The Political Interest

By Michael Kramer

Even before Paul Tsongas quit the show last week, an aide to Bill Clinton described the front runner's new focus in three words: "Bush, Bush, Bush." Clinton believes that a successful presidential candidate must view the primary- and general-election campaigns as a single play in two acts rather than as two one-act dramas; the sooner one can articulate the general campaign's themes the better. So if the schedule holds -- and perhaps as early as this week -- the nominee-presumptive will deliver a major foreign policy address.

Why foreign affairs and why now? With the anemic economy showing signs of recovery, Clinton knows that in the fall Bush will be playing his strongest card and that even in a world of reduced threats Clinton must pass the threshold test: Can Americans trust him as Commander in Chief? Better, then, to lay some markers down early, especially when his critique and prescriptions are essentially centrist. There is also the possibility for an elegant piece of what Mario Cuomo calls "political jujitsu" -- stealing your opponent's thunder in an area he is perceived as owning.

To accomplish this trick, the probable centerpiece of Clinton's speech will involve how and to what extent the U.S. should aid the former Soviet Union. Stung by Pat Buchanan's isolationist attacks and the common criticism that he has spent too much time on foreign affairs, Bush has virtually ignored the issue. In pleading poverty ("There isn't a lot of money around . . . I don't have a blank check") and refusing to heed Richard Nixon's warnings about chaos and a return to dictatorship in the Commonwealth of Independent States, Bush has offered Clinton a window of opportunity. (If it closes, if Bush jumps out with his own ideas for C.I.S. assistance before Clinton can, the candidate will shift his emphasis.)

Clinton is already on record as favoring a sizable C.I.S. aid program, so his upcoming remarks will represent an elaboration rather than an expedient first-time treatment of the issue. "We should spend a couple of billion dollars for food and medical shipments and to help the C.I.S. dismantle its nuclear weapons and to help the republics convert to a marketable currency and a market economy," Clinton said several months ago. "Spending now will save us billions in lower defense costs forever and will within five or so years increase trade opportunities dramatically."

According to deputy campaign manager George Stephanopoulos, Clinton will flesh out those sentences and go a bit beyond. A potential highlight will be Clinton's embrace of the "Democracy Corps" bill introduced by Representative Dave McCurdy earlier this month. With the bipartisan support of Republicans ( such as Representative Henry Hyde and Senator John McCain, McCurdy wants to replicate a feature of the Marshall Plan. Called "America Houses," the program dispatched U.S. civilians to live in Germany, where they helped coordinate public and private assistance from abroad and reintroduced a war- ravaged people to the culture of freedom. In the C.I.S., American experts in business, labor, public administration, human rights and judicial processes would do much the same during two-year stints. "Unless steps are taken to stabilize the social and political situation," says McCurdy, financial "assistance could amount to pouring water into a sieve." A particular charm of McCurdy's notion is its meager cost, $160 million over three years. It seems a small idea, but it isn't, and it's different -- and Clinton needs to do more than "me too" whatever the Administration offers in the coming months.

The other, major feature of Clinton's speech will probably involve collective security. Rejecting the Pentagon's apparent desire to be the world's policeman, Clinton will describe ways to deal with the minor but important crises that will characterize the post-cold war era. In an address last year, Clinton spoke of "a United Nations rapid-deployment force that could be used for purposes beyond traditional peacekeeping, such as standing guard at the borders of countries threatened by aggression, preventing attacks on civilians, providing humanitarian relief, and combatting terrorism and drug trafficking." Building on the work of Columbia University law professor Richard Gardner, Clinton will preserve America's right of unilateral action as he urges multilateralism wherever possible.

The rub concerns "preventing attacks on civilians," four words that signal a vast departure from U.S. policy -- the possibility that Washington will encourage military operations designed to assist maltreated citizens within their own borders. Such intervention is still a no-no, Gardner concedes, "but protecting the Kurds inside Iraq shows that the parameters are moving." If Clinton pushes the current constraints, he will serve his and the Democratic Party's traditional concern for human rights, but he will also assume a new and potentially dangerous mission for both the U.N. and the U.S. If Bush demurs, the debate will be worth watching.

While intervening in another nation's internal affairs may be something Clinton refrains from sanctioning at this point, his proposals for aiding the former Soviet Union could yield an unexpected benefit. If Clinton delivers, Richard Nixon says he is prepared to bless the Democrat's ideas publicly as "great" -- a jujitsu coup even Mario Cuomo would notice.