Yesterday’s news on RT was that the U.S. is sending troops to 35 African countries, starting with Mali, and including  Libya, Sudan, Algeria and Niger in order to prepare for any advances from al-Qaeda linked groups. “Americans will also train and equip forces in Kenya and Somalia, …. to stand up to al-Shabab militants. Despite the troops being deployed to more than half of the countries in Africa’, according to the AP the U.S. will try to minimize evidence of its footprint across the continent.

This is not about aid and assistance, but about minerals and arable land, and the new policy of training and equiping indigenous military forces to do our work for us.

For several weeks now newscasters have admitted they don’t understand why the United States appears to be supporting groups linked to Al Qaeda,  such as the Salafists – or at the very least the Muslim Brotherhood, which is often considered little beter. To understand what is going on, we need to consider the fundamental difference between the Sunni and Shi’a versions of Islam and its relationship to the political divide.

The Sunnis – to which belong the Salafists, Wahhabis, Muslim Brotherhood, the rulers of Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain and other Gulf monarchies – have traditionally represented the ruling classes, while relatively large segments of their populations espouse Shi’isn, the form of Islam traditionally favored by the lower classes.  (The Sunni/Shi’a divide has roots in the poitical rifts that occured after the death of Mohamed.)

But it’s more complicated than that: Iran is ruled by a Shi’a theocracy installed by a revolution whose roots go back to a socialist Prime Minister deposed in a CIA coup in 1953. As for Syria, it is ruled by Alawites, a small Shi’a sect long associated with the Ba’ath Party, an Arab socialist party which also ruled Iraq until we deposed its leader, Saddam Hussein; and Libya’s recently deposed leader Muammar Ghaddafi also considered himself a socialist. Whatever one may think of these various leaders (to the extent that we, as outsiders, are entitled to assess their validity as rulers of their respective peoples…), it should be clear that America’s determination to effect regime change in the Middle East is not only about oil.

Whatever the official doctrine may be, the ideological war between capitalism and socialism is not over, but merely confined to Third World countries which, during the Cold War, were aligned with either the Soviet Union or the United States. As the Arab Spring shows, the conflict between recognition of community responsibility toward its most vulnerable and the conviction that it’s each man for himself, is no longer limited to secular ideologies, causing the United States to no longer know who its friends are.

One thing is certain: Washington prefers the Saudi and Qatari Wahhabi regimes because they are part of Sunni Islam’s Western oriented consensus based on the supremacy of money, as opposed to the Syrian and Iranian regimes which are welfare states. (Syria continued the secular educational system it inherited from France after the Second World War, and Syrian women are the most liberated of the Arab world. Until the 1960s the Alawites were not considered true Muslims either by mainstream Shi’a or Sunnis, because their version of Islam incorporates elements of other religions and is often practiced sitting and in silence rather than prostrated and voiced.)

When it comes to countries like Tunisia, Libya, Bahrain, Yemen, Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iraq, America’s political class is ill-equipped to see beyond the fact that these are Muslim countries. They are unfamiliar with the ideological currents that have marked their recent history.

Perhaps the most glaring example of America’s ideological handicap is it’s view of Hezbollah: the Shi’a leader Nasrallah has a sophisticated knowledge of Western philosophy and ideology, and in the 2006 war with Israel he instituted the ‘flat’ systems of the Argentinian cooperative movement. Yet he is seen as a ranting representative of a benighted ideology.

Moving now to Egypt, a longtime American ally, its new President, Mohamed Morsi of the Muslim Brotherhood supports freedom of religion, peace, democracy and the Palestinian cause, opposing American imperialism. As a recent analysis by the French journalist Thierry Meyssan pointed out, Morsi talks to both Iran and Saudi Arabia, but will not organize Egypt to suit the United States or Israel.

Although the Cold War is officially over, a United States dominated by neo-conservatism and the financial sector, is still determined to stamp out any regime that espouses a socialist ethos. It is no coincidence that besides being the homeland of the Jews to whom the U.S. refused entrance when they were being gassed by Nazi Germany, Israel is the only neo-liberal country in the region.

Less obviously, the socialist ethos partly explains why both Russia and China oppose U.S. policies: Just as our ideology harks back to our genocide of the Indians, the two former (to all intents and purposes) Communist countries are still influenced by the basic socialist ethos of solidarity and peace. And that is why both support Ahmedinejad, who expounded on these principles at the U.N. General Assembly this week.

Following the pattern I’ve been describing here, The Iranian president’s speech could only be greeted by cynical derision by Western officialdom, which cannot for a nanosecond appear to recognize his sincerity, at the risk of being expected to emulate him.

Unfortunately for these severely handi-capped politicians, Ahmedinejad’s ideals are recognized by the European 99%, from Spain, to Greece, to Italy and France, as they demonstrate ever more determinedly against IMF-inspired austerity. Washington blames the Europeans for the crisis of their common currency, passing over the world-wide penetration of crooked Wall Street financial institutions. The American public’s ignorance of other countries’ history and politics make it gullible, but your average European or Middle Easterner knows otherwise.

