IN the United States, economic diplomacy has won over political or strategic interests. Such initiative as the convening of the first Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit, and Congre-saional approval to the North American Free Trade Agreement (Nafta) have boosted the foreign policy establishment in Washington.

The twin developments have silenced many critics of Bill Clinton who had been saying that the President is so focused on the home front that foreign policy was degenerating into a shambles.

George Bush lost the 1992 jjrestdentia! election partly because he was seen as fixated on foreign affairs and indifferent to domestic concerns. Clinton was in danger of making the opposite mistake. After the APEC meeting In Seattle, he has recovered some political ground.

Clinton is being attacked for his handling of three specific crises. The US mission in Somalia has been conceptually confused and poorly executed. Many • Democrats aa well as Republicans criticise the Democratic president for failing to restore Jean Bertrand Aristide to power in Haiti. And liberals and conservatives alike have faulted Clinton for not intervening militarily to halt the slaughter of Bosnian Muslims.

The President has been made to pay a political price on. each issue. The cumulative effect has been to foster an image of Clinton as an indecisive leader. More damaging is the contention that the entire foreign policy apparatus has bungled Its attempt to outline a guiding vision for US behaviour in the post-Cold War world.

The administration is guilty of creating the impression that a "Clinton Doctrine" was being formulated in a co-ordinated •series of speeches earlier this autumn. Top-level officials. in-

eluding the President himself, implied that "enlargement” would replace the -45-year-bld "containment" objective as the basis of US geopolitical strategy.

Now that communism no longer, has to be "contained", these policy-makers said. Washington will henceforth concentrate on "enlarging" the ranks of Western-style democ-racies.

"In a new era of peril and opportunity," Clinton-declared in a late September speech before the United Nations General Assembly, "our overriding purpose must be to expand the world's community of marketbased economies ... we seek to enlarge the circle of nations

that live under those free institutions."

That grandiose ambition was quickly shown to have been based on a miscalculation. Clinton had assumed either that "enlargement" could be achieved without significant cost to the military or that the US public would be willing to pay such a cost. Ab he discovered literally overnight in Somalia, intervention does re-ault in casualties, and they can trigger political convulsions at home.

The deaths of 18 American soldiers in*Mogadlshu in early October proved that the "Vietnam syndrome" has still not been overcome. Nearly 20 years

after the US defeat in IndoChina. large sections of the public remain traumatised by the spectre of US forces being killed in Third World conflicts. The country continues to resist any attempt to commit troops to protracted combat operations not widely viewed as crucial tn national security.

As a result of this misreading of public sentiment, the administration has had to beat a retreat. "Enlargement" is now seldom mentioned, and the effort to fashion an over-arching theory of foreign policy has been all but abandoned.

Stung by the charges of Incompetence. Clinton's key advisers have struggled to defend their performance. Secretary of State Warren Christopher suggested, for example, that no one has been able to devise a surefire response to disorder In small, poor countries. "As far as dealing with failed states, such as Somalia and Haiti, we are finding our way,’’ Christopher conceded.

But the Secretary and other top officials Insisted that the administration Is getting it right on the big Issues. And their contention has acquired a certain credibility in light of Clinton's back-to-back success In engineering congressional approval of the US-Mexlco-CSnada free trade deal and in building the framework for closer commercial and political ties between the US and East Asia’s dynamos.

Even some of his harsher critics have now been forced to concede that Clinton is proving himself adept at economically-

oriented diplomacy. The administration may still be lacking a coherent worldview, but it has clearly made progress In re-orienting US foreign policy away from the old AUantic alliance and toward the Aslan-Pacific nations and Latin America.

The President's come-from-behind victory on Nafta has at least temporarily overshadowed policy failures In other parts of the developing world.

Similarly, the generally positive reviews given to Clinton's performance at the Seattle summit of Pacific leaders have pushed into the background the fact that he has done little to advance US political and economic aims in regard to the region's two biggest powers — China and Japan.

On other "big issues" as well, the Clinton record is more mixed than his defenders contend. Russian President Boris Yeltsin remains In power partly as a result of Washington's unequivocal backing for him. but hardly any Influential US politician has proposed an alternative strategy.

And in the Middle East, the US under Clinton has been a decidedly minor player in comparison to the dominant role in which it was cast during the Carter and Bush administrations.

Clinton is more vulnerable -than many of his predecessors to criticism of his diplomatic skills because he lacks experience in world affairs. From the outset of his presidency, the former governor of Arkansas has sought to demonstrate expertise by acting assertively.

The US bombing of Iraq in June was an attempt by Clinton to prove that he is Just as resolute’ as Bush.

As he strives to recover from a string of setbacks. Clinton may again shoot at some target like Saddam Hussein — though almost certainly he would takgc care to fire, once more, from w safe distance. It Is now unlikely that he will commit ground forces to Haiti, Bosnia or any other "failed state." This President may be unschooled in international affairs, but his political instincts are sharp enough to recognise -the continued virulence of the Vietnam ayndrasne.

Along with the "enlargement1' doctrine, the tactic of "assertive multilateralism" is being scraped as well. That was the term used by American UN ambassador Madeleine Albright in September to describe Washington's intention to launched interventions under UN auspices.

The current feuding between Warren Christopher and UN Secretary General Boutros Boutros-Ghali suggests that the US will not soon again put its forces under UN command as In Somalia.

With the "new world order" ' proving anything but clear cut. Washington will probably keep floundering hi. its search for a replacement for the containment doctrine. And unless Haiti or some other "failed state" quickly proves responsive to US administrations. Clinton's foreign policy team could well undergo a major shake-up in the coming weeks.

The No 2 official at the State Department has already been forced to resign, and rumours persist that Christopher himself will be thrown overboard, perhaps along with Pentagon chief Les Aspin and National Security Adviser Anthony Lake.

Kevtn J Kelley Is Editor oj "Toward Freedom".