Clinton’s Foreign Policy: Where Is the Rhyme and Reason?

American foreign policy is obviously in disarray, but it is not quite DOA. Uncertain as to what to do about Bosnia, outfoxed by a warlord in Somalia and frustrated by a general clinging to power in Haiti, the Clinton Administration seems adrift. Is the President perhaps hoping that a successful health care reform will somehow improve the health of his foreign policy? Good luck. Even a major domestic-policy success, which of course is far from assured, would prove no cure for what ails the conduct of American foreign policy right now.

The three most important requisites of a coherent foreign policy are a President who has a firm sense of basic direction (Truman, yes--Carter, no); a foreign-policy team whose key players complement each other’s strengths and compensate for each other’s weaknesses, and a Congress that is properly watchful but not threatening to usurp the President’s prerogatives.

In Washington, for now, none of these three criteria is being met.

THE PRESIDENT: President Clinton never promised us a foreign policy of towering originality or insight. Indeed, his 1992 campaign was notable, and notably successful, for its emphasis on domestic issues--an emphasis that has not changed much since his inauguration. But as commander in chief, the President owes the American people a sense of deeper strategic thinking. At its core, that effort must rely on a set of principles to guide policy in the broadest possible circumstances. And without that, policy will remain mostly reactive.

Of course, foreign policy at times must be reactive. But with the collapse of the Soviet Union, and with the threat of nuclear annihilation no longer only 30 minutes from America’s doorstep, comparatively few crises these days are so urgent that a coherent response cannot be formulated and articulated.

It is true that things seem more complicated than ever now that the greatly simplifying (and unifying) principle of anti-communism no longer holds sway. And it is also true that the new information technology, with its satellite transmission of instant video images of horror, is a powerful influence speeding the identification and dramatization of crises in far-off places.

Even so, the President needs to provide the American people with an overarching sense of perspective. Clinton’s predecessor, George Bush, was plagued, too, with doubts that hehad about “the vision thing,” but his Administration was often so publicly focused on managing foreign-policy problems that the failure of conceptualization seemed somehow less worrisome.

What can Clinton do? He could, for example, declare priorities--relieving world poverty or overpopulation, maintaining shaky national borders or shoring up the geopolitical status quo, or whatever. But he must begin to give shape to what now seems formless and aimless. He needs a general theme and a basic direction.

THE TEAM: Clinton’s foreign-policy team must do more than react. Its principals include Secretary of State Warren Christopher, Secretary of Defense Les Aspin and National Security Adviser Anthony Lake--each a competent and dedicated public servant. But the growing concern is that as a team they reinforce each other’s weaknesses without adding much to their collective strength. The President should be certain this is his best team and not shudder from the prospect of making needed changes.

AND CONGRESS: Congress has a vital part in all of this, too. But right now the legislative branch of government is a loose cannon--in part because of Clinton Administration miscues but also because the 1996 presidential race appears to have begun excruciatingly early. Politics is politics, but congressional figures like Senate Minority Leader Bob Dole (R-Kan.) teeter dangerously close to undermining their public standing if they push politicking too far and fail to recognize their constitutional responsibilities. Congress has the power of the purse string, the power to pass legislation and the power to conduct fact-finding sessions and hearings. But if it abuses those powers primarily to exacerbate the President’s vulnerabilities, is it acting in the public interest?

Fortunately last week the Senate shrank back from the brink. It rejected, by a large margin, a measure that would have forbidden Clinton to authorize funds for putting U.S forces under foreign command. Surely the President should consult Congress about such a commitment; but tying the President’s hands is no way to conduct U.S. foreign policy.

This is obviously a difficult time for the Clinton Administration in foreign policy. The President’s team is not without its successes--the Middle East accord between Israel and the Palestinians more or less fell into its lap, but it worked hard and mostly effectively to see Russian President Boris N. Yeltsin through his troubles. But Clinton’s team now needs to get its act together, and this may require reshuffling some of its personnel. And that would require presidential decisions.

Clinton’s is still a young Administration, in office only nine months. And it is, notably, an energetic and intelligent one. But all that energy and intelligence may go for naught if it tries to operate without a strategic sense of vital U.S. interests.