I don't understand your question very well. Besides, as you know, we are committed to the unconditional return of U.N. inspectors to Iraq, without delay or hindrance. With regard to the future discussions in the Security Council, we will be approaching them in a constructive, open spirit.

I'd like to recall what the minister said in New York Tuesday evening: We must concentrate on the essential. There is a priority, which you know, and it's the fight against proliferation. That's clearly the international stance. And in this context the return of the inspectors is obviously necessary so the situation on the ground can be evaluated. We saw this between 1991 and 1998 when we were able to assess the means Iraq may have had. It's important to bring this assessment up to date since we've had no new information since 1998. That's the responsibility of Mr. Blix and the team of inspectors. So if Iraq agrees to the return it will be necessary to take all the measures to quickly set the shortest possible timetable--as you know we want the inspectors' action placed within a limited timeframe--so that the international community has all the requisite information.

Various options are open to us. A new resolution is perfectly conceivable. We will be discussing this with our Security Council partners if only to clearly determine the inspectors' method of working on the ground. As you know, there's already a resolution, largely inspired by the United States, resolution 1284 in 1999, which set out the practical, concrete arrangements necessary for the inspectors' work. It's also perfectly conceivable for there to be a new resolution incorporating these elements.

 

It was in no way an authorization. On the contrary, what we did, in accordance with our obligations in the Security Council, was to notify the Sanctions Committee in New York of the flight plan which they used as we're required to do under the Security Council resolutions. Our comments Sunday were solely on the opportuneness of the trip.