Iraq gives guarded approval to destroy missiles

UNITED NATIONS -- Iraq agreed in principle Thursday to destroy its Al Samoud 2 missiles, two days before a U.N. deadline. Word of the agreement came as chief weapons inspector Hans Blix said Baghdad's disarmament efforts had been "very limited so far."

The mixed signals were likely to provide ammunition to supporters and opponents of a quick war to disarm Iraq. The two sides failed to reach agreement on key issues during a heated and bitter discussion in the Security Council on Thursday.

The council debate came as the U.S. military buildup for war exceeded 200,000 troops in the Persian Gulf region on Thursday.

Inside Iraq, Saddam Hussein was moving some of his best-trained forces into new positions, Bush administration officials said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

In a letter to Blix on Thursday, Iraq agreed "in principle" to destroy its Al Samoud 2 missiles, which were found to have a range exceeding the 93-mile limit set by the Security Council at the end of the 1991 Persian Gulf War.

But it wasn't immediately clear whether Iraq's letter, obtained by AP, constituted an unconditional acceptance and whether Iraq would meet the Saturday deadline to begin the destruction, as Blix has ordered.

Iraq asked Blix to dispatch a technical team to discuss the "framework and timetable" for carrying out the order, but Blix's deputy was already in Baghdad to oversee the destruction. The letter was delivered three days after Saddam indicated in an interview with CBS anchor Dan Rather that he would not destroy the missiles because in his view they do not exceed the 93-mile limit.

Iraq maintains some of the missiles overshot the limit because they were tested without warheads or guidance systems. In the letter, from by Iraqi Lt. Gen. Amer al-Saadi, Baghdad said it still believes "that the decision to destroy was unjust and did not take into consideration the scientific facts regarding the issue."

Blix told reporters earlier this week that the missile issue would be a key test of Iraq's cooperation with a U.N. order to disarm.

U.N. debate

At the United Nations, diplomats said privately that the lack of consensus and tone of the debate Thursday were demoralizing, but many held out hope for compromise among the council's five major powers. The United States and Britain are pushing a resolution that would open the door for war, while Russia, China and France are calling for continued weapons inspections and a diplomatic end to the crisis.

Chinese Ambassador Wang Yingfan said he, too, hoped for a compromise that could unify the council "but I could see it's very difficult."

A senior U.S. diplomat, speaking on condition of anonymity, hinted there may be some room wiggle room in the resolution, which the United States, Britain and Spain submitted on Monday.

"Its difficult to visualize many, if any changes to it but obviously if people have suggestions to make that preserve the integrity, the intent and purpose of that resolution ... I'm sure we'd be pleased to consider them."

Britain's U.N. Ambassador Jeremy Greenstock, whose country is the strongest U.S. ally, said: "I would love to see a compromise."

But there were no signs of agreement at Thursday's four-hour meeting, held behind closed-doors.

Chile's U.N. Ambassador Gabriel Valdes protested that the bitterly divided permanent council members were "throwing the decision on the shoulders of the elected members" by refusing to compromise.

Greenstock, trying to bolster the case against Iraq, told the council that fresh British intelligence indicated Iraq was producing anthrax, sarin and other biological and chemical agents. He said missiles were being hidden and scientists were being threatened.

At the end of the session, French Ambassador Jean-Marc de La Sabliere said the majority of the council still opposed the draft resolution and that he pushed the French proposal for additional time for inspections, which resumed in Iraq this past November after a four-year break.

In Beijing earlier Thursday, Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov and his Chinese counterpart, Tang Jiaxuan, said weapons inspections have made progress and should be given more time.

Blix was invited to discuss his 17-page report detailing the work of his staff in Iraq over the past three months. The report was submitted to the United Nations Wednesday and will be sent to council ambassadors today.

In a key section of the report, a draft copy of which was obtained by The Associated Press, Blix says Saddam could have made greater efforts "to find remaining proscribed items or credible evidence showing the absence of such items."

While Blix has noted some recent Iraqi cooperation, he lamented in his report: "It is hard to understand why a number of the measures which are now being taken could not have been initiated earlier."

He stressed that Iraq's cooperation "must be immediate, unconditional and active," warning that without such cooperation verifying the country's disarmament "will be problematic." He made clear he was not satisfied with the level of cooperation.

There was some evidence that support for the U.S.-backed resolution was gaining ground, including signals that Mexico had changed its strong anti-war stance.

Pakistan is also a key vote. Iraq and the United States each sent envoys to Islamabad on Thursday to state their case.

Islamabad has not revealed whether it would support the U.S. resolution, although Pakistani diplomats said privately that the Muslim country would likely abstain. There's almost no possibility that Pakistan would vote against the United States, and some within President Pervez Musharraf's administration say Islamabad is considering voting with Washington.

In Egypt, Arab nations worked Thursday to overcome long-standing rifts and forge a united stance on Iraq two days ahead of a crucial Arab League summit.

Anti-American sentiment among Arab people is strong, and an estimated 100,000 Egyptians staged an anti-war rally Thursday in the capital, Cairo. While Arab and Muslim leaders have as much as conceded they can do little to stop the United States, the summits give them the chance to show they are doing all they can to avert a war.