Gutman Articles

HEADLINE: Added U.S. broadcasts send message in Serbia

WASHINGTON - Signaling growing support for demonstrators demanding the ouster of Serbian strongman Slobodan Milosevic, the United States Wednesday expanded Voice of America broadcasts into Serbia about the unrest and warned anew against a police crackdown.

Some 150,000 students and political opponents of Milosevic marched through Belgrade Wednesday, the biggest demonstration to date. Mocking Milosevic, they chanted ""Come out, Martian'' at the Serbian presidency building, referring to Milosevic's failure to acknowledge the protests now in their 17th day.

In fact, Milosevic for the first time took notice of the protests Wednesday. State television reported that as students passed the presidency building and delivered an open letter, guards invited them in to talk with Milosevic. But the students, caught off guard, demanded that the news media be invited to join them. The Serbian leader apparently declined.

In another concession, state television announced the dismissal of Mile Ilic, party boss in Nis, another scene of big demonstrations. Nis was one of 15 cities where the opposition won municipal elections, only to have them annulled by Milosevic.

Wednesday's demonstration surged in size from Tuesday, apparently in reaction to Milosevic's closure of B-92, Belgrade's last independent radio station. To help replace the missing source of news, the State Department announced that VOA broadcasts into Serbia will incorporate reports from B-92 staff.

In Washington, a senior State Department official said the administration has decided ""we will not prop up'' Milosevic.

""Let me just be very clear about the position of the United States,'' spokesman Nicholas Burns said Wednesday. ""The United States is taking the side of democracy in Serbia. '' Burns demanded that Milosevic honor the results of municipal elections on Nov. 17, which his Socialist party lost to a coalition of opposition parties.

Encouraging dissent within the Milosevic regime, Burns also praised five judges of the Serbian Supreme Court who ""very courageously'' criticized that court's decision to uphold Milosevic's annulment of the election result.

In London, U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott, in a ""very tough'' meeting with Serb foreign minister Milan Milutinovic, demanded that there be no violent suppression of the demonstrations, Burns said. Milutinovic promised that force will not be used to disrupt the protests, but Talbott told him ""we would judge the Serbian government based on its actions, not on these promises. ''

Administration officials believe the expansion of VOA coverage could have a significant impact on Serbian internal politics, not only because of its content but by giving the psychological signal of outside support, administration officials said.

The U.S. government-funded station already reaches 10 percent of the Serbian population, making it the most-listened-to foreign news medium, and Wednesday expanded its broadcasts by 30 minutes to two hours per day. VOA's inclusion of reports from B-92 staff is expanding its reach, formerly only to the outskirts of Belgrade, to cover an audience throughout Serbia.

In the first of the expanded broadcasts Wednesday night, the radio carried accounts about protests in Belgrade and three provincial cities. ""B-92 asked us to do it,'' said Frank Shkreli, head of the South European division. ""We're happy to be there. We're providing a service. ''

HEADLINE: RWANDA CHIEF'S VISION SETS AFRICAN AGENDA

BYLINE: ROY GUTMAN, NEWSDAY

Last summer, when the current central Africa crisis was a troubling speck on the horizon, the soft-spoken, slightly built Rwandan strongman paid a visit to Washington.

Hutu extremists were using the refugee camps they controlled in eastern Zaire to launch attacks on Rwanda, one of the world's smallest, poorest and most densely populated countries, struggling to recover from a genocidal civil war. More than 1 million Tutsi had died at the hands of the Hutu, and a million Hutu had fled into exile when the Tutsi finally gained the upper hand.

Paul Kagame, the Tutsi Rwandan vice president and defense minister, told officials in Washington that he had a simple remedy: an invasion of Zaire to close the camps and repatriate the refugees.

If the international community would not separate the Hutu ''criminals'' from the other refugees, ''maybe Rwanda should be given a mandate and we should solve it,'' Rwanda's ambassador to Washington recalled Kagame telling one group. The United States and other powers didn't respond to Kagame's overture.

When Rwanda's forces crossed into Zaire and fulfilled Kagame's vision earlier this month, the protest in Washington and elsewhere was only pro forma.

Once, it would have been an outside major power setting such an agenda. Tiny Rwanda's success illustrates a new direction in African affairs, where a small country can have a sizable impact by using the implicit backing of a major power to impose its will.

But it also raises questions, such as whether the previous international focus on humanitarian and human rights issues has been shunted aside by Rwanda's political needs.

Most of the camps have been closed since the fighting, and upward of a half-million refugees have returned to Rwanda - but at the cost of escalating instability in Zaire and uncertainty about the fate of 200,000 to 750,000 more refugees still in Zaire.

