Soviets Reject Iraq Conditions for Withdrawal

As global diplomatic attention zeroed in on Moscow and the possibility of achieving a negotiated end here to the Persian Gulf War, the Soviet Union on Saturday stressed that, while Iraq may have opened a “path to peace,” it still must get out of Kuwait and has no right to pose preconditions.

That position won praise from U.S. and European officials.

Based on statements carried by Tass, comments by Soviet President Mikhail S. Gorbachev to three visiting European Community foreign ministers and remarks by President Bush, the Soviets on Saturday appeared to be holding fast to the U.S. and allied stance on Iraqi compliance with the U.N. Security Council resolutions calling on Iraq to withdraw from Kuwait.

In Kennebunkport, Me., where the President is spending the weekend at his vacation home, Bush insisted that the anti-Iraq coalition remains “solid” and that his Administration has received “fresh” assurances from Gorbachev, supporting the allies.

“He’s been very solid in support of the coalition,” Bush said of Gorbachev. The Soviets have played “a constructive role,” he said, adding, “Let’s just put it this way: The United Nations’ position is solid and there’s no giving on that at all.”

After meeting with Gorbachev, Hans van den Broek, the Dutch foreign minister, told reporters, “We have been very much gratified this afternoon to hear that there is not the slightest difference or doubt between our position and that of the U.S.S.R.--that outside the strict application of Security Council decisions, there is no possible solution” to the Gulf crisis.

The Soviets’ public alignment with the U.S.-led coalition came at a key time, the eve of Iraqi Foreign Minister Tarik Aziz’s scheduled arrival today in Moscow for Monday talks with Gorbachev and what may be the last effort to end the month-old Gulf War before the allies launch a ground campaign.

Jacques Poos, of Luxembourg, and Gianni de Michelis, of Italy, also met with Gorbachev on behalf of the European Community.

Poos, whose country now chairs the 12-nation European bloc, said Gorbachev had given no hint of what the Soviet position might be in the talks with Aziz.

But, he added, “we are convinced that they (the Soviets) will continue to conduct themselves in accord with U.N. resolutions and will exert a persuasive action that we hope will be successful.”

Soviet officials have said the face-to-face encounter with Aziz will let them gauge Iraqi President Saddam Hussein’s sincerity and clarify how willing Hussein is to yield on the many conditions he has set for an Iraqi withdrawal from Kuwait.

“The Soviet Union, because of its long relationship with Iraq, is well-placed to determine whether there is movement in the thinking of Baghdad,” said Dutch minister Van den Broek. “It is possible that Moscow is better placed at this precise moment than we are in Europe or in Washington to conduct negotiations. But that doesn’t mean that our basic positions differ. I repeat that we have seen no difference in our respective positions in requiring an unconditional (Iraqi) pullout.”

Initial Kremlin reaction to Iraq’s condition-laden offer Friday to withdraw from Kuwait--a proposal issued by Iraq’s Revolutionary Command Council--had been tentative but decidely upbeat.

But 24 hours later, after Soviet officials and state-run media had had a chance to digest the Iraqi offer, the comments had grown much more critical, but still hopeful.

“Apparently, an initial step has been made, but quite often it is difficult to judge by the initial step in which direction the advance will continue,” Foreign Ministry spokesman Vitaly I. Churkin said. “We hope that this will be the advance to peace.”

Addressing a rare Saturday briefing on official Soviet reaction to Iraq’s proposal, Churkin said, “It seems to us that the statement suggests a very important solution, a fundamental provision about the possibility of Iraq’s leaving Kuwait. . . .”

But responding to a question, Churkin specifically ruled out Soviet support for Iraq’s demand that its withdrawal from Kuwait be linked to the solution of the Palestinian question.

And, in an analysis that apparently reflected the latest thinking in the Soviet government circles, Tass said that the “numerous demands” of the Iraqis, “can hardly be accepted” and “actually devalue that statement about Iraqi’s readiness to comply with U.N. Security Council Resolution 660.”

In another dispatch, Tass quoted Yuli M. Vorontsov, one of the Soviet Union’s most respected diplomats and its ambassador to the United Nations, as referring to Iraq’s purported readiness to accept U.N. Security Council Resolution 660--which requires an unconditional pullout from Kuwait.

“Why then are any conditions put forward? So, this is only the beginning, only the first step,” Vorontsov said.

