Generally acknowledged as one of the most important showcases for issue oriented and outstanding documentaries, this festival, in cooperation with Film at Lincoln Center, celebrated 30 years of presenting more than 700 documentaries.  For the 2019 program the New York office screened 500 films of which 40 films were selected for the New York festival as well as for other fests organized by HRW. The New York edition was held from June 13-20 and included 13 recent productions from 2018 and 2019 spanning a broad range of human rights issues. The opening film ADVOCATE featured a Jewish Israeli lawyer in her seemingly hopeless fight to defend Palestinians in an Israel’s legal system rigged against them. The closing film BELLINGCAT presented the re-construction of truth by citizen investigative journalists in a post-truth world.  The festival is organized by Human Rights Watch and has drawn an audience of about 5,000 in New York and 20,000 in 26 non-US locations where this organization has offices and arranges screenings.  Many other film festivals follow the Human Rights Watch programming of documentaries. HRW independence is assured because its film festivals and parallel extensive research projects do not depend on governmental funds.

The impact of films selected presents an open question. The effect can be broad if new and controversial knowledge leads to a larger audience for further discussion. The information provided can reinforces the political and social worldviews the audience already shares. But if we were to empirically measure influence in terms of documentaries prompting official agencies to introduce new regulations addressing the issues discussed, to re-open legal proceedings, or to provide after  a well-orchestrated impact campaigns funding to remedy the problems illustrated by the films, the number of films with a demonstrated impact is rather small.  Foremost in this small group are THE INVISIBLE WAR (2012, Kirby Dick) and WHEN THE MOUNTAINS TREMBLE (1983, Pamela Yate) which were first shown by the HRW film festival.  Having curated for several years at the annual Mexican Guanajato International Film Festival, Latin America’s largest film fest, a special program section “Documentaries with an Impact” I could identify only a few productions each year which met our stringent criteria. Caution is necessary before an impact is invoked despite the ever increasing number of documentaries produced and screened at festivals.  In 2019, about half of the 13,000 productions submitted to Sundance were short and feature length documentaries.

In a period when human rights issues and conflicts are steadily growing alongside the rise of more authoritarian and conservative societies and governments, polities and media drive contradictory and fluctuating definitions of what is news and reality. Therefore, HRW film programming and research have become much more important.  As John Biaggi, the director of the HRW film festival put it, the interconnection of authoritarian governments creating alternate realities in their countries impair critical documentary productions and Trump’s propagation with his followers of “Fake News” as a tool to stifle freedom of expression creates a dangerous feedback loop threatening our democratic processers.  

Wherever Human Rights Watch is based the organization carries out research and investigations on all aspects of human rights and has examined violations and related trends in more than 90 countries around the globe.  Partnering with local activists and human rights groups, HRW provides expert knowledge, exposes human rights violations, and has become instrumental through empirical driven reports in supporting legislative and procedural changes restraining abuses. As advocates and expert investigators HRW pursues an effective strategy that impacts policy making. To mention just some cases from last year:  Using  HRW data covering representative California counties an appellate federal court ordered  judges in California to make significant changes in setting bail as the practice of using bail for preventive detention  is a “deformity of  our criminal justice system”;  the UN Security Council voted in July 2018 to impose  an enforceable arms embargo on South Sudan using a HRW report documenting murder, rape, and other abuses by South Sudan soldiers and affiliated groups. In February 2019 a Turkish court ruled that the ban on lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and intersex (LGBTI) activities created in November 2017 was unlawful since it violated rights and freedoms. HRW research demonstrated how the ban created a climate of fear and stigmatized LGBTI individuals. This June a British appellate court decision forced the UK government to suspend licenses for UK arms sales to Saudi Arabia after HRW and others documented unlawful air strikes in Yemen against civilians as well as other violations by coalition and Houthi armed forces.

