Tripoli Calm While London Burns

Isn’t it ironic that while the streets of Tripoli remain calm the streets of London, capital of one of the principle imperial powers involved in the Libya war of aggression, is raging with fire?

For the third day in a row, violent protests continue in London, and are spreading elsewhere — Birmingham, Liverpool, Manchester and Bristol — following the killing of a 29-year old man by police in what corporate media describe as “an ethnically diverse low income area.”

In other words, someone from an area where both unemployment and heavy police action are high.

Instead of focusing on its own domestic woes, economically-challenged Britain is still involved in the Libyan war of conquest and oil. It’s a war launched by the erratic French President Nicholas Sarkzoy, at the behest of his friend Bernard-Henri Levy, who believed it was a fashionable and “chic” war that would make France globally relevant again. Sarkozy didn’t even inform his own foreign minister when he made the decision to invade Libya, allowing Levy to freelance as God and to determine matters of life and death in Libya.

Meanwhile, the United States, which now is also in the midst of the worst economic and financial crises in recent memory still stubbornly refuses to officially endorse the African Union peace plan. The plan, supported by almost every African country, calls for a cease-fire, negotiations for a constitution, and democratic elections involving all Libyan parties and citizens.

At the same time, the Sarkozy “rebels” in Benghazi are devouring each other. The Sarkozy “rebels” recently murdered Gen. Abdel Fattah Younes, their military commander. His bullet-riddled body was burned and tossed on the streets of Benghazi, together with the bodies of his two senior officers. Just today, the Sarkozy “rebels” dissolved their own government in Benghazi. Accusations and counter-accusations fly between the various “rebel” factions –including the al-Qaeda and Islamic Fighting Front groups– with the supporters of Gen. Younes vowing to avenge his murder.

These are the so-called “Libyan democrats” who were about to win control from Washington of the $30 billion in Libyan assets frozen in the United States? These disparate groups are now evidently going their separate ways.

Yet, the “rebels'” anti-democratic credentials had previously been covered up by pliant media, including The New York Times, CNN and the BBC. These corporate media, cheerleaders for the NATO war, ignored the beheadings of Black Libyans and migrant workers from other African countries, by the rebels, and the ethnic cleansing of Black Libyans in Misurata, as reported in The Wall Street Journal on June 21. There are reports of mass graves being bulldozed in Benghazi; they are not mentioned in The Times, CNN, or the BBC.

But propaganda can only cover up so much.

Ironically, the murder of Gen. Younes occurred the very day after the United Kingdom had foolishly “recognized” these killers of Black Libyans as the “legitimate” representatives of all Libya. The U.K. decision followed similar action by France, Italy and the United States.

Never mind that the majority of Libyans, who live in the Western part of the country, including the 1.5 million in Tripoli, gave no indication that they wanted the Sarkozy “rebels” to prevail. On the contrary, more than one million Libyans reportedly turned out in Tripoli to denounce the Sarkozy “rebels” and to support the government.

There might be a lesson that can be drawn from the mayhem in the streets of London, by the British leaders here; a cautionary tale against blatant meddling in the affairs of other sovereign states.

Imagine, if Libya was now in a position to drop arms to the “rebels” in London; France violated United Nations Resolution 1970 and dropped lethal arms by air on Western Libya, increasing the bloodshed there.

Imagine, if Libya was in a position to send military trainers to the U.K., to teach the “rebels” in London; both France and Britain sent dozens of military “advisors” to Benghazi to train the Sarkozy “rebels.”

Imagine, if Libya was in a position to provide sanctuary to the “leaders” of the London “rebels” and to invite other countries and to create a “Contact Group” which met on a regular basis, to monitor the progress of the London “rebellion,” and to pledge financing.

Imagine, if pro-“rebel” hordes of journalists, from around the world, descended on London, and reported one-sided “news” only from the “rebels'” position; while ridiculing or casting doubt on statements coming from U.K. and London official sources, including Prime Minister David Cameron and the Police officials.

The lessons go beyond London.

The economies of the United States and Western Europe will struggle through financial woes and market instability for a long time; some countries will never recover their position in the world economy. Coupled with massive cuts in government services –including the police forces– and cuts on social and welfare programs, to deal with budget deficits, there are bound to be more social upheavals.

Under such scenarios –and London is only the beginning– it’s preposterous for NATO to continue bombing Libya on behalf of a collapsing “rebellion” while the streets of one NATO member country, and possibly more, are consumed with fire.

The African Union plan offers a peaceful resolution to the Libyan conflict.