Today's Date:

Each report is very important because the rule of the game is, the Security Council assesses the situation on the basis of the inspectors' reports. This time, we see a real disarmament with the destruction of the Al Samoud 2 missiles. We demand more, especially for the chemical and biological weapons. It seems new information was given to Mr. Blix, and we'll see if this is important or not. On that basis, the members of the Security Council will have to decide together if the inspections, as we think, should go on, or, as the U.S. thinks, we should withdraw the inspectors and go to war.

We know from experience that Saddam Hussein doesn't willingly disarm. Nobody has confidence in the man who has lied and cheated for so many years. The fact is that now the inspections have produced results. It's late, but we consider it not too late. The more Saddam Hussein feels the pressure, the more he cooperates.

Goodwill is there on our part. It's for the collective body to decide the appropriate time frame. It is not a take-it-or-leave-it proposal. We are absolutely determined to oppose the draft resolution by the United States, because it is a resolution authorizing war. It is understood as such by everybody. We consider that time has not come. So we are fully determined in our opposition.

We don't exclude the use of force. It must remain the last resort when inspections reach a dead end. Certainly, we are not in that situation yet. We are not a pacifist country. We are today the No. 1 contributor of troops to NATO operations. We participate fully in Afghanistan. We have deployed troops in Africa. We saved American lives in Ivory Coast recently. We participated in the first Gulf War. Simply, we say now that the time has not come to rush to a war. Let's give a chance to peace and the inspections.

As our foreign minister said, we take always our full responsibility. We have the same position expressed by the Russians. For the time being, it's an abstract question, because you don't have in the Security Council nine votes in favor. Everybody is waiting for the next report. But the more you get disarmament in Iraq, the more likely this majority will remain. What is at stake is the credibility of the U.N. system. The Security Council must not be transformed into a place where you get a rubber-stamp approval of a decision taken elsewhere. It must remain the place for real debate and an honest assessment of the facts.

We are concerned about the consequences of a war, because Iraq is a very complex society with no tradition of democracy but a great tradition of violence and coup. So maintaining law and order in Iraq would be very difficult. A real democracy would take years. Beyond Iraq, we fear this military occupation will fuel feelings of humiliation, anger, resentment, not only against the United States but the Western world, as if we wanted to impose on the Arab world our values. We fear this will fuel more recruitment for terrorist movements. For France, the Middle East is our backyard. The Arab world is next door. We have probably 4 million to 5 million people in France who are Muslims, well integrated but very sensitive to what is happening in the Middle East. If we have for a long period a military occupation of Iraq, coupled with no real progress in the Middle East peace process, then you will certainly have anger, resentment, frustration. For us, the very presence of 200,000 American troops in an Arab country, imposing law and order-slowly [the Iraqis] will feel they are not anymore liberated but occupied.

We think it is more reasonable to stick to the agreed rule of the game: full disarmament of Iraq. We have strong feelings about Saddam Hussein-a bloody dictator, a disaster for his own people and his neighbors. President Chirac said if Saddam could vanish, it would be the biggest favor he could do for his people and for the world. At the same time, it seems to us we cannot start regime change as a policy for the international community. Because then what would we do with other leaders?

This issue even caused a split in NATO over whether to defend Turkey in case of war with Iraq. What does this divide mean for NATO's future? Levitte: I don't see long-term consequences. We are fully engaged in the Atlantic alliance. For centuries, France has been an ally of Turkey. What we couldn't accept is to have a debate in the alliance about war ... at the moment when the Security Council was focused on the inspections. Let's not put the NATO cart before the U.N. horse.

No. I would say what is at stake is an internal problem for the European Union. We consider that our friendship with the United States is strong. Don't forget French soldiers were side by side with the United States in the War of Independence. We will never forget that the United States saved France and Europe twice in a century in the First and Second World Wars. Basically, we see the European Union and the United States as the two pillars for construction of a democratic world based on common values. I don't see any danger of this strong partnership being weakened by the difficulty of the moment over Iraq.

If you decide that inspections don't work, and the destruction of missiles going on now is not important, then you destroy the credibility of inspections as a tool for the United Nations. When we need inspections again elsewhere, what will be the credibility of U.N. inspections? I'm thinking of North Korea. North Korea is probably the more important threat than Iraq today, because North Korea claims they are producing the elements of nuclear bombs, and maybe they have already one or two. They have produced long-range missiles, which is not the situation of Iraq. They are exporting their technologies to Pakistan, Yemen, and other countries. We don't have any more inspectors in North Korea. If we could deploy in North Korea more than 100 U.N. inspectors with access to all the territory, including the palaces of Kim Jong Il, what an achievement that would be! What a breakthrough in terms of security for the whole world.

Let me say that France is today the 13th trading partner of Iraq. It represents only 0.3 percent of our total trade. We buy only 8 percent of Iraqi oil. The United States is buying 55 or 56 percent of Iraqi oil. So I cannot accept the view that our position is based on economic interests. If we wanted to protect our supposed trade or oil interests in Iraq, at the moment when war has been decided by Washington, we would jump-in the American jargon-to participate fully and share the benefits of the victory. So it's very unfair to claim that France is interested only in oil and trade

It's a great challenge. I think our relations remain very strong. There is a lot of friendship for the American people in France. My hope is, this difference between our two countries over the timing of the possible war will not damage for a long time our relationship. Because in this dangerous world, we have to work together. France is recognized by President Bush as a key partner in the fight against terrorism. France is the only big or the only important country in Europe with which the United States has never been at war. You've been at war with the United Kingdom, during your War of Independence, and later with Spain-and with Germany and Italy of course. Never with France.

It shows there is passion about France. We receive every day hundreds every day of messages of support and encouragement. It goes both ways. Passion to support us, passion to bash on France. I'm a bit distressed with these developments. My hope is that reason will come back, and the sooner the better. We have a shared goal to preserve this friendship from the passions of the day.