The EU has just published a statement in which its members call for an immediate end to hostilities in Lebanon with a view to creating a ceasefire at a later date.
The exact wording of the release is seen as a get-out for the likes of the UK who have so far avoided calls for an immediate ceasefire.
A BBC correspondant on News 24 mentioned that he asked a UK Foreign Office diplomat what the difference was between an end to hostility and a ceasefire; the diplomat stated that a ceasefire is a more formal way of ending violence in which both sides may sign an agreement or clause.
In reality the term ‘ceasefire’ is pretty self explanatory; to call for an immediate one is to state your wish for both sides to cease their fire against each other; formal arrangements are quite easily exclusive of the term and the UK knows this well.
The move is in reality a careful balancing act by Tony Blair in which he is standing by the US line on the conflict while not making his country the only EU state to oppose such a progressive statement.
While it is easy to say that Blair is Bush’s poodle it must be noted that Blair is much quicker to side with the US than the EU and it seems as though his country’s foreign policy depends entirely on that of the American administration. It is possible that he honestly believes it is not the right time for a ceasefire but in reality today’s EU statement is a matter of semantics which prove that he does support the notion; he just doesn’t want anyone to know yet.