Some humanitarian aid experts have attacked the Clinton administration for paying too much attention to Rwanda's security, rather than the relief of human suffering.

But top State Department and White House officials and leading outside experts speak in awe of Rwanda, casting the tiny land as the Israel of central Africa.

''They could see that we weren't going to get rid of this cancer on the map of Zaire. They acted with some degree of decisiveness in order to create facts and solve the problem,'' said Chester Crocker, assistant secretary of state for African affairs in the Reagan administration. ''We were sitting on our thumbs,'' he told Newsday.

''Rwanda's leadership (doesn't) deal in slogans, but in realities,'' said Richard Bogosian, the special U.S. envoy who crisscrossed the region during the crisis. ''The country they are most similar to is Israel; the Israelis deal with facts, not slogans.''

Esteem for Rwanda is proportionate to the results of its policy: the closure of the camps, the dramatic, sudden return of refugees and the dispatch into the bush of Hutu extremists who had run the camps and kept the refugees there. Rwanda's short-term success also is having spillover effects in the region, and it may lead to a long-term realignment of outside powers in Africa.

The U.S. role in the events appears to be mainly that of ''friend of Rwanda'' and a brake on outside intervention.

''They don't listen to us, necessarily. They listen to themselves,'' said a senior administration official. ''Relative to others in the international community, we are perceived as being for the most part friendly.''

Said Bogosian: ''We didn't have that big a political agenda.''

But France did. As Belgium, the former colonial power, withdrew from playing a leading role in central Africa in recent years, France sought to fill the vacuum. France had armed and trained the Hutu regime that conducted the genocide against Rwandan Tutsis in 1994, and after Kagame's forces came to power, the French - with U.S. support - mounted ''Operation Turquoise,'' which effectively ensconced the Hutu militias in their bases on the Zaire-Rwanda border.

The crisis began late last month, when a local Zairean official in Kivu province, which borders Rwanda, announced the expulsion of more than 100,000 ethnic Tutsis who had lived in the region for two centuries. Many of them had fought with the Rwanda Tutsis under Kagame in 1994. The so-called Banyamulenge had Kagame's backing and the leadership of Laurent Kabila, a rebel from Shaba province who is not a Tutsi, and they decided they would not leave without a fight.

Rwanda, complaining that the Zaire army was firing artillery into its territory, staged an incursion into Zaire, and the Zaire army, unpaid for years, undisciplined and apparently leaderless, scattered.

As the crisis built, France demanded an international humanitarian intervention in eastern Zaire but insisted that U.S. troops join. Zairean leader Mobutu Sese Seko, convalescing at his French Riviera chateau from cancer treatment, willingly agreed, obviously hoping to regain control of his lost territory.

Rwanda was flatly opposed. ''There is a near pathological distrust of intervention force in that region,'' said Rwanda's ambassador to Washington, Theogene Rudasingwa. ''In 1994, when a million people were killed, at that moment the international community decided to disengage and withdraw. No one thought they had changed for the better.''

The United States resisted French demands by repeatedly seeking details of the exact goals for an intervention. The turning point in the crisis occurred two weeks ago, after Canada decided it would lead the intervention and launched a public campaign to enlist the United States. President Clinton reluctantly agreed, but attached many conditions.

At his headquarters in Goma, Zaire, Kabila worried. ''He viewed this in terms of the future of Zaire,'' said Roger Winter, director of the U.S. committee for Refugees, a Washington-based nonprofit advocacy group.

Kabila, a one-time leftist who led a rebellion in Zaire's mineral-rich Shaba province in the 1960s, has publicly stated that his aim is to overthrow Mobutu. He feared that the arrival of foreign forces in Goma would destroy his newfound advantage.

On Nov. 12, just after Canada persuaded reluctant Clinton aides to join the force, Kabila struck pre-emptively. After reportedly heavy fighting, he moved into the camps and unloosed the human tidal wave.

Kabila, with Winter's assistance, then made contact with the U.S. Embassy in Rwanda to explain his objectives and seek enough leeway to carry them out. Bogosian confirmed that he had met Kabila but declined to give details of the discussion. But Winter said Kabila came away from the meeting satisfied.

''The humanitarian agencies got it wrong in 1994; they gave us 2 1/2 years of absolute horror,'' said Winter of the U.S. Committee for Refugees. ''In my view, this was the biggest hostage crisis in memory.''

HEADLINE: RWANDA'S BOLD STEPS PAY OFF / ZAIRE INVASION EMPTIED CAMPS

BYLINE: By Roy Gutman. WASHINGTON BUREAU

Washington - Last summer, when the current crisis in central Africa was a troubling speck on the horizon, the soft-spoken, slightly built Rwandan strongman paid a visit to Washington.

