"Ceasefire" v "cessation of hostilities": how would you define them?

[muriel_volestrangler]

The British government seems to think that "ceasefire" means a lot more than people stopping firing at each other; they want "an immediate halt to hostilities, to be followed by a sustainable ceasefire". Merriam-Webster defines "cease-fire" as

1 : a military order to cease firing
2 : a suspension of active hostilities

It seems to me a "halt to hostilities" means more than a "ceasefire" - I can be hostile to someone without actively trying to kill them, but if I am firing at them, I have to be hostile to them, by definition.

So it seems my own government is speaking a different language from me (and who know how these things translate to languages that are truly different). Any thought from other English speakers?

[bullimiami]

1. ceasefire is what sane people want. the insane madmen change the terms

and muddle the argument because they dont want the killing to stop.

[Solly Mack]

2. A cease -fire means nothing is resolved - you stop firing

...but not necessarily forever....but a cessation of hostilities includes a cease fire AND a truce of some sort...so you agree to cease fire on the conditions of the terms of truce/treaty that is agreed upon

instead of simply agreeing to halt firing...

did that help?

I'm going on how the difference is explained in the army..

recall how opposing forces in ww2 would "cease fire" long enough to play soccer or enjoy christmas...then the next day firing would begin again...it was a cease fire without a cessation of hostilities...because there was no truce and there was no treaty that ended hostilities.

I know it seems like the same thing but it's not...the meanings make the difference

government should explain how they define terms...but it helps them in the long run not to explain...if you don't know what they mean, they can get away with more stuff. So it's best for government if people aren't well informed. ...but it sucks for the people.

[muriel_volestrangler]

5. Well, it helps me think that I still understand English

because that's roughly what I thought. My government seems to think the exact opposite, though.

[Solly Mack]

6. Yes, government takes settled upon definitions and warps them

to fit their goals.

Bush is well known for it.

[Jim__]

3. My guess is that this is diplomatic language that allows them to go

along with the EUs call for an immediate ceasefire; but that doesn't directly contradict bush. It looks like a distinction without a difference.

[malaise]

4. Britain does not want a ceasefire

Poodle cannot disagree with Bush and the EU were very serious about having a credible position from foreign ministers so they agreed to an immediate halt to hostilities which differs quite significantly from a cease fire. A cease fire means that both parties agree to the terms of the cessation of hostilities. A cessation of hostilities means you stop fighting and work on the agreement to the ceasefire. Bushco and Blair do not want a cessation but the rest of Europe were really pissed at that meeting this morning, particularly the French, the Finnish Foreign Minister Erkki Tuomioja and EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana who have both been in the region.

[muriel_volestrangler]

8. What you describe as a 'ceasefire', I would describe as a 'truce'

or maybe 'armistice'. To me, 'ceasefire' is just about whether you're 'firing' at each other or not. 'Hostilities', however, are about whether you regard the other party as an enemy or not. Maybe I'm just letting the derivation of the words influence me too much - 'fire', 'hostis', 'true' and so on.

[malaise]

9. You are correct

but the way the terms are being used in this current crisis creates more confusion than clarity. An immediate cessation of hostilities is a 'ceasefire'.
The bottom line is that the US and Britain (until today)claimed that they do not want a ceasefire that does not settle the larger conflict.

The way the EU worded their statement only creates more confusion to accommodate Britain. They did call for an immediate ceasefire. "The 25 EU ministers agreed to call for an urgent halt to the fighting, effective immediately. Britain, Germany and others initially were against such a call.

THey called for an "immediate cessation of hostilities" followed by international efforts to get agreement on a sustainable cease-fire.
http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/08/01/mideast.diplomacy.ap/

The truth is that the EU has separated itself from its position during the G8 summit and is now against the US position. Strangely Britain has also changes her position.
http://webcast.un.org/ramgen/pressbriefing/brief060801.rm
brief comment on the subject
Add.

[samsingh]

7. well neither are happening right now