Can anyone explain Queen Rania’s presence?
It with great pleasure that I introduce guest columnist Sean Jacobs, a fellow Capetonian who these days divides his time between Brooklyn and Ann Arbor, where he is an assistant professor of Communication Studies and African Studies at the University of Michigan. He describes himself as “a frustrated journalist” (is there any other kind?), and in his spare time edits the online edition of Chimurenga magazine. In 2004 he directed the Ten Years of Freedom Film Festival in New York City in April 2004.
Bono’s Vanity: Showcasing Africa, or Promoting its Glamorous Patrons?
By Sean Jacobs
In 1965, the Senegalese filmmaker Ousmane Sembene wrote and directed — against the odds, with minimal support from his government and a few French patrons, and as a director with 
meager cinematic background — the film Le noir de … (Black Girl) about a young Senegalese immigrant domestic working for a French family in the Antibes. The film, the first feature directed by a black African, was hailed at the time by New York Times critic A.H. Weiler (in now outdated language) as “put[ing] a sharp, bright focus on an emerging, once dark African area and on a forceful talent with fine potentials.” Sembene died this week at 84 after an illustrious career, saluted by another New York Times critic, A.O. Scott, for being as uncompromising in his criticism of Africa’s post-liberation regimes as he had been of French colonial domination. More importantly, Scott pointed out, Sembene was also passionate about celebrating the equality of Africa with the West: “He believed that Africans would experience true liberation when they threw off European models and discovered their own, homegrown versions of modernity.”
One can only wonder what Sembene might have achieved with the resources made available to former rock star Bono in his recent role as guest editor of a special “Africa” issue of the high-end monthly Vanity Fair.
Africa, of course, is now everyone’s pet cause. It offers an opportunity to shine for northern political leaders unpopular at home, and for Hollywood actresses and former and current pop stars to be seen doing their bit for humanity by lining up to visit the continent (mainly its children) or pleading its case in Western capitals. Bono, especially, has built a new career as a savior of Africa and makes much of pulling out all stops to plead the continent’s case — and his access to the corridors of power makes him a lot more effective in this role than his pop predecessor, Bob Geldof. In March this year, the U2 frontman who has accomplished the remarkable feat of being a friend to Nelson Mandela and George W. Bush simultaneously, announced he would guest edit the special issue of the glossy magazine, which would “rebrand Africa” for the magazine’s well-heeled readership and advertisers. His intentions were noble: “When you see people humiliated by extreme poverty and wasting away with flies buzzing around their eyes, it is easy not to believe that they are same as us,” he said.
Capturing the energy of a continent with 890 million and 54 countries in one issue of a magazine was always going to be a tall order, but even then, Bono and his team gets it really wrong. The key personnel included the head of communication of Bono’s RED Campaign as well as the actor Djimon Hounsou, who is credited as a “consultant.” And it shows. At times it looks like another ad for the RED Campaign.
It is never entirely clear whether the purpose of the edition is to showcase Africa — or people who promote Africa in the West, especially within the United States?
Much has been made of the issue’s twenty different covers. Twenty-one “prominent people” photographed by Annie Liebovitz in groups of two and three in a series meant to depict a “conversation” about Africa — she called it a “visual chain letter … spreading the message from person to person.”
The result of all that planning and effort (the real editor Graydon Carter lists Liebovitz’s flight schedule in his “editor’s letter”) is hardly extraordinary — though I was intrigued by, if not sure what to make of, the curious shot of Madonna apparently sniffing Maya Angelou.
Only three of those featured are actual Africans: the actor (and editor’s consultant) Djimon Hounsou, Archbishop Desmond Tutu and Iman. (Three and a half, if you count U.S. presidential longshot Barack Obama, another cover model, by virtue of being the son of a Kenyan economist.)
Not exactly a new brand of Africa: Hounsou is largely a product of Hollywood; Tutu, with respect, has retired from his life as an activist cleric; and Iman’s only qualification is that she was a well-known model in 1980s.
As for the non-Africans featured on the cover, if some of these are Africa’s friends, it does not 
need enemies. President George W. Bush and his Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice are a particularly odd choice — incidentally, they are pictured in a strangely intimate moment with Condi seeming to tug at George’s arm, as if the image was designed to provoke titillated speculation in the U.S. media.
Vanity Fair is not a news magazine, and therefore usually avoids putting people it dislikes on its cover. Carter, in his editor’s note, reveals his differences with Bono about including Bush and Rice, but the rock star appears to believe Bush’s Africa policies may be the “silver lining” of the current U.S. administration. But if silver linings were the criteria, then Thabo Mbeki, probably the most recognizable African political leader for his promotion of democracy, good governance and economic development, ought to have been included — perhaps Editor Bono deems Mbeki’s strange politics on HIV/AIDS and his “quiet diplomacy” on the crises in Zimbabwe are somehow worse than the Iraq war.
As for as strange cover choices go, though, Queen Rania of Jordan tops this list. I hope it was not because Bono thought Jordan was an African country.
A group of actual Africans profiled as representing the “spirit” of the continent — “activists, artists, doctors, athletes, entrepreneurs, economists” are given more limited treatment in short paragraph-length descriptions of their achievements.
The feature articles are written by go-to “Africa hands” in the United States, including Christopher Hitchens (offering a rambling stream of consciousness piece of Tunisia that recycles some earlier reporting), Sebastian Junger (a journalist described elsewhere as fascinated with “extreme situations and people at the edges of things”), and Spencer Wells (an “explorer-in-residence at National Geographic”). Only one actual African contributor, Binyavanga Wainaina on contemporary Kenya, made the cut.
Youssou N’Dour, the Senegalese singer, is credited as a contributor for a piece on a music festival in Mali written by a former MTV executive, but that appears more like a transparent attempt to counter criticism of the magazine’s editors for the limited African “voice” in the magazine.
