Nsaa -- Adinkra Symbol meaning "he who does not know the real design will turn to an imitation". Credit: W. Bruce Willis, Adinkra Dictionary	Jesse Wrong on American Intervention By Grisso* Recent stories in the press report Rev. Jesse Jackson as saying that not only should the US continue its intervention in Yugoslavia, but that it should also apply the same policy to conflicts in Africa. I disagree on both counts. "It makes sense to me to help bail out people in Kosovo who are being killed by Milosevic," he said. "But if you do that, then you must include Ethiopia and Eritrea and Sierra Leone and the Congo. America should have one set of rules for all, just doing God's will." I highly doubt that America's role in Yugoslavia is driven by humanitarian interests as it claims. If that were so, America would be intervening in Turkey, a NATO country where Turkish Kurds are subject to the same sort of treatment as Albanian Kosovars are by the Serbs. For this and other reasons, it seems to me that humanitarian concerns do not, in the minds of those who drive American policy, provide a sufficient cause for America to intervene, militarily or in other ways, just anywhere in the world. Neither are humanitarian concerns a necessary condition of American intervention overseas. Rather, it seems to me that the necessary and sufficient condition of American intervention overseas was always, and remains today, that such intervention further the interests of the monied classes that dictate American policy on these matters. Let us not forget that America has its own less than noble history of mistreating its minorities, up to and exceeding the crimes of which Milosevic and the Serbs appear to be guilty vis-\(`a-vis the Albanian Kosovars. America violated over 300 treaties on its way to committing genocide upon the First Peoples of this land which it stole. And it grew wealthy on the labor of Africans whom it enslaved. Neither land theft nor labor theft, both of which are at the foundation of white American wealth, has as yet been reparated or atoned. Let us also not forget that, in more recent times, it was America that brought down the democratically elected government of Salvador Allende in Chile. And right now, today, America is taking action before the World Trade Organization that would have the effect of causing economic disaster in banana-dependent small island economies of the Caribbean, for no reason other than that American banana producers based in Central America would benefit. If not humanitarian, if not a concern for democracy, what then guides America's foreign policy decisions? The answer is as simple as it is constant, and as constant as it is constantly camouflaged by all kinds of high-sounding rhetoric about human rights and democracy. In a nutshell, the game that is being played is American world domination. And world domination in turn is sought to secure and safeguard the wealth of the elites that control resource flows under global market capitalism. In the game of world domination, or any kind of domination, physical force is a last resort. The hegemon or would-be hegemon needs a credible threat of physical force, but he prefers to use more refined methods as a general rule. The use of physical force is expensive, messy, and always generates resentment and opposition. It is sometimes necessary, however, for as the Chinese say, "kill one, scare a hundred"; it is a matter sometimes of establishing credibility. But as a general rule, it is far better for the hegemon to arrange things so that the subject of his hegemony opens the door wide and willingly and invites the hegemon in. In Africa, that has largely been accomplished. No invasion was necessary. Structures put in place during the colonial period that worked to extract Africa's wealth and export it to Europe, continued to work in the post-colonial period under the arrangements of what has been termed "neo-colonialism." The interventions of the World Bank and International Monetary Fund in this regard were worth many armies and gun-boats, and Africa remains by and large open to unimpeded economic rapine and pillage. "Humanitarian" intervention there would therefore be unlikely, because un-needed in the hegemon's view. If, however, the flow of riches ... of gold, diamonds, platinum, oil, copper, tin, molybdenum, nickel, rubber, etc., etc. ... out of Africa were to be stopped or threatened, onec could be certain that American and European intervention, up to and including military intervention, would not be far behind. Jesse's humanitarian logic therefore fails as a practical matter because its premises are at odds with the reality. In fairness, though, Jesse is raising a moral question moreso perhaps than a practical one. He wants America to do "God's will" everywhere. That would indeed be a good idea ... as Gandhi is reported to have replied on being asked what he thought of "European civilization." But could it seriously be contended that American military intervention in Yugoslavia is "doing God's will?" Or that American military intervention in various trouble spots in Africa would be? Despite the bombing of Serbian Yugoslavia, the Albanian Kosovars who are allegedly their victims, appear if anything to be worse off. That has been the sad outcome. And as a matter of moral precept, is it really to be believed that a unilateral signing of a peace agreement (by the Albanian Kosovars) should be considered sufficient proof of the perfidy of the non-signer (the Serbian Yugoslavs), and therefore just cause to bomb the non-signer? That is not the way to negotiate peace, although it does appear to play well with those grown up on John Wayne movies and "silver or lead" Godfather-esque "offer you can't refuse." I think God's will calls for something different, whether by precept, or by practical outcome. Now, I know where Jesse is coming from when he implicitly chides America for intervening to save white folks while leaving Africans to suffer. But that is a naive position that takes American pronouncements of noble intent at face value. It ignores a long history of American deception and double-talk on matters such as these. The logic of America's game of world domination does not at this time call for direct American intervention in African trouble spots, although it is indirectly involved militarily in other ways all across the continent, notably in Rwanda, Uganda, and through its sponsorship of an African "peace-keeping" force. The benefit to Africa is dubious in my mind. What is needed is less, not more, American and European involvement in Africa. It is well to remember that American troops were sent early in this century to Guatemala, El Salvador, Haiti, the Dominican Republic, and Panama, and remained a long time. The result was the prototypical "Banana Republic" -- American-backed plantocracies made safe for economic exploitation by American corporate interests. It brought to these countries many decades of exploitation, oppression and instability, still being played out. I do not wish the same for Africa today; it is bad enough as it is without adding to it. You do not call in the devil to do "God's will." Grisso *(Grisso is a 48 year old African of the diaspora. He has an engineering PhD, and is the author of a mathematical treatise on decision analysis under uncertainty. His email address is grisso@TheAfrican.Com).