It is not up to me to comment on what is an internal matter in the U.S. What's important is that the question is before the Security Council. What's important is for the international community, working through the Security Council, to get Iraq to comply with its obligations.

Let me just review the situation: talks are continuing in New York. Yesterday afternoon, Hans Blix, executive chairman of the U.N. Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNSCOM), briefed the Security Council on the situation. The point now is to work out the practical details, on the basis of Iraq's agreement in principle to allow unconditional inspections, so that the international community can rapidly resume effectively monitoring the state of Iraq's programs of weapon of mass destruction. Mr. Blix wishes, rightly so, to clarify a number of points before the inspectors are deployed. The talks are due to be held in Vienna on September 30.

In Vienna the agenda will focus primarily on the practical arrangements for the return of the inspectors (where they will land, import of necessary goods, defining points of contact, etc.). The Iraqis will also have to provide half-yearly statements on the state of their programs of weapons of mass destruction, due since December 1998.

Mr. Blix's briefing yesterday reflects his determination to move forward as quickly as possible so as to get the inspections moving. That is everyone's objective. We fully support his action as we do that of Mr. El Baradei, the AIEA Director-General.

With that said, I come now to your question. France takes the position that a new resolution is not essential since Iraq's obligations, including with regard to the inspection regime, were clearly spelled out in the Security Council's resolutions, especially resolution 1284. But as the minister said in New York, and recently again on Europe I, a resolution that would firmly remind Iraq of its obligations in the sphere of disarmament and non-rearmament, and keep up the pressure of the united international community on the authorities in Baghdad could be useful. The minister said it was perfectly conceivable. We're pursuing two objectives in this matter: to make sure that the UNSCOM and IAEA inspections are effective and credible—which the minister calls the goal of non-proliferation; and to preserve the Security Council's unity and cohesion. Our objective is legitimate action that is effective because it is legitimate.

 

We have some idea of what they want because obviously we're all having contacts in the Security Council but there are no drafts yet, American, French or other, ready to be put on the table before the Council members. So the situation hasn't reached the stage of negotiating a text.

 

We're not opposed to it in a general way. We're simply saying, as the minister repeated in New York, that we've consistently envisaged a two-stage approach: we're not at the stage now of talking about the use of force. The use of force is if Iraq fails to honor its obligations, and in that case we said that we hoped the Security Council would look at the matter again. So our concern is to prevent things from happening automatically here.

 

Once again. Iraq must be in no doubt as to the determination of the international community. We want to be completely certain that there are no programs of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq at this time. Regarding the specific point of the presidential palaces, resolution 1284 and prior texts already provide the elements to answer your question.