The big profiles go to anti-poverty economist Jeffrey Sachs (Bono’s friend) and the late Princess Diana — since the issue appeared, much of the mainstream coverage has been about how this article, and an accompanying book, could resurrect the career of Tina Brown. Former U.S. president Bill Clinton writes on Nelson Mandela and Brad Pitt plays journalist by asking Archbishop Desmond Tutu really silly questions. Having praised South Africa for going the route of “restorative justice” — last time I checked nothing of the sort happened — Pitt has a follow-up question for Tutu: “Then it is worth asking what is the outcome for societies who have rushed toward retributive justice, like the Shia in Iraq?” Huh? Madonna gets to redeem herself after her bungled adoption of a Malawian child: she is doing a documentary on orphans in Malawi now.
Nothing substantial is written about the continent’s most populous and vibrant region, West Africa (except for the article on the music festival in the Malian desert). South Africa, the continent’s richest country (with Johannesburg slowly emerging as the continent’s cultural and media capital as the paragraph-length feature on the Africa Channel and the drooling photograph of actress Terry Pheto of the film Tsotsi suggests) gets short shrift. Apart from the Clinton piece on Mandela (which, typical of the tradition here, reduces the former guerrilla to saintly grandfather) and the Pitt “interview” with Tutu, there is nothing that captures some of the struggles to define this new Africa.
Nevertheless, on the upside, publications like the Cape Town-based literary and politics magazine Chimurenga (full disclosure: I am its online editor) and “new wave” writers such as Wainaina, Orange Prize-winner Chimamanda Adichie, Doreen Baingana and Mohamed Magani, among others, are getting some helpful exposure to new (and well-heeled) audiences and readers. And there’s some well-deserved attention for the AIDS activism of people like Zackie Achmat and the global justice campaigner Archbishop Ndungane (Tutu’s successor as Anglican prelate in South Africa, who would have been a more contemporary choice for the cover image), among others.
Also recognized is for the tireless work of New York African Film Festival director Mahen Bonetti, and the filmmakers Teddy Mattera, Gaston Kabore, Jean Marie Teno, and Safi Feye who all, unfortunately, are featured only in a group photo, with their work summed up in one paragraph. The coverage of these figures, however, is very minimal.
But even these upsides are spoiled by the sloppiness of the magazine. According to one of my sources, the one substantive article on the actual work of Africans (apart from Wainaina’s piece on Kenya) — -an omnibus article on the continent’s “literary renaissance” by Elissa Scappell and Rob Spillmann — contains a lot of untruths and plain invention.
For one, Nadine Gordimer, part of the old guard of African letters is described as a “founder member of the African National Congress” and the “conscience of South Africa.” Uh, the ANC was founded in 1912, 11 years before Gordimer’s birth, and only opened its membership to whites in 1969. As for Gordimer being the “conscience of South Africa,” I’m not sure you’d find many South Africans who would have accorded her such prominence in the national imagination.
It also appears that description of the event at the heart of the article — the SLS Kenya/Kwani? Literary Festival — is a bit off base. According to my source (who like me, is a fan of Adichie’s novels) the descriptions of “standing room only” readings given by her in Nairobi, is more an attempt by the writers of the articles to make the story fit the issue’s hype. On the night she read at the University of Nairobi, most festival visitors opted instead to go listen to the much older Ugandan writer Taban Lo Liyong, who was reading in the room next door.
Fela says…
In the end, reading Bono’s Vanity Fair Africa branding edition leaves me remembering what a friend of mine says when he feels he’s been had: “As Fela would say, this is ‘expensive shit’.”
Bono is an international thief thief (to make another Fela reference) and I would not trust him as far as I could throw him.
Any illusions that folks had about Bono should have been dispelled when he called up his “friend” Wolfowitz and congratulated him on ascending to the throne of the World Bank.
Africa will be better off when it’s many vibrant social movements are able to achieve the successes of their companeros in Latin America and completely reject such false friends as the Bono, the World Bank, “socially responsible” corporations, and the United States government (under whichever party).
Perhaps one should not be too harsh on Vanity Fair. After all, it is… Vanity Fair, not Monthly Review. But Mr Jacobs’s post is absolutely first-rate. (It also showed me how little I know about Africa and how much I need to learn, but let’s not dwell on that….)
I find the narcissism of the Live-Aid concert and its derivatives simply insufferable. Cynicism aside, their main goal seems to be making rich white people feel better about themselves (and reviving the flagging careers of aging rock stars).
Don’t get me wrong. I don’t doubt the sincerity of Bono and friends. And I applaud Bill Gates’s work on malaria vaccination. But the underlying philosophy is clear: Westerners screwed up colonization; so the idea is to try to do it all over again, but this time with the gorgeous queen Rania and not the ugly King Leopold, and everything will be just fine. Hint: Why is it that when westerners discuss Africa they always sound like they’re having a parents-teachers conference?
If the West were truly serious about Africa (beyond photo-ops), perhaps the single most useful action it could take would be to pass legislation banning the predatory practices of Big Pharma. For example, patents law that prevent generics (say, from India) from entering the market.
Also, the big “foreign” story in Africa these days is not Bono or Brad Pitt but Hu JIntao. I wonder if the VF piece mentions that.
I agree with Bernard,
I have always been very suspect of charity. It is usually done when there is real structural problems that it attempts to hide. Far better than just giving aid is reforming WTO, WB and IMF policies to actually be in the interest of development and growth rather than the interest of drug companies and Multinationals.
In Palestine, a very similar thing happens. The Israelis build a wall that cuts off a village from its land, then the Europeans, feeling all too guilty about being unable (and unwilling) to pressure Israel to not build this wall, send in crack team of experts to teach the villagers to do something other than farming, to teach the local municipality ‘good local governance principles’ to lecture the PA about transparency and democracy and generate countless meaningless workshops about meaningless nonsense. The people do not need that. They need to get their farmland back and have the freedom to sell, buy, travel and go to hospitals, and they’ll be fine.