The documentary ADVOCATE by Rachel Leah Jones and Phillipe Bellaiche places the problems Palestinians face in the Israeli judicial system into plain view.  From the perspective of the advocate, the Jewish Israeli lawyer Lea Tsemel and her Palestinian colleagues, justice and an objective balanced treatment for Palestinian alleged offenders is close to impossible to reach in the Israeli court system. There seem to be two legal systems, one for Israeli Jews and another for Palestinians. If found guilty, Palestinians face higher prison terms as a result of the application of different sentencing.  In her practice Lea Tsemel has never won a case other than an Israeli Supreme Court decision outlawing the torture of alleged Palestinian terrorists by the secret service. This apparently firm ruling seems to have been subsequently circumvented by the secret service.  A segregated system of justice frequently stacks the odds against Palestinians and is rarely covered by the press. To date about 800,000 Palestinians, 20% of the Palestinian population, have at one point in their life experienced the prison system with few families left without at least one family member having been subject to legal proceedings that not only criminalize them but also leave them with psychological trauma and its consequences. In the case handled by Lea Tsemel and  covered by the documentary, a 13-year-old boy has been implicated in a knife attack, yet is tried by public opinion, the media, and the court like  an adult terrorist suspected of attempted murder. The boy is convicted with a heavy penalty. Palestinians are considered by many increasingly conservative Israelis as inferior human beings prone to violence and terrorism; fanatics threatening Israel’s security. The advocate Lea Tsemel in turn is treated as a traitor.

In the most recent elections in the Philippines president Rodrigo Duterte has increased his power base in the senate and demonstrated his growing popularity by reaching an approval rate  of 66% of the population.  His incessant campaign to kill drug dealers and severely punish those using drugs has gained increasing support among the electorate.  Over the last three years close to 7,000  people have died in Duterte’s drug war prompting consideration of a UN investigation of these extrajudicial killings by the police.  All other problem faced by the Philippines such as unemployment, poverty, a crumbling education and health care system are taking the back seat.  Even the alleged encroachment of Philippine waterways by China seem not to stir the public. After all, Duterte enjoys the support of powerful political executives such as Trump. Given the executive backing of lawlessness, no constraints are imposed on police forces nor does the documentary show prosecution initiated against members of the police.  The film ON THE PRESIDENT’ ORDERS by James Jones and Olivier Sabil had open access to the members of the police, their commanders, and the places where murders of drug dealers were committed. Filthy overcrowded prisons and detention places, where drug addicts are supposed to learn better ways, were opened to the filmmakers. We see the graphic reality of slums. Those affected by drug crime and addiction and the concomitant violence that comes from in these poorest segments of Filipino society.  The filmmakers do not explore the sources of the problem or analyze the role of the government beyond the official approval for the killings. Members of the police force appear to enjoy being interviewed about what we would consider criminal behavior.  When I interviewed the filmmakers about the purpose of their documentation the response was exposure of the film to the international community and organizations. The filmmaker had to admit that such exposure would most likely not lead to a remedy.

ONE CHILD NATION by Nanfu Wang and Jiklian Zhang is a fascinating portrait of the Chinese effort to curb population growth in 1979 by the one-child policy. The policy was suspended in 2015 after the Chinese government realized that a dramatic decline in the growth of  population and the age specific demographic shift would create tremendous burdens for those supporting the fast-growing retirees. The same tremendous propaganda effort used to enforce the one child policy was now applied to convince couples to have two children.  The history of these shifting population policies generates many questions not addressed by the film. It has been estimated that approximately only half of the child bearing population was forced to follow the one-child policy given the many exceptions for rural areas, minorities and other groups. Also, it was difficult to show that the drastic reduction of birthrates met the goal of reducing poverty which was a primary motivation for the policy makers.  It has been suggested that economic changes and growth were important factors in reducing poverty. The documentary offers a superb analysis of the personal consequences of the one-child policy and, from a Western perspective, of the human rights violations. Enforcement of the policy resulted in mass sterilization, forced abortions, and financial penalization of those having more than one child. A significant part of the film covered the creation of an amorphous system of orphanages where abandoned infants and young children were housed until given up for adoption for foreign parents. In this process more than 40,000 children were adopted by US parents. Most adopted children were healthy and female and between one and two years old. The cost for these adoptions usually ran between $15,000 and $25,000 per child and, according to the documentary, included the construction of fake identities for the children.  This second half of the documentary is what impressed me most. Knowledge about the one-child policy is wide spread, but little is known about the personal pain for women forced to participate and about the consequences of the orphanage trade with its surplus of mostly female children which were abandoned after their birth.  It is noteworthy that many individuals interviewed by the film makers who lived during the one-child policy period still express approval with a modicum of reservation. According to surveys three quarters of the Chinese people agreed with the one-child policy. They share the view that there was no alternative to the policy and that more population growth would have resulted in widespread poverty.

Claus Mueller  filmexchange@gmail.com