CRISIS IN THE CARIBBEAN : Lawmakers Support Peace Mission, but Still Balk at Invasion : Congress: Carter delegation is applauded, despite criticism of its timing and mandate.

Key members of Congress expressed bipartisan support Saturday for President Clinton’s last-ditch Haitian diplomatic initiative but warned that they would continue to seek a vote opposing an invasion if Clinton’s emissaries failed to persuade Haiti’s military dictators to step aside.

“I strongly support this mission,” said Sen. Claiborne Pell (D-R.I.), chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. “But I am still of the view we should not go in. There are no U.S. interests justifying military action.”

Even as some of the most outspoken foes of Clinton’s saber-rattling grudgingly applauded his decision to send a delegation led by former President Jimmy Carter to Haiti, they criticized the timing and the scope of the group’s mandate.

“I wish it had been done long ago, before we had an invasion force off the shore of Haiti,” said Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.). “And I would like their charter to discuss a wide variety of issues rather than just the circumstances of the military’s departure.”

Senators and representatives interviewed Saturday generally said that they do not expect to get an opportunity to cast a vote opposing military action. Rather, they predicted that if an eleventh-hour diplomatic settlement is not reached this weekend, Clinton will send in the forces poised just off Haiti’s shores shortly before a scheduled vote by the House on Monday.

Sentiment on Capitol Hill has run overwhelmingly against an invasion. Hence many lawmakers, particularly Democrats who do not relish the prospect of opposing their President on a major foreign policy issue, breathed a sigh of relief over the decision to send Carter, retired Army Gen. Colin L. Powell and Senate Armed Services Chairman Sam Nunn (D-Ga.) to meet with Haiti’s military leaders.

They said the makeup of this high-powered trio would serve Clinton well not only during their mission but also--if they return empty-handed--back home. Nunn and Powell, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the George Bush Administration, carry particular clout with Congress.

Their credibility is further enhanced by their independence from the President who dispatched them: Nunn has been a constant thorn in Clinton’s side on military issues, and Powell, who served a Republican President, is considered a possible opponent of Clinton’s in 1996.

As the delegation landed in Haiti, lawmakers said the possibility of averting bloodshed is more important than any perception of indecisiveness by a President who has been accused of waffling on a host of other foreign policy issues.

“It’s in everyone’s interests that the effort be made,” said Sen. William S. Cohen (R-Me.), a member of the Armed Services Committee.

Cohen said the prospect for success was enhanced last week when Jean-Bertrand Aristide, the exiled Haitian president, vowed that upon his return his government would not seek vengeance against members of the military led by Lt. Gen. Raoul Cedras. This, he said, could allow Powell to deliver a powerful message to Cedras and his two associates whose departure has been demanded by Clinton.

“Powell’s stature is such that he can make this very clear that it would be an unconscionable act for them to inflict on their soldiers, causing these soldiers to die for their leadership when they could, instead, live under a democratic administration,” Cohen said. “Colin Powell is the best person to make that appeal.”

If this and other entreaties by the Carter-led emissaries fail, the trio could emerge as influential political allies of Clinton. This would depend, however, on their message.

“Having three such prestigious figures, including the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, coming back and saying, ‘We have no alternative but to carry out this invasion,’ would be extremely positive,” said a senior Democratic congressional aide. “You will then have three very powerful voices that will help give Congress a rationale for letting the invasion go forward.”

Others were skeptical. Pell said this development would only modestly decrease opposition to Clinton’s plans. And Cohen said the narrow scope of the mission--to discuss with the Haitians only their means of departure--meant the Administration could not say, “We tried every alternative.”

Two House Democrats who generally support Clinton said they expect to continue to oppose an invasion if the diplomatic initiative does not produce a breakthrough.

“If they’re unsuccessful, I’m not sure how much it will change,” said Rep. Patricia Schroeder (D-Colo.), a member of the House Armed Services Committee. “The people who are upset about it can’t figure out what the national interest is, and Carter going there does not define the national interest.”

Rep. Howard L. Berman (D-Panorama City), who chairs a House Foreign Affairs subcommittee, said he detests the brutality of the Haitian regime and wants to see U.S. foreign assistance and diplomatic policy used to promote democracy abroad. But he drew the line at military action.

“For the life of me,” Berman said, “I cannot understand the underlying conceptual justification for using U.S. military forces where there’s no U.S. security interest, there’s no fundamental U.S. economic interest and there has been no aggression against one country by another.”

Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) was one of a minority of lawmakers who said that he would not oppose an invasion if it came to a vote.

For better or worse, he said, Clinton put his credibility on the line by vowing to invade unless Cedras and his cronies left Haiti.