There is no military action against those states. Were action to be taken, it would have to be taken against states "responsible for aiding, supporting or harbouring the perpetrators, organisers and sponsors of these acts [of 11 September]". If Governments were involved in harbouring those involved in the atrocities – and evidence would have to be produced to satisfy the international community – they would be held accountable under the terms of the resolution. If they were found to be so harbouring, they must be given the opportunity to hand over those involved. The Taliban refused to hand over members of the al-Qaeda network and the action taken was within the terms of the resolution.
It is not a question of my interpretation providing a carte blanche for action without evidence. Under the terms of the resolution, those who harbour, support, aid or abet those responsible for the 11 September attacks find themselves open to the possible threat of military action. That would be within international law and the evidence to be provided would be to confirm that the legal basis exists for military action. We would hope, of course, not to get to that point. I am aware of statements that were made. We talk of the primacy of the United Nations and those are the terms on which we expect the evidence to be provided for any military action.