"On Our Watch": A documentary on Darfur presented by PBS Frontline

Hi all,

Check out this awesome PBS feature on Darfur.  Go grab a coffee, and give yourselves an hour - it's well worth it.

I found this feature - produced by the CBC for PBS's "Frontline" documentary series - to be a well produced, context-filled analysis of a crisis I've heard alot about, but I realize I don't really know alot about.  Like so many other conflicts on the African continent, Darfur's plight is a microcosm of some pretty big dilemmas in global politics.  Although I got way too much out of this piece to write in one blog (that should scare you faithful readers of this web-novel!), I'd like to share a few key ideas that I pulled out of it.  I'm going to kind of list them from most discouraging to (mildly) encouraging, so if you're initially thrown into a pit of blog-pression, just keep both hands on the wheel!

I think one of the predominant themes that the documentary drives home the need for UN reform, specifically in the structure and operation of the Security Council (SC).  Although Darfur may not go down in history as the biggest interventionist-failure of the UN - the eventual deployment of 20 000+ troops, coupled with the unspeakable failure in Rwanda, may save it from this title - it has magnified the current limits on the body of dealing with human-rights atrocities.  In particular, it is mind-boggling how the SC manages to not react to circumstances that are, to everyone outside of their glorified think-tank, inarguably unacceptable.  Instead, the SC structure allows permanent-members (in this case, Russia and China) to individually "filibuster" - if not outwardly reject - motions that everyone else in the body may support.  I understand that when the SC was initially devised, this "veto" function was granted to atomic powers to prevent one of them from being pushed into a corner, ostensibly threatening nuclear war.  However, this logic largely crumbled alongside the Berlin Wall, and I feel like that the UN needs to put the nail in the veto's coffin by getting rid of it altogether.  "Easier said than done" doesn't take away from the fact that it needs to be done.

The second, and slightly more encouraging, observation that I took away from the feature is the fact that the US played a leading role in calling for action.  This fact - which was largely overshadowed on editorial pages by berating over Dubya's royal screw-up in Iraq - should be encouraging for every sensible person that acknowledges that stuff on this scale needs an American kiss of approval.  It's a sign that despite the legacy of waging proxy wars, petrol wars, and generally poopy wars throughout the 20th century, the US might be emerging as a kind of leader in a new universal human rights order.  I'm not sure if I actually believe this myself, but it's something to think about regardless.

I think my final point is the most important one.  The most influential countries in the world are - thank God - liberal democracies, meaning that their citizens have the power (theoretically, and I think in some cases more than others in fact) to shape the decisions that their leaders make on the global scale.  There are different ways that individuals can go about doing this, including, obviously, voting in elections.  Towards the end of the documentary, acknowledgement was made to people practicing another means of their entitled influence: free speech in the form of activism.  Now, many people - myself included - have often written off the effectiveness of protests and rallies such as the ones depicted in Washington in this feature, claiming that they're populated by "clueless, pot-smoking dreadhead hippies".  However, "On Our Watch" did the viewer a good service by explicitly outlining the positive effect that popular  protests, ranging from rallies to the "Genocide Olympics" rhetoric, had on influencing the high-level decisions that finally lead to intervention in Darfur. That should be an encouragement to all of us "average Joes" who don't have the key to the General Assembly chamber.

Alright, so I just made the decision that that wasn't my final point.  In writing all of this, I realized that I have foolishly overlooked the real importance of the documentary, which was to depict the violence and suffering experienced by the people of Darfur, who don't have a cozy home to lock themselves into, or a 911 number to call.  It's kind of silly that I can watch an hour long documentary with my heart slumping and my guilt swelling the whole time, and afterwards not immediately mention feelings of sorrow and despair as my initial reaction (which they were).  I suppose the academic "drive to analyze" sometimes has a way of crowding out true concern and empathy; characteristics which, undoubtedly, must be core motivators for action.

Hopefully, we'll see increased efforts made to save the people of Darfur in the days to come.  Until then, all we can do is pray, and encourage our neighbors to take off their shoes and imagine themselves shuffling through the sands of the eastern Sahara.