Abstract
There is now a growing and timely literature on the role of anthropologists as expert witnesses in law courts. The cases in which they testify may range from asylum applications to crimes against humanity. Hinton's Anthropological Witness, which is based upon his own experience of acting as an expert witness at the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia (ECCC) in March 2016, makes an invaluable contribution to this literature. He uses his experience of testifying to address the overarching question of the role anthropology may play in public scholarship in general, and in a high-profile courtroom in particular.
Public anthropology, he notes, employs anthropological insights to illuminate issues of public concern, and it uses an accessible writing style to reach a broad readership. Anthropological Witness is an account of how Hinton performed in a public forum to address the question Why Did They Kill? (the title of one his earlier books on the Khmer Rouge). Not only does the book concern theoretical questions relating to the incongruent epistemologies of anthropology and law, but it also carries the reader along with Hinton's personal journey through a powerful historic moment. The effect is engaging on many levels.
In the introduction to Anthropological Witness, Hinton reflects on the pros and cons of agreeing to testify – he is aware that his professional expertise will be aggressively contested. However, he also feels an obligation to the Cambodians who suffered, and a desire to use his knowledge to help prevent the recurrence of atrocities. Ultimately, he therefore agreed to testify. He was then questioned over a four-day period on his knowledge of how the Khmer Rouge treated ethnic Vietnamese, Cham, former Lon Nol soldiers and Buddhist clergy as well as about internal purges.
First, Hinton paints the historical background to the ECCC trial at which he testified – Case 002. Case 002 tried Khmer Rouge Brother Number 2, Nuon Chea, and Khmer Rouge Head of State Khieu Samphan for crimes against humanity committed between 17 April 1975 and 6 January 1979. The charges related to the forced movement of people, execution of Khmer Republic soldiers, genocide of Cham and Vietnamese ethnic groups, forced marriage, rape and internal purges. Hinton takes us to the infamous S-21 Khmer Rouge interrogation centre, now known as Tuol Sleng Genocide Museum, describing the role played by S-21 Director Kang Kek Iew (alias ‘Duch’), defendant in ECCC case 001. He also tells of the overwhelming evidence of Nuon Chea's involvement in the violence perpetrated at S-21. He goes on to sketch the post-Khmer Rouge decade of Vietnamese control in Cambodia, when Cold War geopolitics continued to play out in Cambodia, and includes a biographical account of Nuon Chea's life.
This leads us to the more autobiographical part of the book, which I found particularly absorbing. Hinton presents the questions posed firstly by the Trial Chamber about his professional background and expertise on genocide. He also relates how the Chamber President, Nil Nonn, elicited the epistemological assumptions underlying Hinton's research and the resulting anthropological ‘truth’.
Hinton uses a free-flowing prose style to describe his responses to all of those who questioned him. This leads the reader forwards and keeps up a pace that a less versatile author may struggle to achieve. He relates how his interests in Cambodia have evolved over time, becoming increasingly focused on understanding the genocidal process and thus on addressing the question as to why there was so much killing in Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge.
The chapter entitled the Genocidal Process covers the questioning by the international co-prosecutor, and the different epistemological values attached to the concept of genocide in anthropology and in law. This is illustrated by the way Nuon Chea's defense lawyer, Victor Koppe, intervenes to contest Hinton's use of the concept.
Hinton then writes of the questioning by the lawyers representing the Civil Parties, which gives him a chance to speak of his understanding of local life and issues relating to reconciliation and reparation for Khmer Rouge victims. This is followed by two chapters dealing with the defense team's efforts at ‘rupture’, meaning reframing the ECCC so as to discredit the court and its limited jurisdiction as a whole, and thus also undermine the relevance of Hinton's research and testimony.
Chapter 6 is something of a climax to the book since Nuon Chea uncharacteristically and unexpectedly elects to speak directly to Hinton. The personal tone of Hinton's writing style works particularly well here. He describes the tension of waiting for a crumpled elderly man in a wheelchair to speak – an image Hinton tries to square with that he had long held of this mastermind of misery. The extraordinary exchange consists of Nuon Chea questioning Hinton directly, including levelling an accusation about the million of tons of bombs dropped by the United States upon innocent Cambodians. ‘Do you consider that a war crime and genocide?’, he asks. Hinton's intellectual agility is evident in his response. Drawing on his theoretical work on the ‘genocidal process’, he concedes that the US bombing created chaos in Cambodia, thus priming the country for genocidal acts, but stresses that the acts were the sole responsibility of the Khmer Rouge leadership itself.
Continuing in the same lucid style, the final chapter describes the verdict delivered by President Nil Nonn in November 2016. Hinton cites President Nil's delivery of the background, the crimes, the evidence and the Trial Chamber's conclusion that the accused is guilty of crimes against humanity and war crimes and also, significantly, of ‘genocide by killing members of the Vietnamese and Cham groups’. Meanwhile, Khieu Samphan is convicted of genocide only against ethnic Vietnamese. Both men receive sentences of life imprisonment.
This leaves Hinton speculating in the concluding chapter on the role of the public scholar in general, and how his testimony may have fitted into the ‘legal chess match’ of this case. The day following the delivery of the verdict, he and the international prosecutor Bill Smith mull this over in a downtown coffee shop in Phnom Penh. Smith assures Hinton that his testimony captured the attention of the judges and helped them understand how such a catastrophe could come about. Smith explains that it is often difficult for the judges to make links between the enormous quantities of evidence they deal with, and he claims that Hinton's perspective helped them put the facts into a larger, more coherent framework.
Smith states that legal truth and anthropological truth are, indeed, complementary. From this conversation, Hinton alleges that there are not only divergences between the epistemologies of anthropology and law but also points of convergence.
Hinton concludes that his participation in the trial therefore underscores the importance of engaging with the public sphere to inspire thoughtfulness. I would add that this book itself contributes to this endeavour by speaking to its readers.
A question the book leaves open, however, is which public is reached. Hinton's conclusions are based almost exclusively upon the opinions of prosecutor Bill Smith. It would have been interesting to hear other voices, particularly those of the Cambodian legal teams, and the Cambodian public more generally. One wonders what Hinton's testimony meant, for example, to the Civil Parties in attendance, to Cambodian law students or to Cambodians in the countryside who may have heard his testimony on the radio.
This begs the question of which narrative of the past is gaining precedence for the general Cambodian public beyond the walls of the ECCC. Prime Minister Hun Sen has recently been promoting another narrative of how Khmer Rouge history was laid to rest thanks to his so-called ‘Win-Win Policy’ of the late 1990s. Instead of indicting the Khmer Rouge leaders who were tried at the ECCC – Ieng Sary, Khieu Samphan and Nuon Chea – the Win-Win Policy had offered amnesty to Khmer Rouge leaders willing to defect to Hun Sen's government's side. This version of ‘truth’ about Cambodia's transition from conflict to peace and reconciliation paints over those leaders' past crimes with the story of Hun Sen's successful bid to win their allegiance.
Anthropological Witness makes for an enthralling read and I would warmly recommend it to anyone interested in transitional justice, public scholarship and the ECCC specifically. The book gives a vivid impression of what it is like to take the witness stand in such a notable trial and it explores what this may achieve. The book also invites us to think beyond this particular instance and consider which public may be reached by public anthropology, under what circumstances and with what effects.
