Witness to History

By Grace Afsari-Mamagani



As the lights dimmed in Filene Auditorium on Wednesday afternoon, photojournalist James Nachtwey ’70 took community members in attendance on a visual and emotional journey. Influenced by images from Vietnam and the civil rights movement during the 1960s, Nachtwey said he began to consider the potential of photography and media to change the course of history and engrain pictures within a cultural collective consciousness.


“At its best, journalism is social intervention,” he said. Journalism, and powerful photography in particular, puts a human face to the abstract issues negotiated by world leaders; documentary photography interprets the stories of citizens on the ground, who feel the real and daily impact of the implications of policy. Photography, according to Nachtwey, is not the end in itself, but a means to the end, a tool for social awareness and tangible results.


Nachtwey — whose first book, Deeds of War, was published in 1989 — began his career as a war photographer in Ireland, documenting the everyday battlefield of Belfast. From there, he went on to photograph soldiers fighting the Central American proxy wars resulting from Cold War politics, car bombers destroying Lebanon in the heat of civil war, and the continued “conquest through… bible and sword” of European oligarchy in Guatemala. When the Berlin Wall fell, he traveled to Romania to document the AIDS epidemic in orphanages, bribing officials in the country with cigarettes, chocolate, and bottles of brandy, he said. “What I witnessed in Romania was nothing less than a crime against humanity,” he explained, his work motivated essentially by the hope that the world would respond.


His second book, Inferno, is a chronicle of crimes against humanity. In the case of his coverage of Somalia, the New York Times ran the story on the front page; the following day “the phones were ringing off the hook with people wanting to know how they could help… I believe that people will care if journalists will give them something to care about.” In the wake of Nachtwey’s photographs, the U.S. government, U.K. print media, and soon the entire world seemed to be paying attention: the UN came to the rescue, and the largest-ever International Red Cross mission saved approximately 1.5 million lives. 

“That’s the power of the press,” he said.


Nachtwey photographed a range of other humanitarian crises, from southern Sudan to Chechnya to Rwanda (the last of which, in the immediate aftermath of Nelson Mandela’s election in South Africa, was akin to “taking the express elevator to hell”).  He traveled to Kabul at the end of the Afghan war, was assigned to an American platoon in Baghdad following 9/11, explored the field of military medicine for National Geographic, photographed hundreds dying of tuberculosis, and documented crime and punishment in America.


“Photographers go to the extreme edges of experience to show a mass audience things they can’t see for themselves,” he said. His craft, despite the horrors he encounters regularly, is one of empowerment, of retaining the dignity of subjects who have nothing left to lose but continue to fight for life; his art, he said, is one contingent upon the sense of right and wrong, an ability to identify with others, and a refusal to accept the unacceptable. For the international community, the war photography produced by Nacthwey constitutes an invaluable service. It compels organizations to offer aid, attracts attention to the horrors we would otherwise forget, and, ultimately, seems to convey some basic humanity. It offers a voice to the marginalized and oppressed and can enact real political change. And it operates under the finally humble reminder to the journalist — and to the individual in the vast immensity of time — that “the stories we work on are far bigger than we are.”

Considering the French Election

By Alison Flint

Courtesy of Time NewsFeed
As of April 22, the French election has progressed to its next round, leaving Nicolas Sarkozy and François Hollande to fight for the office.

Ten candidates began in the Open Election, including Marine Le Pen, Jean-Luc Mélenchon and François Bayrou. For the first time in history, the incumbent did not lead the Open Election vote. Sarkozy finished second to Hollande with 27.1% of the vote to Hollande’s 28.5%, according to the Interior Ministry’s released figures. Since their victory at the Open Election, both candidates have been campaigning for the supporters of the eight unsuccessful candidates.

Sarkozy seems to be struggling to rally Le Pen’s backers. Mr. Sarkozy will be promoting his anti-immigration and preservation policies to woo the far Right, of which he needs at least two-thirds in order to win a majority vote. Although his political views coordinate well with the National Front, Le Pen’s party, Sarkozy’s most recent attempt to collect supporters was pegged as too forward. Hollande will probably need much less effort in recruiting the far Left of Mélenchon.

Hollande, who has never held a national-level office, became the Socialist Party’s presidential choice after front-runner Dominique Strauss-Kahn was accused of sexual assault. Hollande’s following has been nurtured by the French public’s general dissatisfaction with Sarkozy as well as with the talks in Europe’s financial crisis. Both candidates stress the importance of revitalizing Europe’s economy, but by bringing a new face into the talks, many French voters are hoping to loosen Germany’s dominance on Europe’s economic policies.

In domestic economic policy, Hollande has created a traditionally French platform involving a delayed increase in taxes for increased government spending to create jobs and combat France’s 10 percent unemployment rate. Sarkozy proposes the opposite strategy of tax cuts and restricted government spending, pledging to balance France’s budget by 2016.

Hollande and Sarkozy will face each other at the polls on May 6 for the final vote. If France should deny the incumbent’s reelection for the first time since 1981, the country would end 17 years of conservative leadership.

A Note from the Editor

Every term or two, a group of World Outlook staff and senior editors meets around a Haldeman Center conference room table. We’re usually equipped with a stack of folders and a Google Doc full of submissions we’ve received from the best and brightest at Dartmouth and at schools nationwide. The task before us requires careful consideration: we’ve read the documents that have flooded our email inbox, outlined their strengths and weaknesses, considered their logical fallacies and the clarity of their authors’ styles. Deciding which undergraduate work deserves publication seems to become more difficult with each journal we publish. 

The truth is, “international affairs” doesn’t always lend itself to a process of peer review. Whether traveling abroad for leisure, debating comparative politics in the classroom, or heading to a fusion restaurant for dinner, we are compelled daily to take on a “world outlook” and to situate ourselves within a broader community. 

In its mission statement, our organization echoes the words of late Dartmouth President John Sloan Dickey: 

“Today we use the term ‘the world’ with what amounts to brash familiarity. Too often in speaking of such things as the world food problem, the world health problem, world trade, world pace, and world government, we disregard the fact that ‘the world’ is a totality which in the domain of human problems constitutes the ultimate degree of magnitude and degree of complexity. That is a fact, yes; but another fact is that almost every large problem today is, in truth, a world problem.” 

Both “the world” and “international affairs” are fluid concepts, composite organisms built of  billions of individual stories. These stories — yours and mine — work synergistically. They produce discussion and change on local, national, and international levels. They fuel innovation and peace-building, but also conflict and anxiety. And they are always ultimately part of a whole that is becoming (perhaps) more whole over time, both cause and effect of a network that wants to teach us to be “global citizens.”  

Yes, we like commentary on international affairs to be well-researched and well-articulated, in neat .docx form complete with Chicago-style footnotes. But “the ultimate degree of magnitude and degree of complexity” is hard to trap within these confines, which don’t provide space for the tangents, tensions, or fervent debates that seem inherent to international affairs. It is with this understanding that we’ve sought to create an online forum. The experiences and opinions expressed here belong to their respective authors and are not necessarily representative of World Outlook as an organization: they are stories, individual but connected. We call on you to engage with us, and we hope to offer a new lens on familiar (and not-so-familiar) things. Welcome to the blog.