Libya: Why Cameron must wait for regime change

The Prime Minister did a round of interviews at lunchtime. In the middle of it all word reached No 10 that Colonel Gaddafi had declared a ceasefire.

The PM gave a cautious “let’s judge him by his actions” answer with information thin on the ground. But the move suggests that Col Gaddafi’s team has been dipping into the early Saddam Hussein textbook on how to play cat and mouse with the UN.

Military experts argue that Col Gaddafi will not last long now. The number of troops loyal to him could be significantly lower than the 10,000 number that gets quoted. But he needs to be firing weapons to justify being fired at by the allies.In his interviews, David Cameron repeated the description of Libya under Col Gaddafi as a “pariah state” that can’t be allowed to fester on the Med. But he doesn’t have a UN resolution for regime change. He’s got a resolution for humanitarian intervention to protect civilians.

One former Labour Cabinet Minister thought that the humanitarian mission looked a bit like WMD was for Tony Blair over Iraq – a cover for regime change.

David Cameron, as you can see from the interview, resists going down that route. But the idea of the Government declaring “mission over” in Libya with Col Gaddafi still in place, not attacking rebel parts of his country but staying put seems very far-fetched. Most likely though must be that Col Gaddafi breaches his own ceasefire and the allies pounce.

Then comes the question of what, if he goes, replaces him? How well does the government know the people who’d like to take over? What threshold of wholesomeness will we apply before backing any replacement regime?