NEWS ANALYSIS : Clinton Foreign Policy Geared to Crisis Deferral

Two weeks before Bill Clinton’s election, his top foreign policy adviser, Anthony Lake, quietly ordered up two dozen “option papers” from Democratic experts to guide the President-elect’s first steps in his sudden transformation from candidate to world leader.

Lake posed three questions, according to some who received the request: What international crises, deadlines and demands for early action will face President Clinton when he takes office on Jan. 20? What should Clinton do first to put his stamp on the nation’s foreign policy? And how should he conduct himself during the 77-day transition?

“The effort was to identify hot issues--issues on which he might be called upon to make a statement or send a signal,” one adviser said. “The idea was to enable Clinton to move quickly in the transition.”

Clinton’s aides swore everyone involved to secrecy. Clinton was insistent that he not appear overconfident with Election Day still weeks away.

But the afternoon after his victory, when Clinton emerged from the Arkansas governor’s mansion, his first words were a carefully crafted foreign policy statement intended to send a signal of calm. “Today I want to reaffirm the essential continuity of American foreign policy,” he said gravely. “I urge America’s friends and foes alike to recognize . . . that even as America’s administrations change, America’s fundamental interests do not.”

Then the candidate who ran as a champion of domestic issues plunged into a round of international telephone calls that would have done George Bush proud: Russian President Boris N. Yeltsin, German Chancellor Helmut Kohl, Japanese Prime Minister Kiichi Miyazawa, Saudi Arabia’s King Fahd, and more.

The shift in focus was inevitable. No matter how committed to domestic affairs, every President of the United States finds his attention drawn to the demands of the dangerous world outside.

But in Clinton’s case, the world is watching with unusual trepidation--for after a campaign that barely acknowledged international issues, the President-elect’s foreign policy instincts are still largely unknown.

Even some of his own aides confess to large areas of uncertainty. One expert who worked on the campaign, asked whether Clinton was likely to launch any early foreign policy initiatives, shrugged and said: “Good question.”

Still, Clinton’s actions and statements in his two weeks as President-elect provide strong clues as to how he will chart America’s course in a stormy post-Cold War world.

Clinton’s top priorities are domestic. At his first post-election news conference last week, he listed his goals as job creation, deficit reduction, health care reform, political reform and a national service program--not a global issue on the list. Advisers say he is unlikely to propose any significant new foreign policy initiatives--in the Middle East, for example--that would divert his time and energy from domestic matters.

As a result, Clinton’s embryonic foreign policy apparatus is geared not to crisis management as much as crisis deferral--to pushing problems aside so the new President can focus on his favorite domestic issues. Lake’s questionnaire asked his experts specifically for a list of events that might pop up in Clinton’s way, to help him spot the world’s potholes early. In his morning-after statement, Clinton made a point of warning foreign leaders like Iraq’s Saddam Hussein not to try any funny business during the transition.

For the same reasons, Clinton is likely to stick with many Bush Administration policies to a perhaps surprising degree. “There are a lot of issues where there’s no real reason to change,” said one of the experts who wrote “option papers” for the President-elect. During the campaign, for example, Clinton criticized Bush for failing to deter Serbian attacks on Bosnia; but, in practice, he may not do much more than his predecessor.

Clinton is certain to try to change course in one fundamental sense: by giving U.S. economic interests equal weight with the traditional security interests that were the nation’s focus during the Cold War. In the long run, the effect could be to change the basic premises of American foreign policy, making the United States behave less like a unique superpower and more like Britain, France or Germany. To begin, Clinton has announced his intention to create an Economic Security Council in the White House to counterbalance the traditional National Security Council.

Despite his focus on the domestic economy, Clinton is as deeply interested in foreign policy as most previous presidents. (Bush, who indulged his taste for international affairs to the neglect of home-front issues, was the exception, not the rule.) The governor took time in mid-campaign for private briefings on international issues, and has spent hours in the last two weeks preparing and making his worldwide telephone calls.

In his news conference, the President-elect listed his immediate foreign policy priorities:

* “A multi-year plan for a defense budget.”

* “Pursuing our continued efforts to reduce nuclear weapons with Russia and with other nuclear powers.”

* “Working hard to stop the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction--nuclear, biological and chemical.”

* “Keeping the Middle East peace process on track.”

* “Doing what I can to strengthen global economic growth in terms of resolving outstanding matters with Mexico, hopefully resolving the outstanding (trade) issues in Europe.”

None of those are a new initiative. And the post-election list omitted three issues Clinton used during the campaign to assert that he would wage a more dynamic foreign policy than Bush: a more assertive role in the Balkans, stepped-up economic assistance to Russia and a Radio Free Asia to beam pro-democracy broadcasts into China.

That was at least partly because the President-elect does not want to announce any new directions in foreign policy during the transition, one adviser said. “To stake out a position now . . . would be hard to do without looking like he was second-guessing the President,” the adviser said.

But others suggested that Clinton might be paring down his list of priorities to make sure nothing gets in the way of his economic program.

“The No. 1 foreign affairs problem is the domestic economy,” said Robert E. Hunter, a vice president of the Center for Strategic and International Studies who has been mentioned as a possible Clinton aide. “You’ve got to convince the American people, as they were convinced in the Cold War, that being involved in the outside world is good business. . . . Until you do that, there’s a danger in letting too many hares get loose.”

If Clinton devotes most of his attention to domestic affairs, as expected, he may give his national security adviser, secretary of state and secretary of defense relatively free rein to manage foreign policy, some advisers said--making those appointments crucial to his success.

The appointments will also be important because they will determine whether Clinton’s Administration operates smoothly, or loses time in turf wars--for example, between aides who believe in the primacy of economic policy and those who want more attention for traditional security issues.

Clinton himself is acutely conscious of this problem, one adviser said. The President-elect made an unusual point at his news conference of praising the Bush Administration for its relatively seamless teamwork in foreign affairs. “That’s something that I want,” he said.

Clinton’s transition aides have been unusually successful at keeping the names of possible candidates secret. Washington has been abuzz for weeks with gossip about potential Cabinet members, but the credibility of the rumors has been even lower than the capital’s already-low standard.

“We don’t know what’s going on in Bill Clinton’s mind,” complained one outside adviser to the campaign. “Does he want an activist or a caretaker?”

Among those “mentioned” as possible secretaries of state--with no particular assurance that Clinton is interested--have been Sen. Bill Bradley (D-N.J.), Sen. Sam Nunn (D-Ga.) and Warren Christopher, the Los Angeles lawyer who is directing the transition (and has declared that he does not expect any major post in the Administration).

Among those mentioned as potential national security advisers are Lake, a professor at Mt. Holyoke College who served in the administrations of Richard M. Nixon and Jimmy Carter, and Samuel R. (Sandy) Berger, a trade lawyer who served in the Jimmy Carter Administration and who is now the transition team’s national security director.

Many others have been mentioned as well. Some have had their friends telephone reporters to suggest their names. A few shameless souls have telephoned to nominate themselves. They will not be listed here because of space limitations.