Educational Media Reviews Online

The opening scene of the documentary would lead you to believe it was about a famous pianist rather than a diplomat. A Symphony for the Common Man, a documentary directed by José Joffily, is a journey that celebrates the achievement of a common man who lives his life artistically and authentically and yet is opposed by political forces who wage the “war of narratives.”

We are introduced to Bustani as a pianist in the first and final scenes; his musical talent is woven throughout the documentary. A musical symphony could be a metaphor for the varied forces that move one's life. The title may be a nod to Aaron Copland’s Fanfare for the Common Man which was inspired by a political speech given by Henry A. Wallace (Vice President of the U.S. under F.D. Roosevelt, 1941-1945) called “Century of the Common Man.” In that speech, Wallace notes how wealthy demagogues can play upon everyday people. He adds four duties to Roosevelt’s four freedoms, the duty to build peace chief amongst them. Peace means a better living standard for all the people of the world and that “No nation will have the God-given right to exploit other nations.”

The documentary is a biography of José Maurício Bustani, focused particularly on his 2002 ouster as the Secretary General of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW). That story includes the historical context of the United States' regime change with the Iraq war (2003-2011) led by the administration of President George W. Bush (President of the United States, 2001-2009). The final 20 minutes cover the April 2018 missile strikes on Syria by the United States, France, and the United Kingdom.

Bustani’s pride in becoming the Director General of the OPCW, after being encouraged to apply by Brazil’s President Fernando Henrique Cardoso (1995-2003), is clearly portrayed. He appreciated the goal of abolishing weapons of mass destruction. The work was approached without bias to any one country, and this created conflict with the goals of the United States.

To tell the story, Joffily, and writer David Meyer secured a number of important interviews. They began with a strong interview with Scott Ritter, an American ex-marine and Chief Inspector for Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq. He explained that the U.S. was motivated to claim Iraq was non-compliant in order to continue sanctions against the country; he explained that “I was meant to sustain a program of economic sanctions until which time Saddam Hussein was removed from power.” Ninety-five percent of Iraq’s weapons were accounted for, so the Security Council focused on the unaccountable 5% (which may not have existed) as cause for sanctions; he figured that any unaccounted weapons would be so old as to be useless. Therefore, he considered Iraq disarmed. Nevertheless, Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense of the United States, claimed knowledge that Iraq had chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction.

Bustani compelled Hussein (President of Iraq, 1979-2003) and Gaddafi (Leader of Libya, 1969-2011) to join OPCW and consider signing the Chemical Weapons Convention to prove they didn’t harbor chemical weapons, a necessary step to lifting sanctions. Yet, U.S. oil corporations wanted to maintain sanctions and the Bush administration wanted a cause for war and regime change. It is at this juncture that relations between Bustani and the United States began to deteriorate. When the Twin Towers were attacked on September 11th, the event provided a justification, or pretext in this narrative, for the United States to go to war.

The film examines all the thundering pressure applied by the United States in its plan to push Bustani out including: bugging his office, the nomination of war hawk John Bolton during a Senate recess, Bolton’s request that he resign, and threats to him and his family when he refused.

Compatriots, such as Celso Lafer (Minister of Foreign Affairs for President Cardoso, 2001-2002) and even F. H. Cardoso (President of Brazil, 1995-2003), were pressured by the U.S. to to force Bustani’s resignation. Bustani did not concede despite their opposition. It is impressive that Joffily and Meyer obtained interviews with Lafer and Cardoso. Lafer did not push Bustani hard and recognized the decision was up to him. Cardoso claimed the pressure was too great stating, “power is power” and “pragmatism isn’t enough – you can’t be abstract, you can’t be utopic.” . Another diplomat interviewed was Celso Amorim (Minister of Foreign Affairs for President Lulu da Silva, 2003-2010), who uttered, “The Bustani incident will go down in history.”

The next movement orchestrated by the U.S. was to vote Bustani out of office by calling him incompetent (despite a letter from Secretary of State Colin Powell praising his first four years of work). To this, Ritter explained, Bustani didn’t get the memo. He thought, ‘I’m supposed to do what the law says I’m supposed to do. I’m supposed to make an effort to disarm the world of chemical weapons. I need to go in there and do my job.’ Wrong answer. Bustani didn’t realize that his job was to do what the United States told him, in this case, to sit down, shut up, and stay out of the way ‘cause we’re going to war against Iraq and we’re getting rid of Saddam Hussein.

