Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev's special emissary to Iraq said here yesterday that Baghdad should not be rewarded for ending its occupation of neighboring Kuwait, a statement that uses language that appeared to parallel the U.S. position against appeasement of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.

"We should look for possibilities to avoid military clashes, but not reward Iraq for its actions," Yevgeny Primakov told reporters after a brief meeting at the State Department with Secretary of State James A. Baker III. Primakov, who recently conferred with Saddam in Baghdad, is scheduled to meet with President Bush at the White House this morning.

The U.S. position, which Baker repeated to the House Foreign Affairs Committee yesterday immediately after his talks with Primakov, is that the international community should not listen to "the siren song of partial solutions" that would allow Iraq to retain any benefits from its aggression. Instead, Baker said, the United States insists that Iraq withdraw unconditionally from its tiny neighbor and restore Kuwait's sovereignty before there can be any discussion of the differences that led to the invasion.

Gorbachev's announcement early this week that he was sending Primakov on a mission to Western capitals sparked wide speculation that the envoy might be carrying a Soviet plan for ending the Persian Gulf crisis or an offer from Saddam about his conditions for pulling out of Kuwait.

The speculation has revolved around such ideas as the possibility of Iraq retaining some Kuwaiti territory, including a disputed oil field, or receiving a cash payment from Kuwait as compensation for losses it claims to have suffered from past Kuwaiti overproduction of oil.

Asked whether he was bringing any proposal to Bush, Primakov replied, "Let me not comment on your very wise question."

Baker, who posed with Primakov for photographs, remained silent during the exchange. However, other U.S. officials said privately that if Primakov is carrying any special proposal or message, he did not give it to Baker.

Later, Baker was asked during his House testimony whether the United States had any information about whether Saddam might be probing for a negotiated settlement that would allow him to hold on to parts of Kuwait including an oil field or some islands affording access to the gulf. The secretary did not mention Primakov, but he said: "There have been some indications that he {Saddam} might be receptive to a partial solution like that, but nothing definitive. We think it would be an extraordinarily bad idea."

Baker has discussed Primakov's mission to Baghdad with Soviet Foreign Minister Eduard Shevardnadze, and at a news conference on Tuesday, Baker cast doubt on the idea that Saddam gave the Soviets a peace proposal. The secretary added that he believed the Soviet government shared the U.S. view that Iraqi withdrawal must be unconditional and without reward.

U.S. and Soviet sources said Shevardnardze had told Baker that Primakov's primary task in Baghdad had been to convince Saddam that he faces the possibility of serious conflict with the international community if he does not pull back from Kuwait. However, the sources added, Primakov apparently had no success in budging Saddam.

During his House testimony, Baker was pressed by several pro-Israel members to explain why the United States supported a U.N. Security Council resolution condemning Israel for the killing of at least 19 Palestinians in connection with an Oct. 8 rock-throwing riot in the Old City of Jerusalem.

"What you're saying is you think the resolution was unbalanced," Baker said at one point. "I have to tell you we think the {Israeli police} response was unbalanced, and we condemned the response. We think the response was excessive. We think there was no excuse for the killing of 21 people and the wounding of 150 others by live fire."

Baker also refused, as he did in Senate testimony Wednesday, to guarantee that the administration will not take military action against Iraq without first seeking a declaration of war or other congressional approval. He especially opposed proposals for a special consultative mechanism or for calling Congress back into session to deal with the crisis after next week when it begins an expected three-month adjournment.

"We will consult fully," he said, "but I really think it would be self-defeating if Congress were called back into session and we have days and days of discussion about what we should or should not do."