Since the United States first intervened, via the security Council and NATO, in the Libyan uprising, neither the American public nor those from whom it expects explanations, seem to have a convincing backstory. An Italian on-line revue: www.lernesto.it/index.aspx?m=77&f=2&IDArticolo=21305, suggests five explanations for America’s involvement that I haven’t seen/heard here.

1. Oil.  After 2003, Libya opened its oil fields to western companies, but  took 90% of production. NATO is assisting the rebels of Benghazi in anticipation of much more favorable contracts for American, English and French oil companies. The German company Wintershall would be eased out, as would the Italian company ENI, which recently paid a billion dollars for concessions up to 2042.

2. Access to the African continent, which has an abundance of raw materials, and is governed by weak post-colonial states. The most powerful developed countries have long been competing for Africa’s riches. Now they are using ethnic and tribal proxies (abetting their ancient hatreds), to redesign their respective areas of influence. This new style colonialism will be administered by local elites.

3. To impede African unity. Over the past ten years, Gaddafi was instrumental in increasing the power of the Organization of African Unity, and pushed for the creation of an independent economic area.

4.  To block penetration of Africa by China, that is exploiting the continent’s riches on an ever wider scale.

5. To reestablish the US and NATO bases that Gadaffi had expelled forty years ago. (In a similar strategy, US support for Kosovo Albanians in their struggle against Serbia allowed it to establish its largest European base, camp Bondsteel.)

Italy reluctantly sent about 2000 soldiers to Libya as well as war planes and aircraft carriers, joining the coalition in order not to be shut out after the fall of Gaddafi. Although it was not in Italy’s interest to go to war, Prime Minister Berlusconi had no choice, given his country’s weak international situation. (Germany could afford to stay out of the conflict while being assured of its share of oil, thanks to its better economic situation.) The conflict drags on beyond initial expectation, straining Italy’s finances, and together with the African Union, the BRIC countries and several Latin American countries, it is calling for negotiations. But Europe’s military and financial instability suits the United States, therefore it has rejected the call.

It seems clear that one of the reasons why President Obama blew off Congress’s complaints about our involvement in Libya, was to gain time to psych out the self-appointed representatives of those trying to oust Colonel Qaddafi. Now, satisfied that the men in suits are good liberals, the United States has recognized them as the country’s legitimate government, and written a check for 30 billion dollars to help the fighters on the ground get their act together.

This policy will likely be followed in other Arab countries where the population has decided to seek ‘freedom’, (defined differently by each group).

America’s traditional definition of freedom is being challenged by the Tea Party.  But according to today’s New York Times, our diplomats hope the newly recognized Libyan Transitional National Council will use the 30 billion for traditional public services – “to pay for health care and electrical power for example”.

Do we have to go to war in Libya for the administration – or at least The New York Times – to recognize that health care is a responsibility of government?

Is it possible that no one sees what’s happening?  Events of the scope and magnitude that have been building for the last two months cannot be met with one-off strategies and tactics. It has taken one hundred and sixty-three years for the slogan made famous in the Communist Manifesto “workers of the world, unite!” to happen: it is not happening under the direction of ‘vanguards’, as Marx and Engels expected, and under seemingly different banners, the upheavals taking place in the Middle East are all about equity, and will continue. Their variegated origins broke no single solution, however, the solutions, like the motivations, have an over-arching unity.

The protesters rise up from different parts of the political and religious spectrum, but share a determination to end the status quo imposed by the various regimes that rule each country. Some want more ‘freedom‘ i.e., the opportunity to become rich. Others want more security, i.e., the right to survive in dignity.  Similarly, their respective leaders cannot take concerted action, because they constitute different enemies vis a vis their respective peoples.

The kerfufle over who is to fill the United States’ shoes in managing the ouster of Muammar Gaddafi is merely a symptom: led by the United States since the Second World War, the West has systematically rejected all notions of world government, precisely because it implies a common search for equity. (The label has been ‘totalitarianism’.) Now it is too late.  We have no purposeful disaster response capability, thousands of nuclear weapons still exist, and we have no common goals.

Each leader defends his belief system. But perhaps, beneath the surface, lies an unspoken agreement: that the planet will be unable to nourish nine billion people, and those who possess the means must focus on escape.

Whether the tacit decision is that the powerful must unite to start anew on another planet, or that millions must be eliminated, the millions will continue to rise up, even as the chaos unleashed by our mindless abuse of nature continues.

The article by the Norwegian Foreign Minister, Jonas Gahr Store, appearing in the current (April 7th) issue of the NYR, www.nybooks.com/articles/-archives/2011/-apr/07/-why-we-must-talk/shows how much further along the social-democratic Scandinavians are in their thinking compared to the capitalist holdouts. Alas, dated barely three weeks ago, his exquisitely reasoned case for dialogue with the Muslim world reads like a last hurrah, as six more countries, all with different grievances, follow the Egyptian lead and the most powerful Emperor is suddenly without clothes.

