The reason I mentioned Blair and Bush as well as you and me, Teribus, is that it appears that they 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.

Such evidence as I have seen seems to indicate that, 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.

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.

These 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.

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 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.