“…with flies buzzing around their eyes…”
I’m going to guess that Bono lifted this from Dylan (who probably lifted it from someone else).
I think it’s fabulous that Africans are trying to redefine themselves. I wish them the best of luck in this endeavor.
At the same time, we need to face the facts that most Americans think Africans are dirt. A massive civil war kills millions of Congolese? That’s just “all those tribes fighting each other, like always.” Furthermore, it is a sad testament to the American psyche that when rock stars raise awareness on Africa, the rock stars get more attention than the Africans.
But that is how it is. If Vanity Fair were to run a bunch of articles about how Africa is redefining its culture, readers would say “That’s interesting”, and that would be the end of it. Instead, an admittedly shrill tone of “Africans are dying! Lots of them! But your rock star heroes are making a difference!” is employed. However much it offends your sensibilities, it might actually get someone to sign a petition, or donate a few bucks.
That is the choice. Either offend the pride of people like you–or SAVE LIVES! Is it a terrible crime that some people are actually interested in the welfare of Africans? Is charity so offensive to you that you are determined to smear goodwill efforts as “colonialism all over again” or a “pet cause” (which is a self-fullfilling prophecy)?
I think a set of contrasting examples would really bring out my point. There have been numerous criticisms, I think including on this blog, of the SaveDarfur movement as “neocolonialism.” According to this opinion, the SaveDarfur movement is really about taking out the Islamist/Arabist government of Khartoum, and perhaps also stealing the oil. While I have certainly heard SaveDarfur advocates express hatred of Sudanese President Omar Bashir, the main thrust of the movement is humanitarian. Don’t believe me? Open SaveDarfur.org right now. At the very top of the page, you will see not pictures of the “enemy” Omar Bashir or the Janjaweed, but of Darfuri victims of the war. The main focus is on helping Darfuris, not on taking out Bashir.
You want to see neocolonialism? Let’s look at a nearby country with a similarly strong Islamist element, but no grassroots movement comparable to SaveDarfur: Somalia. First the U.S. decides to fund the secular group of ruthless warlords simply because they are not Moslems (this is where the “War on Terror” shades into a War on Islam). Then, when Somalis on the street find out and rally to the Islamists, the U.S. (through Ethiopian proxies) knocks the new Islamist Somali government from power. The neocolonialist U.S. actions in Somalia were made completely independant of the human cost, because there was no grassroots movement to highlight the human cost. The Somalis became no more than collateral damage. Now, Somalis are facing the worst violence in their history.
The differing situations of Somalia and Darfur, where extensive negotiations with Bashir are moving us on the path to a peacekeeping force, can be thought of as two opposing prophecies for Africa’s future. There is a major conflict shaping up in Africa. Chinese involvement in Africa, which has led to many positive sustainable investments, also has ominous imperialist undertones. Saif, you talked of your suspicion towards charity. How about China donating public works projects to Bashir, and shielding him on the U.N. Security Council as he massacres his own people? Seems pretty callous, as bad as or worse than America funding Mobutu against Communism. Meanwhile, the U.S. is also becoming increasingly interested in Africa from a military perspective, viewing it as a front in the War on Terror fast rising in importance. These twin American and Chinese trends could mean that Africa becomes another battlefield for proxy campaigns between the two superpowers.
The largest countervailing force to this dark African future is the grassroots “Save Africa” movement characterized by SaveDarfur and Sachs and Bono. By pressuring the U.S. and China to take into account humanitarian concerns in their respective Africa policies, the “Save Africa” movement is hardly a tool of neocolonialism. Rather, this movement is the best defense against colonialism redux.
Apparently, Vanity Fair is living up to its name.
That said, VF’s attempt offers us an opportunity to reflect on Africa when we otherwise might not have. And when we reflect we will (eventually) conclude that ultimately, as in the cases of all nations and peoples, Africa must alone determine the future of Africa. Every attempt from without to alter or influence Africa’s future will be rejected – leading to a variety of ailments including immigration problems, violence, disease, hunger and poverty.
The bottom line: stay out of world affairs and let each nation/peoples determine its own course. That doesn’t mean that you can’t trade or provide humanitarian assistance (without strings attached). But when such trading and assistance is used as a tool to coerce or extort favors or behavior, it invariably leads to ills.
Cheers.
To Jorge,
” That is the choice. Either offend the pride of people like you–or SAVE LIVES!” Earth to Jorge….earth to Jorge, rock star interventions and external interventions in general are at best a band aid and at worst a hopeless exercise in mediocrity, incompetence and exploitation. Yes, Africans DO UNDERSTAND THAT THE WEST REGARD THEM AS DIRT, precisely the reason why majority have come to the conclusion that ‘external’ saviours despite even the best intentions turn out to be misinformed, ineffective and unreliable hence the need for self reliance.
More importantly, millions of Africans are spearheading the social entrepreneurship on the continent that is the ONLY guarantor of escape from poverty………the best Bono and ilk can do is offer good intentions……..in terms of sustainable, tangible and entrenched results, they neither have the ability nor acumen to solve Africans’ problems, Africans are already doing that for themselves! The fact is the Vanity Fair piece will have negligible impact on Africans’ lives and that is as it should be, it is nothing more than eye candy for an affluent Western audience who literally and figuratively are far removed from the continent’s dynamics.
KG,
You adressed Jorge, but the quote was mine, so I will reply.
I am sure that there are plenty of African “social enterpreneurs” that are helping their continent break free of poverty. But I also know that there are plenty of people that are left behind. Now don’t get me wrong–I am sure that many of the people left behind have tremendous character, and that plenty are way smarter than I.
However, even the best and brightest of Africa can not always escape from impossible situations. It is hard to attend elementary school when your family lives on the brink of starvation, and needs you at home to farm. It is hard to go to work when there are bullets whizzing by your head as you walk down the roads. Also, what if the government does not like your social enterpreneurship? Or your skin color? What then? Then, either some outside force has to step in and step up, or there’s one more brilliant social enterpreneur down the drain.
