American reaction to the announcement of the setting up of an International War Crimes Tribunal to investigate U.S. wor crimes in Vietnam is indicative, not only of the U.S. administration's guilty conscience but also of the seriousness with whieh it views the outeawe of such impartial proceedings. sponsored by the Bertrand Russell Peace Foundation , the Tribunal has recently come into the news with the announcement of its provisional list of participants. \s the 'New York Hereld Tribune' coujuients, “Lord Russell has rounde@ up a set of judges with considerable standing among many throughout the world. Among them are former liexican President Lazaro Cardenas; French writer Jean-Paul Sartre; novelist Simone de Beauvoir; Italian lawyer Lelio Basso; Brazilian economist Josue de Castro; a winner of a Franklin D. 2ooscvelt i:.emorial Foundation award, who has been mentioned as a Nobel Feace Prize candidate; Italian social reformer Danile Delci, sometimes called the ‘apostle of the poor'; Peter Weiss, German=-Swedish author of the highly successful play ‘Marat Ssade'; and historian Isanc Deutscher, who was an anti-aliministration participant in the 1965 Vietnan all-day Teach-in.* ‘While the administration has considered what it might do, no decisions have yet been reached, officials say. Probably all the government could do directly would be to deny passports to potential American participants, but even this would doubtless be challenged in court. Hence the question next arises: will French President Charles de Gualle permit such a trinl in Paris? Thus far there has been no overture to the French on thisissue, officials say." The New York Herald Tribune admits that such tactics might involve the U.S. in further controversy which could scarcely be favourable to their Cause. ‘The trial involves both frecdom of speech and of the press. In France, the press is largely but not totally unsympathetic toward the American role in Vietnam and could be counted upon to raise « howl if Genral de Gualle blocked the gathering. Furthermore, the United States has said that it is prepared to defend its case-" Morally, U.S. policy in Vietnam is indefensible. egally, too, the administration is embarrassed by past utterances. Without repudiating the legality of the Nuremberg trials of Nazi militcry and political leaders after World War II, any defence of the appalling brutalities being inflicted on Vietnam would seem to be impossible. Article VI of the Nuremberg Charter cuotes as crimes coming within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal such violations as “murder, ill treatment or deportation of chvilian population of or in occupied territories .....; wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages ...., persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds." The relevance of these clauses to the indiscriminate bombing, the enforeced migration of whole areas of villages into concentration camps Inbelled ‘strategic hamlets', and the violent measures taken to curb Buddhist dsomonstrations in Vietnan are obvious. And it was 2n American participent at Nuremberg who excloimed that if the American Government itself was ever guilty of such crimes, he would expect that it, too, should be brought before the bar of world opinion.
ao &% «