Azman: We are now setting up a war crimes tribunal. Wow! And looks like among the first to be hauled to the court would be those allegedly responsible for the atrocities in Iraq, Lebanon and Palestine.

Mohan: And I hear foremost among them are US President George W. Bush, British Prime Minister Tony Blair and the so-called "Pocket Bush of the Bushlands" - Australian Prime Minister John Howard.

Chong: Ah, last month's war crimes conference. An initiative of the Perdana Leadership Foundation headed by Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad. Right, Azman?

Azman: Spot on, my friend, spot on.

Chong: This tribunal, what is it? Some people are laughing and ridiculing the idea. But to be fair, there are also quite a number of supporters.

Mohan: I heard you are one of those who are laughing. Betul, Azman?

Azman: Yes. Imagine dragging Bush, Blair and Howard in chains through the streets of Kuala Lumpur. Ha, ha, ha. In the first place how are we going to arrest them and bring them here. Ha, ha, ha.

Chong: Mohan, you are the lawyer here. Please tell us what this hoo-ha is all about. Is it something like the tribunals that were set up in Nuremberg and Tokyo after World War II or the international criminal tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and the one for Rwanda?

Mohan: No. Those were set up to punish the leaders of wartime Germany and Japan, and those responsible for the thousands who died in former Yugoslavia and Rwanda. Many of those found guilty were sentenced to death. Unlike them, the KL war crimes tribunal will not have legal authority and it will not be able to physically punish anyone.

Azman: So it's just a show trial.

Mohan: Not really. To be found guilty is a shame. While some people may disregard the verdict of the tribunal, others may refer to those found guilty as war criminals. Thus, Bush for instance, may be remembered as someone who had been tried by a people's court which pronounced him a war criminal.

Chong: How does it work?

Mohan: I am not so sure. But from what I understand thus far, there is a commission headed by Mahathir. During the conference last month a number of war victims brought up their cases before the commission. Their complaints will be investigated before they are presented to the tribunal which will function just like any court of law. Of course, in the case of Bush, Blair and Howard, they would be tried in absentia. There will be prosecutors and defence lawyers.

Azman: Play acting, that's all. No wonder some people have called it a farce. Cikgu?

Zain: As long as you remember that the KL tribunal is a people's tribunal, you are alright. The accused, if found guilty, will only suffer shame that he had been found to be a war criminal. There have been quite a few of such tribunals in the past. But the most famous is the Bertrand Russell Vietnam War Crimes Tribunal headed by the famous and highly-regarded British philosopher and pacifist. Among its members were prominent and respected figures around the world and some Nobel Prize winners. To be called a war criminal by them is not something to be cherished. The tribunal was constituted in 1966 and ended in 1967 after meeting in several European capitals. The US largely ignored the verdict. But some say that it contributed towards the turning of world public opinion against the American war in Vietnam.

Azman: That's all?

Zain: Well, that's something, isn't it? And the most recent of such tribunals is the one on Iraq - constituted in 2003 and its Jury of Conscience met for five days in Istanbul in June 2005 and pronounced Bush and Blair and others, war criminals. Some American media were also named as being in complicity with them. Among the jurors were Chandra Muzaffar and Indian activist Arundhati Roy.

Azman: I still don't see the point of it at all.

Mohan: The aim of the whole effort by the Perdana Global Peace Organisation conference is to criminalise war - that war should not be used as an instrument of policy. It should be just diplomacy - jaw, jaw, jaw always.

Chong: Isn't war diplomacy by other means?

Zain: No. I think the idea of not using war as an instrument of policy is catching on. And that there is in place since 1998 an International Criminal Court (ICC) at the Hague - the first permanent war crimes tribunal - helps. But the shaming of belligerents should continue.

Chong: By the way, Malaysia did not sign the Rome Statute in 1998 to be a member of the ICC?

Mohan: Wonder why?

Chong: That alone renders us unworthy to set up the tribunal.

Zain: Having spoken in favour of people's tribunal, I think the KL tribunal should not have been mooted at all.

Azman: Why, Cikgu?

Zain: For the simple reason the tribunal on Iraq had already declared Bush, Blair and Howard guilty. Why repeat the same thing? The conference could have devoted its energies and time on finding other means to criminalise war. Education can be a means. Children should learn early in life about the evils of war and to hate it. Investing in the educational means, I think, is better than the tribunal.