Time - Man of the Year/Time_Man_of_the_Year_Compact_Publishing_3YX-Disc-1_Compact_Publishing_1993.iso/moy/081092/08109926.000

Text File | 1993-04-08 | 9KB | 189 lines

                                                                                FOREIGN POLICY, Page 28

One Degree of Separation


On issues ranging from Yugoslavia to Iraq to Russia, Bush and
Clinton share remarkably similar views. The big difference may
be in their attitude toward the U.S. as a world leader.

By JOHANNA MCGEARY


    This is supposed to be the campaign of domestic issues,
in which foreign policy is President Bush's strong suit -- even
though he doesn't necessarily want to remind voters of that --
and candidate Clinton is too inexperienced to challenge him. But
a funny thing happened when they wrangled over Bosnia for a day
last week. Bush looked vulnerable on foreign matters, and
Clinton showed he was not afraid to attack him. More important
perhaps, it reminded voters of the fundamental choice they make
when they step into the ballot booth each four years: Who
deserves to sit in the Commander in Chief's chair? That used to
boil down to whose finger Americans wanted on the nuclear
button. But in the post-cold war era, does it matter if that man
is George or Bill?

    The answer is not that simple. Most foreign policy is
reactive, the business of handling events the U.S. didn't
initiate and can't necessarily control. Presidents tend to be
judged less by the good deeds they set in motion than by how
well they respond to crises. Jimmy Carter's conscientious
conclusion of the Panama Canal treaties was overshadowed by his
fumbling over the Tehran hostages. George Bush's adroit
management of the Gulf War largely explains his reputation for
statesmanship.

    On the big issues, no President's foreign policy is all
that different from his predecessor's and neither candidate is
calling for radical revision. Americans by and large don't want
great swings in the conduct of foreign affairs, which is why a
Barry Goldwater or a George McGovern doesn't get elected: the
art form rests in reinventing the center.

    On the other hand, the choice of President this time has
rarely been more important; 1992 is a year, like 1815 or 1945,
when a great transformation of global politics is under way.
The old verities that shaped U.S. policy have vanished: for 45
years all candidates shared the basic belief that America's main
job abroad was to contain communism, though some took a more
confrontational line, some a more conciliatory one. The next
President faces an entirely different challenge, grappling with
seismic changes in which the choices are confusing, the
directions obscure.

    Once the political chaff is dusted away, the mini-debate
over Bosnia is instructive. Both Bush and Clinton were saying
the same thing. What Marlin Fitzwater called "reckless" --
Clinton's suggestion that the U.S. seek U.N. authorization for
selective bombing to safeguard the relief of Sarajevo --
virtually repeated the prescriptions of Secretary of Defense
Dick Cheney. Clinton barely overstepped the cautious line the
Bush Administration has been following.

    In fact, the two are remarkably similar on most foreign
issues.

    YUGOSLAVIA. No real debate here. Both call it a
multinational and mainly European responsibility. Both support
the Sarajevo airlift, but that is just a Band-Aid. Neither man
has offered a plan for bringing the carnage in the splintering
republics to an end, or a clear policy on how to manage the
dangerous separatist wave sweeping the world. The Clinton camp's
critique is mainly hindsight: Bill wouldn't have held on to the
sanctity of Yugoslav unity so long, Bill wouldn't have signaled
Serbia that the U.S. would not resist its aggression as the Bush
Administration did, Bill would have acted sooner on humanitarian
relief.

    IRAQ. Not much difference here either: Clinton's main note
is one of strong backing for Bush's get-tough policies. The
U.N. resolutions must be complied with, and if Saddam will not
do it voluntarily, force has to be contemplated. "I supported
the Gulf War, and I support being firm with Saddam now," he
declared last week. Well, not quite. Clinton's position in
January 1991 was far more equivocal, simultaneously suggesting
sanctions be given more time and advising Congress not to vote
against authorizing the use of force. The candidate is trying
to deflate Bush's Gulf War reputation by depicting the President
as an appeaser whose "coddling" of Saddam before August 1990
helped bring the war on. "Clinton will not try to buy good
behavior from tyrants," says foreign policy adviser Michael
Mandelbaum. But Clinton doesn't have a better idea on how to
resolve the Kurdish problem or how to remove Saddam from power
either.