Using money as leverage, the United States pressured delegates to impeach Bustani. The event was well described in a piece in The Guardian by reporter George Monbiot called Chemical coup d’etat (2002, April 16) Monbiot described Bustani as a workaholic who, “has, arguably, done more in the past five years to promote world peace than anyone else on earth.” In the end, “Bustani has to go because he has proposed the solution to a problem the U.S. does not want solved.” This news article, whose headline is shown in the documentary, is well worth reading.

Joffily, who periodically appears in the documentary and whose voice-overs offer context throughout, was not able to obtain footage of the OPCW’s vote to remove Bustani as Director General in 2002. In a moving scene about 45 minutes into the documentary, Bustani reads his speech from the event and becomes emotional as he relives that day. Joffily expressed, “Rid of their nuisances, the path seems to be free for the United States to invade Iraq.” Colin Powell’s (United States Secretary of State, 2001-2005) lie to the U.N., is included. Were the lies and manipulations by the U.S. worth it? Joffily cites the human lives lost in Iraq as well as the six trillion dollars spent by America on the war; in the end, Iraq became a “no man’s land.”

There is a redemption moment as told by Lula Da Silva (President of Brazil, 2003-2011). Sympathetic to Bustani and critical of his poor treatment, he made him an Ambassador to the United Kingdom in London (2003-2008) where he met the Queen and even enjoyed a dig at Prime Minister Tony Blair (1997-2007) who allowed America to oust Bustani.

The documentary does not end there: the story continues in 2018 with President Donald Trump (2017-2021, first term) and, again, the “character with the cartoon mustache” John Bolton. In this later context we have Jair Bolsonaro (President of Brazil, 2019-2023) in alignment with Trump and Bolton. We have a reprise of the story with the April 2018 missile strikes on Syria by the U.S., France, and the U.K. In this instance, a U.N. report was said to ignore input from OPCW inspectors who questioned if chemical weapons were used by Bashar al-Assad (President of Syria, 2000-2024) in Douma; the strikes by western allies were in answer to the use of chemical weapons. While Bustani was not directly involved, one of his former inspectors travelled to Brazil to have him sign a letter of protest. The inspector appears anonymously in the documentary claiming that, “no chemical weapons were used in Douma.” Major General John Holmes, a retired British Army officer who participated in a panel about Douma, provided an interview where he expressed concern that, “some evidence might have been ignored” and he couldn’t understand a military reason that the Syrian army would use chemical weapons in that time and place. In Holland, at the OPCW in March 2019, there was a Fact-Finding Mission addressing the controversy. Bustani’s thought was, “What’s the point of having this organization if inspectors can’t tell the truth?” Was a false report filed to support the United States and its allies? Bustani has reason to be skeptical. His testimony was questioned and put to a procedural vote; he lost the ability to testify, and “with that, the story comes to an end.”

The questionable UN report about Douma was discussed in another documentary I reviewed called This Is Not a Movie about the esteemed foreign correspondent Dr. Robert Fisk. Dr. Fisk was a reporter of high integrity, as José Maurício Bustani is a diplomat of high integrity. Both may have been misled about the facts at the time. At the OPCW Fact Finding Mission, Bustani’s role was more tangential. What is clear is that both Bustani and Fisk earnestly worked to find the truth. With all the players, powers, and forces, it can be difficult to discern the truth through the din of propaganda wars. The film was released in 2022. The Assad regime fell in December 2024, and more information is now coming to light. If the documentary is shown to students, instructors should include supplementary coverage about Douma from 2024 to present, such as McKernan’s piece The Guardian (2024, December 14), ’Their bodies had turned to black’: Syrian chlorine victims can finally speak out.

The documentary is well crafted (editing, direction, logical flow) and the use of music by Bustani provides a special tone. It is appropriate for students who are studying international affairs or documentary storytelling. It is a fine portrait of a leader who stands firm in his values of integrity and justice. Would you refuse to stand down against your goals? Is it right for a nation to force unilateral action in a multinational organization? Is it fair for a large, wealthy nation to have more power than other countries?

As I submit this review in late June 2025, Israel preemptively struck Iran over the question of Iran developing nuclear weapons. The question of U.S. involvement is in the headlines. Current events such as this can be incorporated in any discussion of a nation’s participation in foreign wars and the intelligence and relationships that go into that decision.

Awards:
Special Award of Merit, Latin American Studies Association Film Festival (LASA), US; Best Documentary, Los Angeles Brazilian Film Festival (LABRFF), US; Special Mention, Millennium International Documentary Film Festival, Belgium

Published and licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 license. Anyone can use these reviews, so long as they comply with the terms of the license.