There are, in fact, two sources of power. The first is the state with its institutions. Well, in this time of violence, most governments would be afraid, if they took such an initiative, that it might one day turn against them, and that they might find themselves in the dock. Furthermore, for many of them the United States is a powerful ally: which of them would dare ask for the resurrection of a tribunal whose first action would obviously be to order an enquiry into the Vietnamese conflict?
The other source of power is the people, during revolutionary periods in which it changes its institutions. But, although the struggle remains an implacable one, by what means could the masses, compartmentalized by frontiérs as they are, succeed in uniting and/in imposing on the various governments an institution which would be a. genuine Court of the People?
The Russell tribunal was born of the recognition of these two, contradic-— tory facts: the Nuremberg verdict has made necessary the existence of an institution for the investigation and, where appropriate, the condemnation of war crimes: but neither governments nor people are, at the present time, capable of creating such an institution.
We are entirely conscious of the fact that we have received no mandate from anyone. But if we have taken the initiative of coming together, it is because we knew that nobody could give us a mandate. Certainly our tribunal is not an institution. But it does not claim to replace any established body; on the contrary, it emerged from a void, and in response to an appeal. We have not been recruited and invested with real powers by governments. But then we have just seen that such powers, at Nuremberg, did not suffice to endow the judges with an uncontested legitimacy. Quite the contrary: the fact that the verdicts could be carried out permitted those who had been conquered to challenge their validity; backed up by force, those verdicts appeared as the simple expression of the adage "Might is Right." The Russell tribunal considers, on the contrary, that its legitimacy derives equally from its total powerlessness, and from its universality.
We are powerless: it is the guarantee of our independence. We receive no aid -- except from our supporting committees which are, like ourselves, associations of private individuals. Representing no government and no party, nobody can give us orders: we will examine the facts "in our hearts and consciences" one might say or, if you prefer, openly and independently. No one of us can say, today, how the proceedings will go, or if we will reply by a yes or a no to the accusations, or if we will not reply -- considering them perhaps well-founded but not conclusively proved.
What is certain, in any case, is that our powerlessness, even if we are convinced by the evidence presented, makes it impossible for us to pass a sentence. What could a condemnation mean, even the mildest of condemnations, if we do not possess the means to see it carried out?
We will limit ourselves therefore, if that is what turns out to be necessary, to stating that such and such an act falls under the jurisdiction of Nuremberg. It is therefore, according to that jurisdiction, a war crime, and if the law was applied it would be subject to such and such a penalty. In such a case, we will, if that is possible, decide who are the authors of the crime. Thus the Russell tribunal will have no other concern, in its investiga-
tions as in its conclusions, than to pring about a general recognition of the need for an international institution for which it has neither the means nor the ambition to be a substitute, whose essential role would be the resuscitation of the "jus contra bellum" which was stillborn at Nuremberg -- the substitution of ethical and juridical rules for the law of the jungle.
Precisely because we are simple citizens we have been able, by recruiting our members on a wide international basis, to give our tribunal a more universal structure than that of. Nuremberg. I do not mean merely that a larger number of countries are represented; from that point of view there would be many gaps to fill. But above all, whereas in 1945 the . Germans were only present in the dock, or at best on the stand as witnesses for the prosecution, several of the judges here are citizens of the United States.
This means that they come from that country whose own policies are under investigation, and that they have, therefore, their own understanding of it and, whatever their opinions, an intimate relationship with it, with its institutions and its traditions -- a relationship which will inevitably mark the tribunal's conclusions.
However, whatever our desire for impartiality and for universality, we are entirely conscious that this desire does not suffice to legitimize our enterprise. What we want, in fact, is that its legitimization should be retrospective or, if you prefer, a_posteriori. For we are not working for ourselves and our own edification, neither do we have any pretensions to imposing our conclusions from on high.
What we wish is to maintain, thanks to the collaboration of the press,
HO CHI MINH'S GREETINGS a constant contact between ourselves and the masses who in all parts of the world are living and suffering the tragedy of Vietnam. We hope that they will learn as we learn, that they will discover together with us the reports, the documents, the testimony, that they will evaluate them and make up their minds about them day by day, together with us. We want the conclusions, whatever they may be, to be drawn by each individual in his own mind at the same time as we draw them ourselves; even beforehand perhaps.
This session is a common enterprise whose final term must be, in the phrase of a philosopher, "une verité devenue" [developed into truth]. Yes, if the masses ratify our judgment, then it will become truth, and we, at the very moment when we efface ourselves before those masses who will make themselves the guardians and the mighty support for that truth, we will know that we have been legitimized and that the people, by showing us its agreement, is revealing a deeper need: the need for a real "War Crimes Tribunal" to be brought into being as a permanent’ body -that is to say, the need that it should be possible to denounce and punish such crimes wherever and whenever they may be committed.
"What a strange tribunal: a jury and no judge"! It is true: we are only a jury, we have neither the power to condemn nor the power to acquit, anybody. Therefore, no prosecution. There will not even be strictly speaking a prosecution case. Maitre Matarasso, president of the legal commission, is going to read you a list of charges which will take the place of a prosecution case. We, the jury, at the end of the session, will have to pronounce on these charges: are they well-founded or not? But the judges are everywhere: they are the peoples of the world, and in particular the American people. It is for them that we are working.
TO WAR CRIMES TRIBUNAL
On the occasion of the opening of the first official session of the International War Crimes Tribunal, I take pleasure in extending to you, as well as to all the members of the tribunal, my warmest greetings and my sincere wishes for your success.
The opening of the first session of the International Tribunal, especially at the moment when the American imperialists are intensifying escalation to the utmost and are striking the port of Haiphong and the capital of Hanoi, carries a profound significance. It is a strong encouragement -- not only for us, the people of Vietnam, but also for all those peoples fighting for national independence, liberty and peace.
The noble work of the International Tribunal warmly approved and supported by progressive humanity, is met with and still hits upon many difficulties and inpediments created by American imperialists and reactionary forces. But I am convinced that the founders of the tribunal know how to persevere, as in the past, and to take the appropriate measures in order to bring this work to a successful conclusion. It is certain that all the peoples and all the men involved in peace and justice in the world will be on your side and will support you wholeheartedly.
We extend our sincere thanks to all the members of the International War Crimes Tribunal for the warm support to the justly waged resistance war of our people.
Please accept, Mr. President, the assurance of my highest consideration.
Ho Chi Minh
CAMBODIAN APPRECIATION OF TRIBUNAL
Phnom Penh April 12, 1967
Lord Bertrand Russell
Dear Sir,
I have just received notice of your letter of March 25, and I extend to you my sincere thanks for the constant support that you are giving to my country -- which is threatened more and more directly with being one of the next objectives of the criminal escalation of the American armed forces.
I also assure you of our deep appreciation of the interest that the International War Crimes Tribunal carries against the aggressive murderers of the United States and of their accomplices in Saigon and Bangkok against our frontier villages. I am happy to inform you that Commander Kouroudeth of the Major-State of the Royal Armed Forces of Cambodia will be at the disposal of the Tribunal as a witness in charge of the complete dossier of the crimes committed against our country and our people by the United States, Thailand and the governments of Saigon and Seoul.