    THE FORMER SOVIET UNION. Clinton stole a march on a meek
and miserly Bush by coming out in December for substantial aid
to assist Russia's transition to democracy and a market
economy. Twenty minutes before the candidate delivered his
second major speech on the subject in April, Bush rushed to join
his rival by stepping into the White House press room and
delivering a similar message. Now little separates them but
rhetoric: Clinton has been able to make the more compelling case
that a modest investment is a sound investment in America's own
future well-being.

    MIDDLE EAST. Credit where credit is due, says Clinton. He
applauds Secretary of State James Baker's handling of the peace
process, but he would not have held loan guarantees for
resettling Soviet Jews in Israel hostage to a freeze on building
settlements in the occupied territories. "That is a signal to
Arabs that the U.S. will deliver Israel, and that's not right,"
said a Clinton adviser. The Democrat's rejection of such a link
puts him squarely in the old party tradition of siding firmly
with Israel. This is one case in which Clinton's effort to
distance himself from Bush seems more partisan than wise.

    CHINA. Bush refuses to rescind most-favored-nation trading
status for Beijing in retaliation for human-rights abuses,
weapons sales and the Tiananmen Square massacre; Clinton would.
That might satisfy American moral outrage, but neither move
seems likely to affect China's political course for the better.

    HAITI. Bush says the refugees are fleeing destitution, not
persecution, and refuses even to let them plead their cases for
political asylum by turning them back on the high seas. A New
York appeals court last week declared the practice illegal, and
Clinton shares the view that the boat people deserve the right
to assert their claims. But he is a good deal vaguer when it
comes to actually accepting them in the U.S., no doubt mindful
of popular resistance to any major influx.

    The similarity of the two candidates' positions may be
Bush's biggest problem. Republicans have had a lock on foreign
policy ever since McGovern and Vietnam swung the Democrats
sharply to the left. Voters consistently found them too soft to
trust with the nation's security. But Clinton is attempting to
erase that stigma by aligning himself closely to the middle.
Both he and Bush are internationalists, both are willing to use
force if necessary, neither is an ideologue. Their differences
on specific issues tend to be in degree rather than in kind: a
matter of a few dollars more or less in defense cuts or Russian
aid; a tad more aggressive or cautious in Bosnia.

    So the main difference -- and the essence of the choice --
comes down to attitude. Bush says trust me, I am the man to take
the phone call in the night, I am the candidate with "the
experience, the seasoning, the guts to do the right thing."
Clinton counters that he is the younger, forward-looking man of
bold action who can set the new goals, devise the new mission
the U.S. needs in the post-cold war world. Bush says Clinton is
"reckless"; Clinton says Bush is "rudderless and reactive." Bush
is selling himself as the custodian of American hegemony in a
unipolar world, Clinton as the advocate of multinational
responsibility exercised through reshaped global institutions.

    So far, Clinton has been longer on rhetoric -- and
sometimes shorter, as Bush gibed last week when he recalled that
Clinton devoted a mere 141 words to national security in his
convention acceptance speech -- than on detailed policies. He
apparently hopes to establish his credentials with broad
arguments of conviction: strength abroad depends on economic
revival at home; the U.S. must build on freedom's victory in the
cold war; leaders must act, not react. Bush no doubt agrees with
most of this, but he has been unable to articulate any guiding
principles.

    The President's difficulty in touting his foreign policy
record is that there is one. While voters credit him -- with
growing reservations -- for the Gulf War and maybe the Middle
East peace talks, his statesmanship is afflicted with the same
sense of drift and passivity as his domestic agenda. Clinton's
problem is that he is a tabula rasa on which a foreign agenda
has yet to be written: Much is promised, but what will he
deliver? Choosing between them looks like an act of faith. If
there ever is a real debate over national security issues in
this campaign, it might help the voters decide which man to
believe.