Also, notice that I said “most Americans”. Bono and “his ilk” are in my opinion the notable exceptions.
KG,
You adressed Jorge, but the quote was mine, so I will reply.
I am sure that there are plenty of African “social enterpreneurs” that are helping their continent break free of poverty. But I also know that there are plenty of people that are left behind. Now don’t get me wrong–I am sure that many of the people left behind have tremendous character, and that plenty are way smarter than I.
However, even the best and brightest of Africa can not always escape from impossible situations. It is hard to attend elementary school when your family lives on the brink of starvation, and needs you at home to farm. It is hard to go to work when there are bullets whizzing by your head as you walk down the roads. Also, what if the government does not like your social enterpreneurship? Or your skin color? What then? Then, either some outside force has to step in and step up, or there’s one more brilliant social enterpreneur down the drain.
Also, notice that I said “most Americans”. Bono and “his ilk” are in my opinion the notable exceptions.
Shlomo: You draw an important distinction: where is the line between humanitarianism and neocolonialism? People like David Rieff have concluded there’s no such line, and I must say I disagree. If I saw children starving in the desert, would I approve of a USAF C5 Galaxy airdropping food, water, and medicine? You bet I would, and I couldn’t care less if Wolfowitz is the guy who signed off on the order.
Rieff is overreacting, but his overreaction is empirically sound. More often than not, Bono/Sachs like charity cases backfire and actually cause harm. It has been argued with some validity that much of the LiveAid money was used for resettlement that killed tens of thousands of people. Sachs’s ideas for Africa have been controversial (to say the least) and his work in Russia was an utter disaster. To go back to Africa and charity, let’s keep in mind Amartya Sen’s amazing insight that the causes of famine almost never include… lack of food.
For all the West’s “solicitude” toward Africa, isn’t it amazing how poorly the continent is doing? If you were Africa and the Western man were your doctor, you would have sued that guy for malpractice down to his last penny.
Sorry Shlomo for misattributing your comments to someone else and thank you for engaging me on this subject. As an African I can tell you the realities you describe are very much valid however they are mere symptoms of structural deficiencies in the political, economic and social fabric of many of our societies. I’ll use the perfect example of Darfur, the situation in Darfur will only be solved by a POLITICAL, ECONOMIC and SOCIAL compromise in Sudan brokered by the Sudanese people themselves. Definitely there is nothing wrong with foreign humanitarian assistance, IT WILL SAVE LIVES, but at most it will be nothing more than a temporary balm.
Here is the challenge then, the heavy lifting to SOLVE the Darfur crisis will have to come in facilitating that political, economic and social compromise among Sudanense……as it obvious SANCTIONS, HUMANITARIAN ASSISTANCE and INTERNATIONAL CONDEMNATION play a role in saving lives but they are ineffective in guaranteeing LONG TERM safety for those impacted. Is the international community able and willing to do the heavy lifting of compromise? IMHO it is both unable and unwilling because that requires protracted, uncertain and complex negotiations with ALL SIDES.
Herein to me, lies the lesson. The structural weaknesses that begat crises like Darfur emanate from Africans, are owned by Africans and will be solved by Africans.
I don’t think Africa is doing poorly because of the West’s “solicitude”. I think it is doing poorly because, despite a small group of benefactors, the West as a whole has mangled the continent–first with imperialism, then WW2, then the Cold War, and now increasingly the War on Terror. If this small but increasing group of humanitarians had had more political clout, I think you would have seen improvements by now.
This is not to say that the humanitarians are perfect. For far too many in the benefactor crowd, Africa is a place that is ignored most of the time, except when a humanitarian crisis is dire enough to arouse feelings of pity and guilt. Then, out come the checkbooks. For example, no one bothered to pay for a relatively cheap early-warning system that could have prevented most of the deaths in the Southeast Asian tsunami. Instead, everyone waited until the tsunami hit, and the front page of the NY Times showed a roomful of drowned Sri Lankan kids. A huge influx of pity and money followed, but it was too late for those kids.
KG, I think we agree that this exemplifies the difference between a “temporary balm” and a long-term solution: while a “temporary balm” is typically motivated by Western guilt, it does not address the underlying causes of human suffering—and thus does not provide long-term relief. However, this reliable, long-term relief is PRECISELY what Sachs is advocating in addition to immediate humanitarian aid. Long-term, sustainable development was the main purpose of Bono’s “guest edit”.
But Bernard, of course, this aid might backfire, as LiveAid did. Bill Clinton’s progress report on SE Asian recovery reports that as with LiveAid, SE Asian aid has been characterized by snafus. But is this because there is this little imperialist demon in all Westerners’ heads, which makes it impossible for them to build up a developing country well–ever, ever, ever? Or is it just because there is no infrastructure for getting the aid where it needs to go? Aid organizations generally keep their overhead as low as possible, because they are strapped for cash and want to spend as much as possible on the poor. However, this means that they often do not have the infrastructure and personnel in place to accommodate a HUGE increase in aid–such as LiveAid or tsunami recovery.
The solution is to make aid more reliable and more systematized–not to give up.
Also, Bernard, there is an assumption implicit in your comment that I don’t agree with: “The West.” You acknowledge that “The West” has humanitarian sentiments, which puts you ahead of many other people. But you still seem to hold this assumption, common on the left, that there is this monolithic mass of Caucasian folk called “The West”. However, “The West” is actually quite diverse. One aspect of this diversity is that some Westerners are humanitarians, and some are militarists. So it’s not like when Western do-gooders are on a flight to help an African country, they change their minds en route and start trashing the place upon arrival. If the purpose of the trip is humanitarian, than humanitarian and not neocolonialist actions will be taken.
