Daily View: Reaction to Libya ceasefire
Commentators discuss the Libyan government declaration of an immediate ceasefire. It came after a UN Security Council resolution backed "all necessary measures" short of occupation to end fighting in the country.
, giving a cautious response to the announcement:
鈥淲e are going to be not responsive or impressed by words, we would have to see actions on the ground and that is not yet at all clear,鈥 Mrs Clinton said. 鈥淲e will continue to work with our partners in the international community to press Gaddafi to leave and to support the legitimate aspirations of the Libyan people.鈥
, says the ceasefire marks a success for the UN, but the future of both Libya and Gaddafi remains uncertain:
"Libya's surprise announcement of a ceasefire... suggests that the resolution has succeeded in warning Gaddafi off risking [an invasion of Benghazi]... [But] over a longer term Gaddafi's response to limitations on Libya's sovereignty are unpredictable... Over the past week Gaddafi promised that "If the world gets crazy with us, we will get crazy too. We will respond. We will make their lives hell because they are making our lives hell. They will never have peace'... as long as Gaddafi remains in power the medium/long term impact of this decision could have a host of impacts..."
Kyle Wingfield, , says the announcement by Gaddafi's government comes too late to celebrate:
"Victory without firing a shot, right? Not exactly... [Gaddafi's] forces have beaten back the rebels from Zawiya (just outside the capital Tripoli), Ras Lanuf, Brega and Ajdabiya... In other words, [Gaddafi] has already accomplished most of what he set out to do when he began attacking the rebels. Had the UN action come two weeks ago, the balance of forces might have produced an outcome in which [Gaddafi] had to step down and the Libyan people had a chance to form a new, more representative government."
the ceasefire does little to help the allied forces achieve their aim of removing Libya's leader from power:
"It complicates the implementation of the no-fly zone, which in logistical terms is already quite complex enough. Then there is the question of the extent to which it affects the dynamic of the conflict currently being fought between rebel forces holding out in Benghazi and those loyal to Muammar Gaddafi. Will a stalemate develop - and if so, what other 'necessary means' will be used to end the Libyan colonel's rule? Cameron suggested sending in an African Union force. In these circumstances, nothing is certain. The strategic goal is Gaddafi's removal. How long will that really take - and how far will the international community have to go to secure it?"