In Washington, Defense Secretary Dick Cheney warned that if Moscow tries to arrange some deal or peace plan, “There’s no middle ground. There’s no ‘Let him (Hussein) keep half of Kuwait.’ There’s no pause or cease-fire. There’s no new package to be put together. This will end in one of two ways: It will end when he withdraws from Kuwait, or it will end when he is expelled from Kuwait by military force. There’s no other acceptable outcome.”

Aziz’s visit to Moscow also became a testy topic at the daily Pentagon briefing, where Defense Department officials repeatedly refused to assure the Iraqi foreign minister’s safety on his planned trip from Baghdad to Moscow. “We would guarantee him nothing,” said Lt. Gen. Thomas W. Kelly, director of operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

U.S. military officials said Aziz will have to travel over land, by car, across Iraqi territory to Iran before flying to Moscow, because U.S. officials will consider any plane taking off from Baghdad to be a hostile aircraft.

Defense Department spokesman Pete Williams termed Aziz’s mission to Moscow a “sideshow,” and said: “If the Soviets feel there’s some value in talking to Tarik Aziz, that’s fine. But the question that was asked here earlier is, you know, ‘How come we’re not going to say--how come we’re not going to paint a dotted line on the map and mail it to the Iraqis and show them how to get Tarik Aziz out of the country?’ That’s not the issue . . . . The answer is not to be found somewhere else. The solution lies in Baghdad, and it’s very clear: Withdraw from Kuwait.”

After the briefing, some analysts suggested that Washington’s portrayal of the Moscow session as a “sideshow” might weaken Gorbachev further in the eyes of Kremlin conservatives, possibly contributing to his eventual downfall as Soviet president.

Gorbachev, who met with Iranian Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Velayati on the Gulf crisis on Friday, apparently has sought to fill a role as peacemaker in the Persian Gulf crisis at least partly to bolster his personal prestige, these analysts said.

The Soviet Union perceived a new willingness to compromise in Iraq’s position when Gorbachev’s special envoy, Yevgeny M. Primakov, met with Hussein in Baghdad last week and arranged for the Aziz visit to Moscow.

While the Soviets’ diplomatic efforts were in the spotlight over the weekend, Bush has called French President Francois Mitterrand to discuss the progress of the war and Friday’s Iraqi peace offer, which Mitterrand had denounced.

Over the last several days, Bush also has called Turkish President Turgut Ozal, King Hassan II of Morocco, Prime Minister John Major of Britain, Sultan Kaboos ibn Said of Oman, President Zayed ibn Sultan al Nuhayan of the United Arab Emirates and Kuwait’s exiled emir, Sheik Jabbar al Ahmed al Sabah, White House officials said.

At the U.N. closed-door sessions on the Gulf crisis Saturday, Iraqi Ambassador Abdul Amir Anbari at one point claimed that language in the U.N. resolutions called for negotiations simultaneously--or even before--Iraq withdraws from Kuwait.

“Let’s have the negotiations first and see whether they are conducted in good faith, in which case it (troop withdrawal) is fine,” Anbari told reporters, adding that the Baghdad government is willing to negotiate with any party in the Persian Gulf conflict, including the government of the emir of Kuwait and the United States.

But he later he said that he did not know if negotiations would take place before or after any Iraqi troop withdrawal from Kuwait.

“We have to sit together and see how we can sort of collaborate, combine them together,” he said. “We don’t want one-sided implementation of the resolution. . . . There is no sequence.”

But the Iraqi ambassador’s stated conditions were quickly rejected by British Ambassador David Hannay. “The Security Council resolution makes it clear the withdrawal of Iraq from Kuwait is a non-negotiable issue,” Hannay said.

He asserted that Iraq is seeking to treat its withdrawal from Kuwait “as a negotiating ploy, as a piece of negotiating cash against which they can get other concessions.” This posture “has always been unacceptable and will always be unacceptable.”

During the Security Council meeting, Anbari also was questioned closely on Iraqi policy on the use of chemical weapons and treatment of prisoners of war, diplomats said.

Iraq’s envoy left open the possibility that the Baghdad government could use chemical weapons, if high-altitude bombing of Iraq continues. Several Western ambassadors said this was not a new Iraqi position.

On the issue of allied POWs, Anbari told council members that Iraq would abide by the Geneva Conventions and is in touch with the International Red Cross.

“He stated they accept their obligations under the Geneva Conventions, but the trouble is they have not been applying them,” Hannay said after the council had recessed until Tuesday.

Dahlburg reported from Moscow and Goldman from New York. Contributing to this story were Times staff writers David Lauter, in Kennebunkport, Me., and Jim Mann, in Washington.