It should of course be recognised that left eniterly to the auspices of the United Nations absolutely nothing would ever have been done.

The only reason that there are weapons inspections teams currently present in Iraq today is due entirely to the efforts of the current American Administration.

Kevin contends that:

"...it appears that they (Bush and Blair) believe that their views on this matter are what matters, and that, if the Security Council does not back them up, they will go to war regardless."

President Bush's concerns do matter and the views of the USA and the UK matter as much as the views of the other members of the UNSC matter.

"...on the basis of what has happened so far, the inspection team believe that considerable progress has been made, and that more time is needed to discover whether the Iraq claims that they have got rid of all Weapons of Mass Destruction are true or false."

UNMOVIC and IAEA inspections teams are only in Iraq today because the current US Administration forced the issue - no other reason. The progress that you speak of has been made inspite of grudging co-operation, given in fits and starts, by an Iraqi regime that is being constantly reminded of what consequences might be by the presence of a credible threat.

"If "serious consequences" should be required, on the grounds that the Iraqi authorities have been less actively cooperative in the inspection process than is required of them, and that there are still reasons to doubt their claims, then the proposals put forward by the French, Germans and Belgians are on the table."

You conveniently ignore the requirement that full co-operation was required from Day 1 - it was never meant to be gradual. I also take it that you refer to the French and German proposal that has been backed by the Russians and latterly the Chinese - the French, German and Belgian reference relates to planning involving increased Patriot missile defence for Turkey in the event of a war in Iraq.

"These ("serious consequences") amount to a great deal more than "a severe talking to". Admittedly they do not include a massive series of air attacks on Iraq and an all out invasion. However they do envisage a greatly increased level of surveillance of Iraq, with a greatly enlarged inspection force, backed up by expanded air inspections and UN troops on the ground."

So serious consequences comes down to increased surveillence, more inspectors, expanded air inspections and UN troops on the ground. All of which still mounts to nothing if the Iraqi's are not co-operating. Where do the additional inspectors come from? The type of experienced specialists required are not exactly thick on the ground. Dr. Hans Blix is having trouble sourcing an additional 12 inspectors, France of course can supply an additional 250 at the drop of a hat - Reality, this is merely a sound byte for the assembled press corps. The Iraqi's have already refused to have "UN troops on the ground" so how would the UN go about compelling the Iraqi's to reconsider?

"This way of proceeding seems to me something that should not be dismissed out of hand. It is far more consistent with the United Nations Charter than the alternative presented by the US and the UK Governments of immediate and massive war."

The French the Russians and the Chinese dismissed this proposal out of hand last September when it was proposed by the USA & UK - So what is so great about it now? The greatest difference of course is that back last September, had it been adopted, it could have worked. Now being introduced as the "serious consequences" it is impractical and ineffectual - If that was presented to Saddam Hussein as the "flesh and bones" of "serious consequences", he would laugh out loud, or if he was feeling really conciliatory merely shrug.

"The obligation of those who think that war is justified is to persuade the Security Council that war is a more satisfactory way of proceeding, and that the Franco-German plan has no prospects of assuring that Iraq has no Weapons of Mass Destruction, if indeed it has any at present. If they cannot succeed in doing this, such a war will be in breach of our solemn commitments, and of international law."

Well, ultimately, even following the Franco-German Plan, "serious consequences" will come down to military intervention. The French and the Germans, unless they are only looking at the situation through rose-coloured glasses (which is, in all probability true, as neither they, nor, the UN wanted to do anything about this anyway) must recognise this as a possibility. A UN coalition led by France, Germany and Russia - I couldn't think of a better recipe for disaster.