MICHAEL Foster's statement on the Iraqi crisis (Evening News, March 11) sinks to new depths of patronising spin.

To present himself as an "international socialist" ready to go to war without the sanction of the United Nations is as novel as it is absurd.

If "international socialism" means anything, and Foster clearly doesn't know or understand, it is the belief that the United Nations stands for an end to wars as a means of resolving international conflict.

The Charter clearly states that war is only permissible as an act of self-defence when another threatens a country, or with the explicit sanction of the United Nations.

The inspectors believe that they are making progress and should be given time.

He spins the possibility of war without a second resolution as "hypothetical", no doubt intending that we should not dwell on it, then proceeds to argue his case for this "hypothesis".

When permanent members of the Security Council have already committed to veto a second resolution, and the Secretary General has warned of the destructive consequences to the UN of going to war without the explicit sanction of the UN, the prospect is hardly "hypothetical".

It beggars belief that someone who professes compelling humanitarian instincts in his campaign to ban fox hunting can contemplate the deaths of thousands of innocent Iraqis as "necessary".

No doubt Foster will take comfort from the support of the "international socialists" in the White House for his position.

If any good can come of this, it will be the reclaiming of the Labour Party by socialists who, unlike Foster, understand what the Labour Party was created for.

PETER NIELSEN,

Worcester.