05-18-2018 12:27:15 PM -0700
05-17-2018 08:38:50 AM -0700
05-11-2018 07:34:04 AM -0700
05-09-2018 10:17:16 AM -0700
05-04-2018 02:59:17 PM -0700
It looks like you've previously blocked notifications. If you'd like to receive them, please update your browser permissions.
Desktop Notifications are  | 
Get instant alerts on your desktop.
Turn on desktop notifications?
Remind me later.

Will Vogue Magazine Ever Learn?

The problem isn't simply that Ban is South Korean, not African (though to be fair, at least Vogue didn't resort to interviewing Ghanaian former secretary-general Kofi Annan, who, in his current role as a UN-Arab League envoy to Syria, is now capping a long career of failures with yet another).

The bigger problem here is that whatever success Africa is enjoying, most of it has either come about despite the UN, or has almost nothing to do with the UN. The UN's history in Africa is abysmal -- littered with such miseries as peacekeeper rape, corrupt procurement processes, and aid and development programs that too often legitimize, enrich, and support the same governments whose repressive policies keep people poor.

Did anyone at Vogue notice that right up to the moment when the Libyan people rose up in 2011 against Qaddafi, the UN behaved as one of his biggest fans? Specifically, the UN seated Qaddafi's Libyan regime on the Security Council, made one of Qaddafi's henchmen the president of the General Assembly, welcomed Libya to the Human Rights Council, appointed a daughter of Qaddafi as a goodwill ambassador for the UN's flagship agency, the UN Development Program; and Ban Ki-Moon himself journeyed to Libya in 2010, for an African Union summit at which he glad-handed Qaddafi and was photographed yukking it up with the tyrant over dinner.

As for Vogue's urge to publicize success stories in African development, maybe it's time that someone on the staff at least eyeballed the work of NYU economist William Easterly. He makes a compelling case that "most sustained and largest surges in GDP per capita development (notably Botswana and Mauritius in Africa, as well as the East Asian tigers elsewhere, and more recently India and China) have been largely homegrown rather than the result of ambitious outside aid and intervention" (for this conclusion, scroll down to page 107 in his paper, "Can the West Save Africa?"). Easterly points to the likelihood that "the ones most likely to 'save Africa' are the Africans themselves."

That makes a lot more sense than Italian Vogue's patronizing implication on its cover that the UN, as personified by Ban Ki-Moon, is the author of African development. Surely there are Africans to be found who deserve the real credit. Of course, putting them on the cover, instead of "rebranding" Africa with the face of Ban Ki-Moon, might not inspire articles in British newspapers, or sell as many copies of Italian Vogue. And that would be a real pity for a publication still trying to live down its U.S. edition's 2011 excitement over "Asma al-Assad: A Rose in the Desert."