Hutu extremists were using the refugee camps they controlled in eastern Zaire to launch attacks on Rwanda, one of the smallest, poorest and most densely populated countries, struggling to recover from a genocidal civil war. More than 1 million Tutsi had died at the hands of the Hutu and a million Hutu had fled into exile when the Tutsi finally gained the upper hand. Paul Kagame, the Tutsi Rwandan vice president and defense minister, told officials here he had a simple remedy: an invasion of Zaire to close the camps and repatriate the refugees.

If the international community would not separate the Hutu "criminals" from the other refugees, "maybe Rwanda should be given a mandate and we should solve it," Rwanda's ambassador to Washington recalled Kagame telling one group.

The United States and other major powers did not respond to Kagame's overture. When Rwanda's forces crossed into Zaire and fulfilled Kagame's vision earlier this month, the protest in Washington and elsewhere was only pro forma.

Once it would have been an outside major power setting such an agenda. Tiny Rwanda's success illustrates a new direction in African affairs, where a small country can have a sizable impact by using the implicit backing of a major power to impose its will.

But it also raises questions such as whether the previous international focus on humanitarian and human rights issues has been shunted aside by Rwanda's political needs. Most of the camps have been closed since the fighting and upwards of a half-million refugees have returned to Rwanda but at the cost of escalating instability in Zaire and uncertainty about the fate of 200,000 to 750,000 additional refugees still on the march in Zaire.

Some humanitarian aid experts have attacked the Clinton administration for paying too much attention to Rwanda's security rather than the relief of human suffering. But top State Department and White House officials and leading outside experts speak in awe of Rwanda, casting the tiny land as the Israel of central Africa.

"They could see that we weren't going to get rid of this cancer on the map of Zaire. They acted with some degree of decisiveness in order to create facts and solve the problem," said Chester Crocker, assistant secretary of state for African affairs in the Reagan administration. "We were sitting on our thumbs," he told Newsday.

"Rwanda's leadership don't deal in slogans but in realities," said Richard Bogosian, the special U.S. envoy who criss-crossed the region during the crisis. "The country they are most similar to is Israel. The Israelis deal with facts, not slogans."

Esteem for Rwanda is proportionate to the results of its policy: the closure of the camps, the dramatic, sudden return of refugees, and the dispatch into the bush of Hutu extremists who had run the camps and kept the refugees there.

Rwanda's short-term success also is having spillover effects in the region, most of which remain to be measured, and it may lead to a long-term realignment of outside powers in Africa.

The United States' role in the events appears to be mainly that of "friend of Rwanda" and a brake on outside intervention. "They don't listen to us, necessarily. They listen to themselves," said a senior administration official, who spoke on condition of anonymity. "Relative to others in the international community, we are perceived as being for the most part friendly." Said Bogosian: "We didn't have that big a political agenda."

France, however, did. As Belgium, the former colonial power, withdrew from playing a leading role in central Africa in recent years, France sought to fill the vacuum. France had armed and trained the Hutu regime that conducted the genocide against Rwandan Tutsis in 1994, and after Kagame's forces came to power, the French with U.S. support mounted "Operation Turquoise," which effectively ensconced the Hutu militias in their bases on the Zaire-Rwanda border.

The crisis began late last month when a local Zaire official in Kivu province, which borders Rwanda, announced the expulsion of more than 100,000 ethnic Tutsis who had lived in the region for two centuries. Many of them had fought with the Rwanda Tutsis under Kagame in 1994. The so-called Banyamulenge had Kagame's backing and the leadership of Laurent Kabila, a rebel from Shaba province who is not a Tutsi, and they decided they would not leave without a fight.

Rwanda, complaining that the Zaire army was firing artillery into its territory, staged an incursion into Zaire, and the Zaire army, unpaid for years, undisciplined, and apparently leaderless, scattered. Kabila and the Banyamulenge attacked the fleeing Zaire army and the Hutu militia allied with them.

As the crisis built, France demanded an international humanitarian intervention in eastern Zaire but insisted that U.S. troops join. Zaire leader Mobutu Sese Seko, convalescing at his Riviera chateau from cancer treatment, willingly agreed, obviously hoping to regain control of his lost territory.

Rwanda was flatly opposed.

"There is a near pathological distrust of intervention force in that region," said Rwanda's ambassador to Washington, Theogene Rudasingwa. "In 1994, when a million people were killed, at that moment the international community decided to disengage and withdraw. No one thought they had changed for the better." The United States resisted French demands, by repeatedly seeking details of the exact goals for an intervention.

