanity, a voice
crying out against the unconscionable criminality of
the Nazi terror. I have called for an International
War Crimes Tribunal because, once again, crimes are
taking place of such magnititude that civilisation and
conscience dare not be so laggard as to be unable to
devise a mode of assessment and condemnation consonant
with decency and the survival of elementary standards of
justice." I can hear you complaining that, in this passage, Lord Russell presupvoses the existence of such crimes. He does. The tribunal addressed itself to this question when it stated that there was an overwhelming prima facie case, derived from sources favourable to those apparently responsible. It
ts this prima facie case which has caused the tribunal to come into existence. There could hardly be such a tribunal if there were not strong evidence of crimes requiring its existence: The questions you raise about Nuremberg are thus anticipated by Bertrand Russell, who has been one of those most sensitive to them. In his opening speech, he said: "The tribunal has no clear historical precedent. The
Nuremberg Tribunal, although concerned with designated
war crimes, was possible because the victorious allied
powers compelled the vanquished to present their
leaders for trial... Despite these inhibiting factors,
which call in guestion certain of the Nuremberg
procedures, the Nuremberg Tribunal expressed the sense
of outrage which was virtually universal at the crimes
committed by the Nezis in Europe ... Our own task is
more difficult, but the same responsibility obtains.
We do not represent any state power, nor can we compel
the policy makers responsible for crimes against the
people of Vietnam to stand accused before us. We lack
force majeure. The procedures of a trial are impossible
to implement. I believe that these apparent limitations
are, in fact, virtues. We are free to conduct a solemn
and historic investigation, uncompelled by reasons of
state or other such obligations." The British peace movement executive, worried about “being brought down" because of the War Crimes Tribunal, might reflect on the care and impressiveness with which the tribunal has approached its task. I hope a more imaginative response will be found in the movement at large.