letter, in effect, assumed personal responsibility for banning the War Crimes Tribunal from holding any kind of hearings in France. De Gaulle's ban on the tribunal made headlines, of course, and no doubt gave President Johnson considerable satisfaction as another of his famous victories in his holy war against the Vietnamese people.
{The tribunal was able to transfer to Stockholm where it is now holding public hearings.
[Washington's satisfaction with General de Gaulle's small present is well indicated by the comments made in Congress by Representative Paul Findley (a Republican of Illinois). He inserted the text of de Gaulle's letter in the Congressional Record (April 27) and voiced his approval of de Gaulle's action in the following terms:
["Mr. Speaker, despite the fact that France is our oldest ally, there continues to be those in this country -some of them in positions of great influence -~ who believe President de Gaulle is hostile to the United States and seeks ways to frustrate or embarrass our policies. In my judgment, these opinions are unjustified. This position was substantiated by President de Gaulle's letter to Jean-Paul Sartre, dated April 13, concerning the 'Tribunal' proposed by Lord Russell.
["Lord Russell and Mr. Sartre had requested President de Gaulle to permit the 'tribunal' to meet in Paris. This gathering was for the purpose of putting President Johnson on 'trial' for his ‘crimes in Vietnam.' Since France is not only a menper of NATO but SEATO as well, Sartre believed he would score a propaganda coup if President de Gaulle would permit this event to occur on French soil. President de Gaulle's letter must have been a bitter disappointment to Sartre, because he refused permission for the undertaking in France."
[In accordance with democratic practices -- as observed by the Findleys -- Sartre's response to de Gaulle was not placed in the Congressional Record.
(Similarly, Findley left out the salutation and polite ending of de Gaulle's letter. Thus, in the Congressional Record, de Gaulle sounds almost as discourteous and brutal as the "ugly American" of worldwide notoriety.
[Below, we have reproduced the translation of de Gaulle's letter to Jean- Paul Sartre as it appeared in the Congressional Record, except that we have included the items Findley found offensively polite, as judged by the standards of an American congressman.‘
* * *
Mon cher Maitre,
In your letter of April 13, you asked me to examine the case of Mr. Vladimir Dedijer and, more generally, that of the persons called on to take part, in one or other capacity, in the work of the Russell Tribunal.
The sponsors of this tribunal propose to criticize the United State's Vietnam policy. There is nothing in this to cause the Government to restrict their normal freedom of assembly and of expression. Besides, you know what the Government thinks of the Vietnam war and what I myself have said about it publicly and unequivocally. Regardless of the fact that, in our country, freedom of the pen and of expression exist, it would, therefore, not be a question of restricting private individuals whose theses on this subject are,
moreover, close to the French Republic's official position.
In any case, it is a question neither of the right to assemble nor of the freedom of expression but of the duty -- all the more binding on France since she has taken the stand she has on the substance of the matter -- to make sure that a State with which she has relations and which, despite all their differences, remains her traditional friend, be not the subject on her territory of proceedings that greatly oversteps international law and customs.
Now, this would seem to be the case of the action being undertaken by Lord Russell and his friends, since they intend to give a legal appearance to their investigations and the semblance of a verdict to their conclusions. You are well aware that all justice, in its principle as in its execution, belongs to the State alone. Without questioning the motives that inspire Lord Russell and his friends, I must note that they are invested with no power nor do they have any international mandate and that, therefore, they could not carry out any act of justice. . .
That is why the Government is bound to oppose the holding on our territory of a meeting which, by the form it would take, would be contrary to that very thing for which the Government is bound to enforce respect.
I will add that, to the extent that some of the people gathered around Lord Russell may have moral credit, lacking a public jurisdiction it does not seem to me that they give more weight to their warnings by wearing robes borrowed for the occasion.
Veuillez agréer, mon cher Maftre, l'assurance de ma considération distinguée.
C. de Gaulle
JEAN-PAUL SARTRE'S ANSWER TO DE GAULLE
{