In short, the line you seek, between humanitarianism and neocolonialism, is actually quite clear and crisp. Some Westerners favor protecting U.S. “interests” regardless of the human cost. Others have better intentions. The former group of Westerners was behind the invasion of Somalia, and the latter is behind the SaveDarfur movement. Somalia is in freefall because of the West, and Darfur might just get back up because of the West. See the difference?
I have to say your article attempts to cast an ugly light on a sincere effort by people in power to do something good for Africa.
Of all the useless Vanity Fair covers in the past 5 years this one trying to help increase awareness to the Vanity Fair readers is the one you choose to pick on.. I have to wonder why? These are people who only respond to fame and fortune how else do you preach the message..? You have to speak in terms people will understand.
Over-hyping a cause is a great way to make people want to jump on-board.. how do you think today’s celebrity’s even get where they are when there are more beautiful and talented people? It’s all about marketing and I’m okay with it if it’s for Africa.. someone will be inspired and a trickle of the money these people waste on frivolous things will make it’s way to Africa.. and we sure do appreciate it.
That being said, you can take this how you like but what are YOU doing aside from your blog.. you can’t knock Bono he’s been to Africa and had chosen to involve himself and his “friends”. Expensive shit it may be but it’s much better than this insolent blog entry..
I agree with the previous poster, naijaCandy Let me also respond to something else KG said, which I left out of my last post because it was getting too long: “Here is the challenge then, the heavy lifting to SOLVE the Darfur crisis will have to come in facilitating that political, economic and social compromise among Sudanense.”
Couldn’t disagree more with that statement. I know there were some underlying causese of the Darfur crisis–water shortage, political and economic marginalization, history of rivalry between “Blacks” and “Arabs”. However, none of that had to lead to genocide. There is genocide in Darfur because after the SLA attacked a Sudanese compound in 2003, Omar Bashir decided he would respond with mass slaughter.
The Sudanese government started funding and providing military support for the Janjaweed as opposed to the Black militias. That’s not so bad, that’s cynical politics. But the government also decided it would actively encourage deliberate targeting of civilians, and would bar humanitarian groups from providing aid, and would bar the press from reporting the carnage.
Darfur has had its internal history largely seperate from Sudan. Then, out of nowhere, Omar Bashir stepped in and decided he would use genocide as a tool to quash rebellion. It is as if Bush were to start funding only Iraqi Shiites–what would you expect to happen? Would you call for “compromise” between Sunnis, Shiites, and Bush? No. You would tell Bush to back off. That’s what SaveDarfur is telling Bashir. Outside intervention started this genocide. Outside intervention must end it. Darfur needs saving–Save Darfur.
Shlomo said:
“That being said, you can take this how you like but what are YOU doing aside from your blog.. you can’t knock Bono he’s been to Africa and had chosen to involve himself and his “friends”. Expensive shit it may be but it’s much better than this insolent blog entry.”
There is more to it of course, but just to let Shlomo know I am in Johannesburg, South Africa now.
— Sean
Sean,
Second time now–that wasn’t me!
If the purpose of this edition of Vanity Fair was to serve as a glossy prospectus for charities dedicated to helping victims of vast, impersonal forces – colonialism, globalism, disease and natural forces – then it served its purpose. If it was to educate affluent readers about the diversity and complexity of Africa, it fell short. Sean’s observation that 12.5% of the cover subjects were African points to the assumption that the relationship with Africa and the West is one of paternal compassion.
I am not bashing the noble sentiments of these efforts, and something is infinitely preferable to nothing, but charity won’t solve the underlying issues that cause poverty and deprivation in Africa. It’s not that the human capital doesn’t exist – as Binyavanga Wainaina points out in his article – or that the financial resources don’t exist. Or that the hope is in short supply – witness South Africa’s revolutionary change in the absence of a revolution (although some might disagree with the characterization of revolution). Africa’s problem is first and foremost one of governance, and the complete vacuum of accountability. Sebastian Junger’s article on China’s inroads into Africa is very instructive. China has managed to position as a major partner to African governments, because Africa as a whole doesn’t feature as a major foreign policy issue. And where it does, foreign policy is guided by the need to maintain status quo in order to ensure the continued exploitation of natural resources, such as in Nigeria.
Sean — en nou? Wie’s daai “source” van jou?
Steve,
You write that “it’s not that the financial resources don’t exist”. That comment seems pretty ridiculous considering that most of the world population with the lowest income per capita lives in Africa. Please elaborate.
China is making inroads in Africa because they are willing to give financial resources to extremely corrupt governments, including Sudan’s. Now, that’s not necessarily a bad thing that China is giving economic aid to African countries. In fact, I think the U.S. should be doing the same. But let’s not kid ourselves about China. Africa was a major foreign policy issue (“domestic issue”?) during the times of imperialism, and there are worrying signs that China is moving in the same direction.
To Shlomo,
You will notice if you go to most African countries and take a much closer look at governments and certain groups that the resources are certainly not lacking. (even though they do often come from AID, and in other cases from the sale of valuable resources) The resources are not distributed. Even in Niger, (one of the poorest countries in the world, which I am from) money from the sale of uranium has made several people filthy rich, that money does not get to the majority of the population. There are so many reasons why resources are not distributed in many African Countries and I completely agree with Steve that governance is one of the biggest issues we face, an issue that we have to deal with on our own. If we as a people do not begin to hold those in charge more accountable, all the AID and help that we receive will simply go to waste. I am not against help from the outside, I simply believe that it does not get to the root of many of the problems and that to make a long term difference, the solution must come from within. This does not mean that we cannot work in partnership with people like Bono or Oprah. Like someone said above, if it is going to save some lives I am all for it. But this is our continent and we have every right to look critically at AID or outside help in fact we should (in my opinion history has taught us that we need to, and yes China’s presence not only worries me but scares me). You have to understand that after so many years having everyone telling you what to do and giving you advice about how to do things, many of us are aching to trace a path of our own, even if we might make some mistakes on the way…
As the saying goes: “no good deed goes unpunished”.
