 |
INTRODUCTION – 1967 |
The racism of the West, especially that of the United States, has created an atmosphere in which it is extremely difficult to make clear the responsibility of America for problems which are held to be 'internal' to the underdeveloped countries. The war in Vietnam is looked upon as the inevitable and tragic product of backwardness, poverty and savagery—supposedly indigenous to South East Asia.
The roots of the current conflict are sought in the dark past: ancient conflicts between north and south are dredged up. The American intervention is, on this view, fortuit-ous. The Vietnamese people are thought to be pitiable creatures, into whose affairs the Americans have reluctantly and unfort-unately been invited.
Racism not only confuses the historical origins of the Vietnam war ; it also provokes a barbarous, chauvinist outcry when American pilots who have bombed hospitals, schools, dykes and civilian centres are accused of committing war crimes.
It is only the racist underpinning of the American world-view which allows the U.S. press, the Senate and many public figures to remain absolutely silent when Vietcong' prisoners are summarily shot; yet at the same time these bodies demand the levelling of North Vietnamese cities if the pilots are brought to trial for their crimes.
American violations of the 1949 Geneva Conventions on the treatment of prisoners of war have long been a matter of public record. It was reported, for example, in the New York Times of December 1, 1965, that 'the International Committee of the Red Cross in Geneva complained again that the United States was violating an international accord on the treatment of prisoners.
The indifference shown to this clear indictment—not to mention the indifference to daily bombardments of civilian populations with napalm and white phosphorus—is appalling.
The fundamental fact which I wish to establish here is that the Vietnam war is the responsibility of the United States. This elementary truth is central to any understanding of this cruel war. To understand the war, we must understand America, though this is not to ignore the history of the Vietnamese people.
Vietnamese culture is rich and dates from antiquity. Oral legends continue heroic traditions, particularly those which tell of the ancient repulsion of feudal China. But history's movement, ever faster, is such that the Vietnam of today is less connected to her ancient heritage than to her present world.
The past hundred years of Vietnam's national life have brought her on to the world stage. To understand Vietnam and the agony of her struggle, we must see Vietnam amidst the constellation of anti-colonial forces which are transforming the Third World and, less dramatically, the West itself.
Vietnam will not be understood, no matter how deeply we probe her past, unless we cease to isolate her meaning. It is America that has given Vietnam an international significance. While the beginnings of the American role in Vietnam precede the notorious involvement with Ngo Dinh Diem, it must be noted that France deserves the credit for nearly obliterating the Vietnamese cultural heritage.
Before the Second World War, France managed her own colonial affairs with arrogant self-reliance. A rival to Britain, she probed Vietnam in the nineteenth century while seeking new access to China.
On the pretext of protecting French missionaries from the reprisals of the savages they sought to Christianize, French naval vessels sailed into South Vietnam in the 184os.
The colonial conquest was begun in earnest. Within a matter of decades, not only the whole of Vietnam, but also Laos and Cambodia had been brought under French colonial rule. Although each region of the vast amalgam, `Indo-China,' had a different de jure status and governmental structure, everywhere the French were ruthless in securing the submission of the native population.
Their rule was not to be disputed, and it was their arbitrary right to determine the laws and regulations of every part of the colony. Sporadic, disorganized guerrilla resistance opposed the French and continued into the twentieth century.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Critical voices have called for a transitional justice that is less legalistic and state-centric and more concerned with socioeconomic issues. The Russell Tribunal was an early instance of a transitional justice practice whose traits resonated with these critiques.
It challenged legalism, breached the judicial monopoly of the state and criticized the economic global order.
Given this affinity, the Russell Tribunal can provide critical approaches to transitional justice with a historic antecedent and a mechanism to push their agenda forward.
Unofficial tribunals, inspired by the Russell initiative, can be useful tools for a transitional justice that is broader and more amenable to alternative perspectives.
The Beatles were so much a part of the youth movement that blossomed in the 1960s that it's worth remembering that one of the main issues that energized the movement--peace--came to the Beatles through a 92-year-old man.
As Paul McCartney explains in this clip from a January 14, 2009 interview on The View, it happened when he decided to pay a visit to philosopher Bertrand Russell.
A co-founder of analytic philosophy, Russell had been a life-long social and political activist. During World War I, he was not allowed to travel freely in Britain due to his anti-war views. He lost his fellowship at Trinity College, Cambridge, and was eventually jailed for six months for supposedly interfering with British Foreign Policy. After World War II, Russell lobbied strenuously for the abolition of nuclear weapons. In the 1960s, he opposed the Vietnam War.
No comments:
Post a Comment