Tynemouth MP Alan Campbell MP says he wants to see a second UN resolution authorizing any military action to resolve the Iraq crisis. On the eve of an important debate in Parliament on the crisis, Alan Campbell has written to party members setting out his views. This is what the local MP says, "

On Wednesday Parliament will debate the Iraq crisis on a substantive motion. I do not yet know what the motion will say but I want to take this opportunity to write to every member to set out my position.

A number of members have already contacted me and I want to begin by saying that I respect members’ views whether I agree with them or not. I hope in turn that you will accept that we all want to see a peaceful resolution to this crisis, which is, I believe, the most dangerous international situation at any time in the last fifty years.

The core issue in the Iraq crisis is the question of Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction. Weapons of mass destruction have been a prominent feature of Saddam’s dictatorship since the 1980’s. He has developed and used chemical and biological weapons against his neighbours and his own people. Defecting members of his regime also confirmed that Saddam is actively seeking to acquire nuclear weapons.

At the end of the Gulf War in 1991 the ceasefire resolution UNSCR 687 obliged Iraq to disarm itself of its weapons of mass destruction within 15 days. Saddam Hussein has defied the United Nations for the past twelve years. In defying legally binding obligations, he has challenged the United Nations and the international order.

After 1991 inspections by the United Nations, UNSCOM, were supposed to provide answers about materiel relating to weapons of mass destruction which remain unaccounted for. They include thousands of tonnes of precursor chemicals, hundreds of tonnes of bulk agent for chemical weapons, growth media for the production of biological weapons and 30,000 special munitions including shells and rockets to deliver chemical and biological weapons.

In 1998, however, the inspections ended when the Iraqi authorities refused to cooperate. Since then the weapons of mass destruction programme appears to have been accelerated. In his report to the Security Council in January Dr Blix confirmed the importation of missile engines, the existence of undeclared chemical warheads and a failure to account for thousands of chemical bombs as well as stocks of VX Nerve Gas and anthrax.

Over the last twelve years there have been diplomatic efforts, intelligence cooperation, export controls and a sanctions regime to tackle the problem. They have failed to stop the Iraqi weapons of mass destruction programme.

Saddam’s regime has the capability to wage war and in the past he has demonstrated his willingness to do so. His neighbours live in fear, which is one of the reasons why Syria – an Arab Muslim state -used its vote in the Security Council to positively support SCR 1441. But an absence of verifiable information also risks war. In a Middle East crisis does anyone seriously believe Israel would wait for conclusive proof about Iraq’s capabilities before escalating a conflict, especially given the fact that Iraq has in the past fired missiles into Israel?

It is not clear whether Iraq is linked to international terrorism though the regime has sheltered terrorists including Abu Nidal until his alleged suicide last year. There remains, however, a risk that Iraqi weapons or the technology which produced them could either be given to or fall into the hands of terrorists.

The authority of the United Nations is at stake as Saddam Hussein continues to fail to comply with 23 out of 27 obligations. Chapter seven of the UN Charter specifically allows for the authorization of the use of force to maintain and to restore international peace and security. If the UN failed to do so it could suffer the same fate as the League of Nations after 1936 when failure to act against dictators meant states no longer bothered even to refer disputes to the League. If the United Nations fails to hold Saddam to account other nations would regard it as a green light to develop weapons programmes of their own.

Some people have argued for the containment of Iraq and as much time for the Inspectors as they ask for. The Inspectors are not, however, there to detect a weapons programme. They are there to verify Iraq’s compliance with obligations made to the UN in 1991. Iraq is already in material breach of those obligations. It is not the Inspectors job to find the weapons; it is Saddam’s responsibility to demonstrate full and complete compliance. SCR 1441 is clear on this. If the Inspectors cannot guarantee compliance, Iraq will face serious consequences, which is diplomatic language for disarmament by force. If Saddam is not complying with the current Inspection regime then there is no point in increasing the number of inspectors.

Any military action would harm innocent people even though military action would be against the Iraqi regime and not the Iraqi people. If it comes to war I want assurances that everything possible will be done to safeguard civilians. The Iraqi people deserve to live their lives free from the tyranny of dictatorship and Iraq’s neighbours deserve the right to live their lives free from the Iraqi threat.

I understand the view that there is a subtext to all this, that this is really about oil. The revenue from oil should be used for the benefit of all Iraqi’s rather than as happens now with the illicit sale of oil, the profits going to arm the Iraqi regime. But if this was just about oil reserves it would be cheaper and easier to strike a deal with Saddam’s regime.

There is also a genuine concern about double standards, that the UN is pressing Iraq for compliance with resolutions while turning a blind eye to other states’ failure to comply. I want to see, and the UK government wants to see, compliance by other states including Israel. Over the past twelve months, despite the bloodshed, there has been a diplomatic momentum behind a political settlement to the Palestine/Israel issue. But this does not remove the need to tackle the Iraq problem.

I hope that the Iraqi crisis can be resolved peacefully and I want to see a second UN resolution. I respect the views of those who reject any military action at any time but I do not agree with them. I have less time for the arguments of those who say we must follow a UN route – which we are – but that if the UN authorizes military action they will not support it. Our party has a proud tradition of support for the UN. We are acting within that tradition with the expressed purpose of upholding the authority and integrity of the United Nations.

Labour’s National Executive Committee confirmed our policy, it was overwhelmingly endorsed by the Parliamentary Labour Party and locally Tynemouth Constituency agreed a resolution calling on the government to stick to the UN route.

Our party also has a proud tradition of opposing the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and in standing up to tyrannical dictators. We oppose those who torture and oppress their own people and in the past we have accepted our responsibility to stop dictators even if it means going to war ourselves.

I understand members concerns and I have communicated those concerns to the government and to the Prime Minister personally. I believe our government is working as hard as anyone to find a peaceful outcome and I was confirmed in that view last December when I was able to speak personally to Ambassadors from many of the countries on the Security Council. The issue remains, however, about what we intend to do to resolve the dangerous issue of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction and ensure at the end of all this, the United Nations remains intact and its authority enhanced.

No one wants war. No one wants to be in this position or face this challenge. But we are. It has fallen to us to accept our responsibilities and it marks us out as a party of government and not just a party of opposition."