The turning point in the crisis occurred two weeks ago, after Canada decided it would lead the intervention and launched a public campaign to enlist the United States. President Bill Clinton reluctantly agreed, but attached many conditions.

At his headquarters in Goma, Zaire, a major concentration of Hutu refugees, Kabila worried. "He viewed this in terms of the future of Zaire," said Roger Winter, director of the U.S. Committee for Refugees, a Washington-based non-profit advocacy group.

Kabila, a one-time leftist who led a rebellion in Zaire's mineral-rich Shaba province in the 1960s, has publicly stated his aim as to overthrow Mobutu, widely viewed as one of the most corrupt regimes in Africa. He feared that the arrival of foreign forces in Goma would destroy his newfound advantage.

"He said to me that an international force will have the effect of stabilizing my enemies, preserve the interahamwe Rwanda Hutu militias, allow the government to grow stronger, and freeze the military situation on the ground," Winter recalled.

On Nov. 12, just after Canada persuaded reluctant Clinton aides to join the force, Kabila struck pre-emptively. "We have to change the equation before the international force comes," Winter quoted him as saying.

After reportedly heavy fighting, Kabila moved into the camps and unloosed the human tidal wave. Kabila, with Winter's assistance, then made contact with the U.S. Embassy in Rwanda to explain his objectives and seek enough leeway to carry them out. Bogosian confirmed he had met Kabila but declined to give any details of the discussion. But Winter said Kabila came away from the meeting satisfied.

What has pleased Kabila has upset many among the relief agencies who sustained the East Zaire camps and had supported an international intervention. These same agencies, in the absence of much focus by western governments, have functioned as the eyes and ears of the world, and suddenly found themselves shut out of the region by Kabila, the de facto power in eastern Zaire. Fearing the worst for the refugees, some are openly clashing with the government and each other.

Last week, the U.S. ambassador to Rwanda, Robert Gribben, said in a radio interview that he believed only a few tens of thousands" of Rwandan refugees were stilll scattered in the bush - far below the estimates of up to 700,000 of the UN High Commission of Refugees.

Whatever the figure, the situation remains far from clear, according to Gerald Martone of the International Rescue Committee, one of the most effective of the U.S. relief organizations.

"We should all be humbled by these events. The way these camps emptied out in a couple of hours is something that defies our understanding. I am in awe of the complexity of it. I'd be cautious about what it portends."

HEADLINE: MISSION EXTENDED / CLINTON: BOSNIA STILL NEEDS TROOPS HELP

BYLINE: By Roy Gutman. WASHINGTON BUREAU

Washington - Conceding that he had underestimated the complexity of the task, President Bill Clinton said yesterday that U.S. soldiers will not return from Bosnia next month but will stay on as part of a trimmed NATO force for 18 more months.

Clinton said NATO forces had "succeeded beyond our expectations" in their military aims of separating the warring parties, demobilizing soldiers and storing heavy weapons. But he added that troops are needed to prevent an outbreak of hostilities.

"Quite frankly, rebuilding the fabric of Bosnia's economic and political life is taking longer than anticipated," he said at a news conference. Until the U.S.-backed Muslim-Croat federation is able to defend itself and municipal elections are held, Bosnians "will need the stability and the confidence that only an outside security force can provide," he said.

Defense Secretary William Perry said the U.S. presence in Bosnia will be reduced to 8,500 troops next year and 5,500 in 1998 from a high earlier this year of about 20,000. The overall NATO force will drop in size from a high of 60,000 to 31,000 next year and about 13,500 in 1998.

"The conditions for peace still do not exist in Bosnia, and there's still the danger that if our forces were to leave Bosnia next month, the war would resume, having thereby lost the very great benefits we got by going in," Perry said. "The operation was a success, but the patient is still in danger of dying."

He left open the door to a possible extension of the U.S. presence beyond mid-1998. "I believe they will be out in eighteen months," he said.

The announcement got mixed reviews on Capitol Hill. "I don't think that the president has kept his word on the commitments he made to Congress last year," said Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas). "He said that he would keep the mission to a year. He didn't. He said that he would arm and train the Bosnian Muslims. He hasn't."

Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.), the only Democrat to vote against the deployment, said the United States "continues to be drawn deeper and deeper into a situation from which we appear unable to extricate ourselves."

But Sen. Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) indicated support for the mission, provided the United States shows leadership in four objectives: maintaining freedom of movement in Bosnia, allowing refugees to return home, ensuring honest local elections and bringing war criminals to justice.

The decision was practically unavoidable after America's NATO partners coupled their pleas for an extension of the mandate with a warning that they would depart unless U.S. forces remain. Although Republican presidential candidate Bob Dole raised no public objections to extending the deployment, Clinton delayed the decision until he won his second term.