So, Bono is a no good “thief” who cynically uses Africa to get himself into the spotlight? Newsflash: unlike Geldof (whose motives however I do not question), Bono has a very thriving career, thank you very much, and does not need Africa to get into the spotlight.
Boy, reading this drivel, it would seem that were it not for the evil machinations of Bono and “his ilk”, Africa would be in splendid shape.
Somehow I suspect that no matter how splendid the gift horse, the ever grateful recipients would not cease examining the mouth until he suffocated.
In order to reach the public, you have to speak the language of your intended audience. Vanity Fair did as good a job as anyone had the right to expect. I’m sure Sean Jacobs can nitpick the contents of that presentation as not coming up to the standards of an African expert , but I’m shocked at just how inept his actual criticisms are. It really illustrates how little he understands of how magazine article are put together, and the necessary compromises that HAVE to be made.
Imagine for a moment that Bono “and his ilk” did absolutely NOTHING for Africa. Would Africa be better off?
An honest answer to that question tells us all we need to know about the graceless sniping of Mr. Jacobs and “his ilk”.
Could Bono do better? Well apart from Jesus (who probably didn’t even exist), can’t everybody do better? However realistically, Bono is doing an absolutely splendid job wrt. the African cause, and to call it “expensive shit” says much more about the ignorance and lack of elementary decency of his critics.
Which is why perhaps the best policy is to let Africa drift quite on it’s own, confident in the tender mercies of China. At least the horrible Western charities and Bono and “his ilk”, won’t prevent the Africans from creating paradise on earth – oh, and while at it, the West should make sure to slam shut its borders so all the clever Africans can stay home and get busy building the perfect future instead of having to partake of the lifestyle of the rotten West.
Medesse,
I look forward to empowering as many Africans as possible so that they are able to chart their own paths. So do Jeffrey Sachs and Bono, which is why their program is so controversial!
Once again, I sincerely doubt the problem of imperialism was Western “advise”. The problem was the fact that, for example, Belgians would cut your arms off if you didn’t make them rubber fast enough. The problem was not that “the West” was there, but that “the West” was generally brutal. Now, instead of Belgians torturing the Congo, we have Mobutu or a random collection of warlord thugs. Is this an improvement?
No. Actually, this is a legacy of imperialism. Even if Africa is free of white men for the next century, imperialism will remain in Africa–inside your institutions , inside your minds. There is a direct link between the despotic ruthlessness of imperialism and Omar Bashir’s brutal massacres in Darfur. That is why I and others of the SaveDarfur movement demand that Bashir be held accountable: not because we are imperialists, but because we are the anti-imperialists.
I am trying to find out what Alex Morgan’s point is apart from how his anger will make his head explode.
On Shlomo’s last post: Mobuto died in 1995. In any case I am not sure what the relevance of Mobuto your argument is Shlomo, since he was an extension of first Belgian, and then US interests in Zaire. It was one and the same thing (even though he had his own mind and his own interests). — Sean
Steve,
I’m not going to tell you my source. I would not be able to walk in Long Street again.
I agree with much of what you wrote. One bone with your crit: I am not sure colonialism, globali(sation) and disease are “vast impersonal forces.” Much of the history of the last 400 years between Africa and Europe/Americas is man-made (not a lot of women involved, exceptions are Margaret Thatcher, for example) and the result of conscious political decisions on the parts of various Western political and economic elites/power brokers.
And you are damn right on South Africa, “some might disagree with the characterization of revolution” especially since, apart from some changes at the top, that country is still the most unequal in the world (using GINI coefficient).
I also have to add that you fall into World Bank speak when you start on the road of “governance, and the complete vacuum of accountability.” That as it seems is now hollow talk as the World Bank disavows it nowadays, but also since they barely show any example (cf. Paul Wolfowitz). —
Sean
Sean,
Thanks for posting here; it’s nice when the original guy comes back.
What I was saying is that I don’t really care whether the Congolese are suffering because of a ruthless imperial dictator, a ruthless proxy dictator, or a group of ruthless warlords. As a human rights advocate, I am more concerned that the Congolese are suffering, period. Also, based on my experiences both with SaveDarfur and with Sachs and his “ilk”, this opinion is near-unanimous in the human rights community.
I honestly do not see what is so bad about people taking interest in Africa–or as you would say, making it a “pet cause”. Probably, most Vanity Fair readers would have otherwise ignored Africa entirely. This leaves the continent to prosper, ridding us of imperialism, right?
I don’t think so. You seem to presume that if do-gooders like Jeffrey Sachs and Bono go away, so does neocolonialism. But compare U.S. reactions to the proclaimed Islamist governments in Sudan and in Somalia. Omar Bashir has much stronger Islamist credentials, but Somalian Islamists got the axe from Ethiopia, as a U.S. proxy. This plunged the country back into chaos. Meanwhile, negotiations are still(!) ongoing with Bashir, to STOP the chaos in Darfur.
Why the difference? SaveDarfur. In general for the American public, I have found that African lives don’t matter, explaining how neocolonialist attacks like Somalia could occur. The only reason this has not happened in Sudan is because of the awareness raised by SaveDarfur–and Sachs, and Bono, and their “ilk.”
That’s my opinion, anyway. But since you’re here, I might as well ask: why do YOU think Bush went easier on the Somali islamists than on Omar Beshir?
this is a very interesting article, i thought i’d add my 2 cents. Africa as continent is actually not as poor as most of you think. im nigerian, i know nigeria is very rich but the governments are corrupt. so while countries like the US and china get rich from our oil, the governments only make deals that benefit their pockets and not the country.
not only that we are highly educated and very worldly but our governments hold us back. the charities have their hearts in the right place but it doesnt help. nor does it help to continulaly portray the continent as a big ball of war and disease and famine. But why would the west do any different
if you’d like to know the truth from and actual african who lived there – the charities need to go. every country in the world that has ever prospered has done it of ftheir own sweat and blood and so must africa. the great white hope will not prosper here.