Nobody knows where things will go from here.  If I had to pick those most likely to survive in a world that defies prediction, it would be the increasing number of small communities practicing simpler lifestyles and consensus decision-making.  To remain transfixed by the latest news bulletins is as useless as focusing on the week’s football matches.

The revolts, revolutions and wars that have suddenly erupted in the Arab world have taken the West by surprise because we no nothing about their antecedents.

Anyone who can read French will find an excellent background piece written by an Arab specialist, Mohamed Hassan on www.michelcollon.infoLibye-revolte-populaire-guerre.html?lang=fr. The takeaway is that Libya’s largely tribal society lacked the means to build on Ghaddafi’s revolution, whereas neither Egypt nor Tunisia ever had one.  This explains why Egyptians and Tunisians who took to the streets were seeking more equity, while Libyans, disappointed with Ghaddafi’s ‘revolution’ are seeking more freedom.

As for Iraq, it already had a relatively developed civil society when Saddam Hussein instituted a socialist-inspired regime, providing free education and health care; alas, Saddam continued the megalomaniac leadership that had for decades tried to take over Kuwait, and was a brutal dictator.

The Iranian revolution brought Shi’a Islam – the Islam of the downtrodden – to power for the first time in modern history, in a country whose sophisticated, educated, middle class resented not only its attention to the poor, but its medieval religious aspect.

I was in Cuba when the Egyptian crisis broke, and Latin American intellectuals meeting with Fidel Castro in a six hour televised roundtable, wondered what it might mean for the regime that had inspired their countries’ break with feudalism and American-style capitalism, but where coffee, cooking oil and rice were still rationed after fifty-two years of American blockade and encouragement of revolt.

As Barack Obama surely knows from his conversations with Brazil’s social democratic leaders, a Latin America that is no longer America’s back yard has tends to want development to benefit the many, and will not support efforts to topple any government which, however brutally or clumsily, is trying to level the playing field, for example, Mugabe.

In his role as elder statesman and op-ed writer, Fidel hammers home the message that nuclear power and climate change are the world’s two overriding threats. Were it not for the fact that most socialists tend to agree with his assessment, he would almost seem to be saying that political regimes are irrelevant. The Communist Party Congress to be held next month after more than a decade, will probably emphasize the planetary threat to the physical ‘nation’ while renewing its commitment to the cooperative aspects of  ‘socialism’ required  to solve both national and planetary challenges.

When Americans contemplate each day’s crop of upheavals, they need to bear in mind that socialists and intellectuals are inclined to support any regime that has a com-munity-based approach to problem solving rather than an individual one.  For the United States, the upheavals in the Arab world are about geo-politics – oil and Israel – while for most of the world’s leaders, they are, in one form or another, about equity.

The two weeks I just spent in the Cuban capital on the occasion of the country’s Twentieth Annual International Book Fair did not constitute perfect conditions for keeping up with the rest of the world, but the Egyptian saga had started before I left, and the gist of what has followed, including Khadafi’s bid for martyrdom, makes one thing crystal clear:  Samuel Huntington’s 1993 “A clash of Civilizations”? felt wrong at the time, and is now proven wrong.

During one of the many book presentations and round tables that took place during the two week gathering that especially honored the fledgling Latin American organization known as ALBA (The Bolivarian Revolution), one participant recounted a conversation with an Iranian writer.  He said: “You know, we think we have little in common with these people, yet we find that we have the same aspirations.”  The public understood perfectly: Muslims and “Westerners” are motivated by a common desire for the voices of the people to be heard, and for everyone to have access to a fair share of the pie.

That is one of the reasons why the Cuban Revolution, at fifty-two, is the acknowledged inspiration of Latin and Central American popular leaders, and why the United States needs to stop funding and otherwise assisting military coups, such as last year’s one in Honduras.

The other reason is what’s hitting the front pages every day: the revolutionary ‘epidemic‘ that is sweeping the Middle East.  Today “l’Ernesto Online” http://www.lernesto.it/index.aspx?m=77&f=2&IDArticolo=20558 translates Fidel Castro’s latest op-ed in which he foresees an American plan to occupy Libya. I sincerely hope President Obama will not allow himself to be dragged by our military into such an insane adventure.

Americans need to realize that even as the tiny island off the Florida coast (about which more in future blogs), faces the challenge of evolving into a social democracy, the Middle East that has been the preserve first of the British, then of the United States for over a century, will never be the same again.

Neither pious Western wishes for democracy nor efforts to establish it by force could change the dynamics of this vast, oil-rich region.  But the combination of progressive change in Latin America and American funding for corrupt regimes in the Middle East, supplemented with bombs and drones, raised the level of awareness of the population to the point of spontaneous revolt.

I hate to make sweeping statements, but I believe we are living an ‘axial’ moment in history, and we need to hold on tight to the roller-coaster cars, even as they rise to reveal new horizons, from Wisconsin to Tripoli and beyond.