U.S. REJECTS IRAQIS' OFFER; MILITARY REMAINS PRIMED TO ATTACK.

Byline: Terry Atlas Chicago Tribune 

The U.S. remained poised Saturday for air strikes against Iraq as President Clinton rejected Baghdad's proposal to resume U.N. weapons inspections because it contained unacceptable conditions.

Iraq offered in a letter to the U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan to cooperate with weapons inspectors, but attached a two-page annex on Iraqi positions that drew a firm rejection from the Clinton administration.

``The Iraqi letter . . . is neither unequivocal nor unconditional,'' said White House National Security Adviser Samuel ``Sandy'' Berger. ``It is unacceptable.''

In a day of tense uncertainty, U.S. B-52 bombers with cruise missiles had been headed for Iraq early Saturday when the planned attack, due to begin with cruise missiles from ships in the Persian Gulf, was aborted as Iraqi President Saddam Hussein appeared to be backing down.

The Pentagon, however, continued its high-profile military buildup as Clinton met with his national security advisers for five hours and then canceled his trip to the Asian economic summit in Malaysia, sending Vice President Al Gore in his place.

White House officials, keeping up the pressure on Iraq, said Clinton is prepared to carry out threatened military action soon. ``We were poised to take military action, and we remain poised to take military action,'' said Berger.

In order to avoid an American attack, Berger said Iraq must give a ``clear statement that they will fully comply'' with United Nations weapons inspections. Berger didn't say when or whether Clinton would follow through with his threats and launch the air strikes. ``There certainly is not unlimited time. We have said all along that we are ready to proceed, but we will proceed on the basis of our timetable,'' he said.

Iraqi clarification

Barely two hours after Berger spoke, Iraqi U.N. Ambassador Nizar Hamdoon presented a written clarification to the U.N. Security Council stating that Baghdad sets no conditions on the return of U.N. weapons inspectors.

U.S. officials said the letter fell short of a definitive statement that would have to come from the Iraqi leadership in Baghdad and argued in the U.N. Security Council Saturday night against accepting the Iraqi offers.

But the Clinton administration may have lost the moment when military action would have received at least grudging acceptance from members of the U.N. Security Council, since many members - most notably Russia and China - appeared satisfied that Iraq was now willing to cooperate with weapons inspectors.

In his letter to U.N. Secretary General Annan Saturday morning, Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz said Iraq would allow the work of inspectors from the U.N. Special Commission and the International Atomic Energy Agency to resume at suspected weapons sites.

``To give an additional chance to achieve justice by lifting the embargo . . . the leadership of Iraq has decided to resume cooperation with UNSCOM and the IAEA and to allow them to carry out their normal missions,'' Aziz said in the letter, which was a response to a letter Annan had sent Friday to Hussein.

Controversial annex

The letter itself contained no conditions, but the accompanying two-page annex reiterated Iraq's previous terms for a comprehensive review of its compliance with U.N. resolutions and expectations for an easing of economic sanctions.

In the letter, Aziz urged Annan to ensure that a comprehensive review would include the points in the annex, which he said ``will render the review serious, fair and fruitful.'' The annex urged that the comprehensive review be carried out within a short time, ``seven days for example.''

On Iraq's previous demand that UNSCOM chief Richard Butler be fired, the annex said, ``The question of Butler and the structure of UNSCOM and its practices are important matters. The council is to consider them seriously in order to ensure a good relationship in the future. We hope that this will be done as soon as possible.''

The debate throughout the day was whether Iraq had included what amounted to conditions on its cooperation with UNSCOM. Annan at first said Iraq appeared to meet the Security Council's demands but he later backtracked, calling Iraq's declaration ``a step in the right direction'' that still needed ``further clarifications.''

Not acceptable

Optimism early in the day that the crisis was abating faded as the U.S. and its closest ally, Britain, viewed the Iraqi response as falling short of unconditional acceptance of Security Council resolutions.

In London, British Prime Minister Tony Blair said, ``We know from our experience with Saddam Hussein that he is not a man to be trusted. . . . The Iraq position has to be unconditional, not hedged about, not confused, not subject to this point or that point. Unconditional. That is the demand we have made all the way through.''

Berger said the Iraqi letter and annex amount to a ``highly conditioned statement'' that ``will only lead to confusion in the future.'' Berger derided the Iraqi letter as having ``more holes than Swiss cheese.''

``The Iraqi letter sent today to Secretary General Annan is neither unequivocal nor unconditional. It is unacceptable. Iraq accepts in this letter a comprehensive review, which was proposed by the Security Council, but on its own unacceptable terms, terms which the Security Council already has rejected. In a sense he's saying to the international community and the Security Council, I will come into compliance if you accept my terms, not if I accept your terms. This would only set up a new crisis a few weeks down the road when the review does not meet Iraq's criteria,'' Berger said.

``In short, instead of simply complying with the requirement of the Security Council, Saddam is saying that the council should comply with his requirements. This is the world turned upside down,'' he said.

U.N. council meeting

In New York, the U.N. Security Council met late Saturday to discuss the Iraqi offer. While some diplomats said the annex might be interpreted as setting conditions, Hamdoon said it simply reflected Baghdad's ``preference and views.''

``These views are not connected with the decision of the government of Iraq, which is clear and unconditional, to resume the relations'' with UNSCOM, Hamdoon wrote the Security Council.

Speaking with reporters, Hamdoon said, ``This letter should put to an end the confusion that was created by some quarter on the letter of Mr. Tariq Aziz to the secretary general.''

Iraq's letters may reopen disagreement among members of the U.N. Security Council, who had been united in demanding Iraqi cooperation with U.N. weapons inspectors but who disagree about when to begin lifting economic sanctions as Iraq wants.

Most council members contend that the language in a 1991 Security Council resolution promised to lift the oil embargo once Iraq had given up chemical, nuclear and biological weapons and the missiles capable of delivering them.

But the U.S. insists that disarmament is only one condition for lifting sanctions, and that Iraq must also meet a long list of other requirements such as accounting for missing Kuwaiti prisoners, making restitution for property destroyed or stolen in its invasion of Kuwait, easing domestic repression and improving treatment of its Kurdish minority - in short, demonstrating peaceful intentions.

The Clinton administration regards economic sanctions as a key part of its efforts to contain Iraq or, as officials put it, to ``keep Saddam in his box.''

CAPTION(S):

2 Photos

PHOTO (1) Ambassador Nizar Hamdoon, left, delivers Iraq's terms to U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan.

Eskinder Debebe/United Nations

(2) National Security Adviser Samuel ``Sandy'' Berger tells reporters Iraq's letter to the United Nations contains unacceptable terms.

Khue Bui/Associated Press