By Robert Brookes
French war planes have reportedly destroyed four Libyan tanks in air strikes to the south west of the Libyan city of Benghazi.
The attack, reported by Al Jazeera television, came after top officials from the United States, Europe and the Arab world met in Paris and announced immediate military action.
Earlier on Saturday, government troops loyal to Libyan leader Moammar Gaddafi stormed into Benghazi, apparently ignoring a proclaimed ceasefire.
Gaddafi had defended his decision to attack rebel cities in Libya, telling France and Britain they would regret any intervention in the country.
Saturday’s Swiss newspapers leave the impression that Thursday’s resolution at the United Nations Security Council in New York for a no-fly zone over Libya would still be extremely difficult to put into practice.
“Gaddafi obviously counted on such a UN move,” commented the Bund newspaper of Bern. “Shortly after it had been accepted, the Libyan foreign minister Moussa Koussa announced a ceasefire.”
The paper argued that the resolution was “fragile” since only ten of the 15 members of the Security Council were in favour. Five members, including China, Russia and Germany, abstained.
“For the much-cited joint European foreign policy, Germany’s performance was no good omen,” it added.
Several newspapers mentioned the many risks that accompany the UN resolution. The Basler Zeitung of Basel, for example, made the point that those countries taking part in enforcing the no-fly zone would be responsible for the consequences and also settling the conflict.
It said “provoker” Gaddafi would do all in his power to draw the Europeans and Americans deeper into the conflict.
Little was known, it went on, about how trustworthy the rebels were. If there were Nato attacks in the country and civilians were killed, as was the case in Afghanistan, they could rapidly provoke anti-western sentiment, fuelled by Gaddafi’s propaganda.
More or less the same point was made in the Berner Zeitung, which commented that the resolution was achieved only after painstaking efforts. Putting it into practice would be “extremely delicate”.
It also said that the resolution did not include ground operations because there was a big fear [in other countries] of being dragged into an “endless military adventure”.
It was now up to the international community to show how serious the situation was. Action had to be followed rapidly to restore credibility, it added.
Zurich’s Tages-Anzeiger described any action as “risky”. Not only could the civilian population be victims, but Gaddafi’s air defence systems could shoot down western pilots and use them as hostages. “It’s also completely unclear as to how long any action would last. The rebels, who are badly equipped, may need a long time to bring about the fall of this hated regime.”
Ghadaffi as “virtuoso”
Two newspapers in the French-speaking part of the country put their focus on Gaddafi as a person. L’Express of Neuchâtel describes the Libyan leader as the “virtuoso of manipulation”.
It said that he knew only too well that countries which might be involved against him are already “bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan” and wanted to avoid being involved on the ground at all costs.
But it also has a warning: “Gaddafi has always known how to play for time, but this time everything seems to show that he himself may well have to be counted.”
The editorialist in the Lausanne newspaper Le Matin wasted no time in describing Gaddafi as “worse than Machiavelli”.
He had, for example, made fun of western powers for more than 40 years. “And once you think he’s knocked down, he can come back and surprise everyone.”
This time, however, the colonel had to be taught that he was “undesirable” and that he should “leave the stage”.