Signs Show Much of Foreign Policy Will Be on Hold Until After Election

Don’t do anything until after the elections. Say as little as possible.

Those are the rules American presidents typically have applied to conducting foreign policy during a campaign year. And there are already plenty of signs that these time-honored rules are being followed in 1996.

Sure, there are always a few big problems that can’t be avoided or hidden. Bosnia is a classic example this year, and President Clinton deserves credit for being willing to take the political risk of sending troops there at the very time he is running for reelection.

In theory, a campaign should give a president the chance to tell the public what he plans to do after reelection. But on any foreign policy initiative where a president has some choice about the timing, the guiding principle has usually been: If it might be controversial, avoid talking about it until after election day.

President Lyndon B. Johnson provided the classic illustration during the 1964 campaign, when he promised not to widen the war in Vietnam or to “supply American boys to do the job that Asian boys should do.” He ordered a massive escalation in the early months of 1965.

Half a century earlier, President Woodrow Wilson campaigned in 1916 on the slogan “He Kept Us Out of War.” A year later, the United States was in World War I.

President Ronald Reagan was a staunch hawk toward the Soviet Union before and during the 1984 campaign. He saved his dovish initiatives and his arms-control summitry with Moscow for his second term.

In the spring of 1976, Sen. Barry Goldwater sent a secret urgent note to the White House, saying he had heard that President Gerald R. Ford planned to establish full diplomatic relations with China after the November elections. Ford’s aides hurriedly assured Goldwater that the rumor was not true.

In fact, the record shows that American officials had told their Chinese counterparts exactly what Goldwater had feared: Diplomatic ties were coming, but after the next elections. Ford lost that 1976 campaign, leaving it to President Jimmy Carter to make the deal for full relations with Beijing. He did so--by waiting until a few weeks after the congressional elections of 1978.

The China example illustrates another principle: Sometimes it really doesn’t matter who is elected president. Some initiatives enjoy such strong support within the American foreign policy establishment that they are likely to go forward after election eay no matter who wins.

So how about this year? What sorts of foreign policy initiatives might we expect from a reelected President Clinton--or, indeed, from Sen. Bob Dole of Kansas or some other Republican presidential candidate? What sorts of things are being planned for after the election but not talked about much beforehand?

There is certainly nothing as dramatic as Johnson’s war. The things on the shelf this year are much less cataclysmic. Still, they are all measures that ought to be explored in a presidential campaign, rather than sprung on the American people afterward.

Here are some of the issues that seem to be on hold, but only until after November:

ECONOMIC TIES WITH VIETNAM: Clinton normalized diplomatic relations with Hanoi last summer. The next step is to open the way fully for trade. To do that, Washington and Hanoi have to negotiate a formal trade agreement, and the president and Congress have to clear the way for Vietnam to get most-favored-nation trade benefits, which would allow Vietnamese goods to be sold in this country without prohibitively high duties.

Those big steps are almost certain to be taken during the next couple of years--but not until after November.

The Vietnamese economy is growing at about 9% a year, and the American business community wants to be able to do business there. The State Department is already quietly pushing to move toward new economic ties with Hanoi, but the White House is far less enthusiastic during the election season. Doing so would reopen the touchy issue of Vietnam--and Clinton’s record during the war.

Business groups have been quietly lobbying the administration to take at least some lesser steps this year by opening the way for financing (through the Export-Import Bank) and insurance (from the Overseas Private Investment Corp.) for American firms in Vietnam.

But these changes too may well be held off until after the election. When Clinton makes his Labor Day campaign appearance in Detroit, does he want to be asked by the AFL-CIO about Vietnam’s record in ensuring the rights of workers?

EXTENDING NAFTA: The United States, Canada and Mexico have already agreed to eventual expansion of the North American Free Trade Agreement. Chile is supposed to be the first Latin American country to be added to the club.

But not this year. Even without Ross Perot on the stump, NAFTA is still too hot as a political issue. Dole, the GOP front-runner, has said he thinks there are already too many trade agreements.

U.S. Trade Representative Mickey Kantor said recently that the Clinton administration would focus on implementing existing trade agreements in 1996. Translation: Any new trade deals are off until after November.

NATO EXPANSION: The expansion of NATO into Central and Eastern Europe has been put on the shelf this year primarily because of the Russian presidential elections. The Clinton administration does not want to undercut President Boris N. Yeltsin before June’s elections in Russia, or hand Yeltsin’s nationalist and Communist opponents a new campaign issue.

The American presidential campaign is a factor too. Sure, the general idea of expanding NATO is popular in this country. But the details of exactly how it will be done could prove considerably more troublesome.

Some applicants--the Czech Republic, Poland, Hungary--are going to be admitted to the Western alliance quickly. Others will take longer, and many more won’t be admitted at all.

With the Midwest likely to be a crucial battleground in the November election, does Clinton want to be the one to tell ethnic Americans in Chicago and Cleveland that Slovakia and Lithuania are not going to be admitted to NATO any time soon? Does Dole want to get trapped into making a commitment about getting Ukraine into NATO--a promise that he might not be able to keep as president? The presidential candidates would rather not talk about such subjects.

A PRESIDENTIAL VISIT TO CHINA: The last presidential trip to Beijing was George Bush’s visit in early 1989, a few months before the Tiananmen Square crackdown. With China growing in importance to American foreign policy year by year, we are likely to see a presidential visit in 1997, no matter whether Clinton, Dole or some other Republican candidate (other than, say, Patrick J. Buchanan) sleeps in the White House.

Because of the truculent mood of the Chinese leadership right now, this year might not be propitious for a presidential trip to Beijing anyway. But the November elections further guarantee that Clinton won’t go. He doesn’t want to focus attention on the vicissitudes of his China policy over the past four years.

Instead, look for Vice President Al Gore to visit Beijing this spring or summer to test the waters for a presidential visit next year.

It would be unfair to suggest that all of American foreign policy has been frozen until after November. This year, the Clinton administration will pursue a Middle East peace agreement, carry through on the peacekeeping mission in Bosnia-Herzegovina and try to stave off disasters in American policy toward Russia or China.

Beyond these objectives, foreign policy in an election year operates on roughly the same philosophy as a losing baseball team. It’s wait till next year.

The International Outlook column appears here every other Monday.