We would, however, vigorously oppose any amnesty, especially one endorsed by the Security Council, such as you have now proposed. An amnesty would be an affront to the victims of the Iraqi government's genocide against the Kurds and the countless victims of its war crimes and crimes against humanity against Iraqis of all ethnic and religious persuasions and others.

Above all, a formal guarantee of immunity from prosecution, such as you have offered, would undermine efforts to deter future atrocities. It would signal that even one of the world's most heinous criminals can, in the end, definitively avoid criminal liability.

Britain has played an important role in recent years in helping to establish the new International Criminal Court, whose first 18 judges were appointed this month. With the appointment next month of a prosecutor, the court will be ready to begin its historic work. The Rome Treaty of 1998 lays an obligation on those who have joined the court to deliver justice to those, like Saddam Hussein, who have committed serious war crimes and crimes against humanity.

The jurisdiction of the court runs from 1 July 2002, and thus will not directly affect some of Saddam Hussein's worst documented crimes. It is, however, regrettable that Britain appears ready to set a precedent which implies that crimes against humanity can be set to one side, when it suits the governments of the Security Council to do so. The United States has repeatedly made plain that it is opposed to the very existence of the court. The great majority of the world's democracies, including all members of the European Union, are, however, among the 89 members and committed supporters of the court.

We hope you will make clear that Britain remains committed to full accountability. It is important to reiterate that, with the historic creation of the International Criminal Court, internationally guaranteed immunity is no longer an option. Anything else would be a dangerous travesty.

Yours Sincerely