If the governments cared even a little about their countries China wouldnt be there right now. As we can can all clearly see its a bad move. but we have the horrble, older generation still making bad decisions for our countries. they need to go. Once they are gone Africa will prosper. i have no doubt and it wont be because white people came to save us.
The truth of the matter is that the west should focus more on there own internal problems of poverty and social issues as the poor and the needy in western countries far outweights the rich and the famous. People sleeping and dying outside in the cold is not a major problem to them. They have more alchoholic, drug anonimous centers in the west than in Africa which points to the fact that the problem in the west is more urgent. Drug related problems, prostitution, murders and unheard of crimes are more related to lack and poverty which the west has for so many years neglected and overlooked and in turn tries to act like the big brother savoir for Africa. Africa do not need the west in to mingle with there problems. They are capable of taking care of themselve.
What audacity. Clearly, the two posters above me do not speak for Africans–most Africans do not have internet access. I hope you both enjoyed your little display of African pride, because the substance of your comments was pure nonsense.
Could you find me a quote from a Darfur refugee saying that “the charities gotta go”? When you’ve got one, then we’ll talk. Until then, I will proudly continue to devote my time towards “intervening” and “usurping” African “sovereign rights”, because I value human life more than my personal pride.
I am neither African nor Western, I’m a Latin American (from Bolivia). That said, I find it interesting that the two main perspectives on third world poverty tend revolve around Western programs, whether it’s bemoaning the failures of colonialism (guilt) or applauding charity (missionary work). But the post above tries to find a distinctive voice for Africans.
To often, we lay the blame for African (or any part of the third world) poverty on the West. Sure, there’s plenty of blame to be had. But what about the African leaders (Mugabe, Amin, etc.)? Assuming that the West bares the blame for Africa’s current failure–and can/should therefore “fix” it–is just as narcissistic as Bono’s attempt.
Africa, like Latin America, doesn’t merely revolve around the West’s social, political, economic, cultural, or moral orbit. It has flaws that are its own making, successes that are its own, and it can’t always be measured on the policies of the American presidency, the intentions of an Irish rock star, or the charity of an American billionaire. Arguments that link African poverty exclusively to the Cold War or the current war on terror do much the same as Bono’s failed attempt: they look primarily at themselves, and don’t let African speak for themselves.
I agree with you that Africans need to find their own voice, and that ultimately, only Africans can save themselves. But that doesn’t mean we in the West can’t give them a hand up. I remind you that the fundamental goal of SaveDarfur is changing the behavior of an Amin-type dictator named Bashir, by preventing him from using massacres as a political tool. The African Union has already shown it can not keep the peace by itself, and has in fact requested Western support on this matter.
Ultimately, I do not care who started this mess, and do not even think that is related to who will “fix” it. It seems kind of self-evident to me that a hundred thousand civilian deaths or a million AIDS deaths needs “fix”ing. I don’t care who does it. But when those scumbag dictators you refer to do not fix the issue, individuals like Bono and Sachs aim to step up and fill the gap.
Bono is a menace. He is the quintessential useful idiot, since he persuades gullible people the world over (and particularly, alas, in Ireland, his native country) that he’s working wonders for the world’s poor by hanging out with people like Bush and Blair, whereas he merely lends them spurious credibility and helps perpetuate the unjust system these guys (and now Blair’s successor Brown) administer for the benefit of Western corporations.
One temptation to be avoided is to claim that he’s merely seeking publicity: he doesn’t need to. It’s worse than that: he genuinely believes that he’s doing good, and is too damned thick to understand the futility and destructiveness of his own role.
That was almost too inane to respond to, but what the hell, my party got cancelled tonight.
Raymond, have you ever listened to what Bono was SAYING when he talked to Bush? Or are you the left-wing counterpoint to Dick Cheney, who will not associate with any ruler whose political views you don’t like, and makes immediate enemies of those that do?
Here is what Bono actually said:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9755936/
“Bono heaped praise on Bush for providing $15 billion to help fight AIDS in Africa, money that is helping pay for anti-retroviral drugs. He said he was disappointed that Bush and Congress had cut the Millennium Challenge program that gives foreign aid to countries that pursue political, economic and human rights reforms, but he’ll keep pushing them to fund the full amount that the president promised.”
He also has made clear that he opposes the Iraq War, but says he tones that down because his primarly goal is fighting poverty. From what I can tell, Bono is in no way for “perpetuation” of the unjust system; however, he is willing to work within it to represent “the poorest and most vulnerable people.”
To clarify, what you just said is that lobbying world leaders for the poor is more of a “menace” than ignoring millions of preventable deaths. Nice.
http://www.makebonohistory.org
Put the no back in Bono.
Pingback: The Fader Africa Issue « leo africanus
Pingback: outrages « “do not go gentle into that good night / rage rage aginst the dying of the light”
BLACK AFRICA ALONE IS DOOMED!
The Berlin Wall has gone; ex Communist white Europe, is slowly catching up with the Capitalist West. Meanwhile, liberated black Africa, State by State, is going down a stinking, starving, chaotic sewer. Africa desperately, needs neo/white benign Colonialism; the last thing on earth, the blacks need, is black government.
I wanted to comment and thank the author, good stuff
Neo-Colonialism in a modern context.
Every dismal picture tells a depressing story. Africa needs decent white European government for at least 100 years. Don’t ask me? Ask the starving blacks. I believe the Greeks called it democracy. And if my history is correct; intellectually, the Greeks were eternally indebted to the knowledge of black African Egyptians. I despise arrogant white European do-gooders!
Hey guy, was just searching through the web looking 4 some infos and go to your blog. I’m impressed by the information that you have on this blog. Shows how well you understand this subject. I’ve bookmarked your, and will come back 4 more. Guy, you, Rock this Shit!
Advantageously, the article is in reality the best on this worthw hile topic. I agree with your conclusions and will thirstily look forward to your upcoming updates. Saying thanks will not just be enough, for the extraordinary lucidity in your writing. I will immediately grab your rss feed to stay informed of any updates. Pleasant work and much success in your business enterprize!
Hi guy, was just browsing through the internet and looking for some information and came across this website. I’m impressed by the information that you’ve on ya blog. It shows how ya understand your subject. I’ve bookmarked your, and will come back for more infos. Guy, you, ROCK!!!
Wonderful thing about %BLOGTITLE% ! I wish to apprentice whilst you amend your web site, how could i subscribe for a blog website? The account helped me a appropriate deal. I were a little bit acquainted of this your broadcast provided bright clear concept Thanks one million and please keep up the rewarding work and by the way why dont you also read the I would like to maybe you will also be interested into it
I’d really like to know if you think maybe that today it is much harder to get a public proxy? I’ve never been a specialist in this field, but earlier it turned out easier to locate a working proxy. Now it’s very difficult. I think this is because increasing the number of people who deal together with spam. Too many individuals are engaged inside mindless spamming. Maybe you know some beneficial proxy service? I not use a new proxy to breaking, or send spam e-mail.
?»?I noticed on your site info with respect to proxy. Because only beginning to be interested in this topic I want to know how you will get this details. Alone recently came across some cool sites where I are able to a great deal of working proxy. It had become just starting to learn about thus useful are the right tool any useful information. See you.
?»?I noticed on your blog information with regards to the proxy. Because only beginning to become interested in this subject I is wishing for to know just how do I get this info. Alone recently found out about some cool sites where I can find a great number of working proxy. It was only starting to learn about so valuable to me any useful information. Have a nice day.
Starting capital of Kazakhstan, Astana, ‘nuclear weapons-free world’ international forum on President Nursultan Nazarbayev, speaking at the opening, said that the utopia of a world nuclear unarmed.
The world’s second largest nuclear test ranges of the twentieth anniversary of the Semey Poligonu’nun kapat?l???n?n Semey’de Nazarbayev Astana and held under the auspices of the forum involved a large number of well-known feature. Nazarbayev participated in the opening ceremony of the form, the first job as soon as we receive the independence of other states saw as the power of nuclear weapons from Kazakhstan and Semey Poligonu’nu ar?nd?rd???n? has closed, he said.
Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, the Kremlin is a statement of the candidate, then went to the U.S. dollar monopoly on being the first overseas visit to China and said that damage to this country and the entire world ekonomililerine. China State Television and the Xinhua news agency in a joint statement, Putin said that a reform of the global financial structure.
Organizations like the International Monetary Fund and World Bank reform, addressing Putin, as compulsory, “the growing economic strength of our countries and taking into account the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa) countries should be provided to undertake a more active role in these structures. Complex financial instruments, commodity markets, prevented to cause variability. yo?unla??lmal? and speculation, especially on production and industry be limited, “he said. Putin’s Russia and the BRICS countries, particularly China gained a positive role in stabilizing the global economy, reminded me of envisaging full acceptance.
European Union (EU) and the Euro zone member Slovakia, the Financial Stability Fund (EFSF) on the extension of voting turned into a political crisis. Slovenia’s council ‘no’ led to the emergence of government. Describing the move as the first no-confidence vote, Prime Minister Iveta Radicova, now sat at the table with the opposition party. German Chancellor Angela Merkel, believes the signs ç?kaca??na Bratislava positive decision.
Slovakia, the euro rescue fund, known as the vote on the extension of EFSF’in from 17 countries in the euro area was the last place. After the parliamentary session, which lasted about 10 hours yesterday in Bratislava, the capital of the vote ‘no’ output. EU countries that are involved in this critical vote on the future of the euro, the world has closely followed the public and the markets. “We will give a decision on the future of the European Union.” Slovakia’s Prime Minister Iveta Radicova said, despite the efforts of the government was unable to convince its partners. The opposition party SMER in the first voting ‘no’, saying the government established a new government after the fall provide EFSF’e common case of ‘yes’ would reply said. Yesterday Radicova sitting down with the party, after providing the Euro vote today, the parliament wants to deal with them.
A spokesman for EU Commissioner Olli Rehn, the expansion of the fund is supporting this by drawing attention to the other EU members, Slovenia urged the authorities to take steps necessary for fast approval. German Chancellor Angela Merkel said he believed the ç?kaca??na Slovakia’s second confirmation vote. Merkel, in an official visit to Vietnam and Mongolia, “on October 23 to check the signature of the EU until the next meeting takes place in all EU member states I’m sure.” he explained.
On the other hand the developments in Slovakia, revived the debate about the functioning of the European Union. Social Democratic Party (SPD), the European Parliament, Martin Schulz, Chairman of the Group, Bratislava is not no good for the EU decision, he said. Schulz, the German radio announced, to the absence of such a situation again in the euro area for the establishment of a centralized economic management should be repeated.
Fees relating to the reorganization EFSF’in 17 countries in the euro area is expected to enter into force upon approval. The amount of the check if the extension of up to EUR 780 billion EFSF’in, Germany’s contribution to the fund to € 123 billion euros, 211 billion will be removed.
Israeli President Shimon Peres, in the hands of Hamas for the release of soldier Gilad Shalit, said that Turkey’s role in his surprise.
Peres, “leaving everything to one side of the event they put in front of the human dimension of politics. As I heard the Prime Minister of Turkey Erdogan made ??it.” he said.
Israel last night announced an agreement with Hamas prisoner exchange. Shimon Peres, it has been achieved as a result of special efforts by the international and expressed his personal relationships.
Pingback: Rookie » Voluntary Information
Thank you for every other great post. Where else may anybody get that type of info in such a perfect approach
of writing? I have a presentation subsequent week, and I’m on the look for such info.