In another development, Croatian President Franjo Tudjman was admitted to Walter Reed Army Hospital this week for treatment of what administration officials said was cancer. He has cooperated with Clinton at every turning point of the peace process.

Perry took personal responsibility for the administration's "error of judgment" in suggesting that the deployment could be completed in one year. He said the limited military tasks laid out in the Dayton, Ohio, peace accords of November, 1995, were completed in a year, as anticipated. However, "I was wrong, particularly in my belief that having done these tasks, we would have established the conditions which would allow us to leave Bosnia," he said. "I take responsibility for that because that was not the president speaking . . . It was our speaking to him and saying we can do a twelve-month mission."

Clinton did not mention the single most contentious issue in Bosnia - the fact that almost no refugees have returned to their homes, as was agreed to at the Dayton peace conference. He said the aim in the next year is "to prevent a resumption of hostilities, so that economic reconstruction and political reconciliation can accelerate."

But Perry cited three potentially explosive areas: the failure to resettle refugees, the failure to hold municipal elections and the absence of an agreement on which side will control the strategic town of Brcko.

"There is a fertile breeding ground for violence, for localized conflicts, which could escalate, get out of control and lead to a general war," he said.

Gen. John Shalikashvili, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said only that the NATO force will "be there to ensure . . . a proper climate of security" and will not have the responsibility of enforcing freedom of movement for citizens.

NATO will step in only when local or UN forces "are no longer able to deal with a situation," he said.

Shalikashvili said NATO forces will detain war criminals "should they fall into their hands incident to the conduct of their normal operations."

Foreign Affairs The countries where President Bill Clinton has sent or withdrawn U.S. ground troops. (SOURCE: World Almanac; Department of Defense; Associated Press Somalia.) Former President George Bush sends about 7,000 U.S. troops to Somalia to safeguard food delivery. Following a disastrous firefight in October, 1993, Clinton decides to withdraw all troops by March, 1994. Macedonia. About 300 U.S. troops are sent to Macedonia to help prevent the conflict in the former Yugoslav republics from spreading. Haiti. Clinton in 1994 sends 20,000 U.S. troops as part of a UN-authorized mission to restore Jean-Bertrand Aristide to power. Up to 700 troops remain in the country. Rwanda. About 3,000 troops were sent in 1994 to the region to help a humanitarian relief effort. Kuwait. About 3,500 troops are sent in September to Kuwait in response to Iraqi incursions into Kurdish areas in the north. In 1994, Iraq moved troops south toward Kuwait and Clinton responded with another troop buildup in the region. Bosnia-Herzegovina. About 19,000 troops are sent to Bosnia-Herzegovina to monitor Dayton peace accords last spring. About 14,000 currently are in Bosnia and Clinton decided yesterday to allow 8,000 U.S. troops to remain after the withdrawal deadline. Zaire. A force of up to 5,000 troops is to be dispatched to Zaire and surrounding countries to assist a UN-led humanitarian relief effort. The Bosnia Saga How U.S. troop strength in Bosnia-Herzegovina has changed following the Dayton peace accords: November-December 1995. First few hundred soldiers, mostly engineers and logistics experts, begin to prepare the way for the deployment. January, 1996. About 2,000 troops in Bosnia and more on way as Army struggles to bridge Sava River. Spring. U.S. troop strength in Bosnia peaks at 19,000; total strength of NATO peace Implementation Force, or IFOR, reaches 58,000. August-September. Drawdown under way, U.S. troop strength falls to 16,000. September-October. Addition of an Army INCHES covering force INCHES to protect the withdrawing troops pushes troop total up to 17,000. Mid-November. About 14,000 troops remain. Dec. 20. Originally the last day of IFOR mission, but 8,000 U.S. troops to remain.

HEADLINE: ON FOREIGN SEAS, ROUGH SAILING / CRISES ON THE HORIZON FOR NEW CLINTON TEAM

BYLINE: By Roy Gutman. WASHINGTON BUREAU

Washington - The lid that President Bill Clinton managed to clamp on foreign crises during the campaign may pop off soon in unpredictable ways, leading to challenges as well as opportunities for his still-unnamed national security team in the second term, according to foreign policy experts.

Rough sailing lies ahead in part because the waters in the post-Cold War era are still uncharted.

"The next four years are going to be the most difficult years the United States has faced internationally since 1945, without any doubt," said Paul Goble, a foreign affairs analyst now with Radio Free Europe. "The challenges are so diverse and so many, and we have no mental template to make sense of things."

Critics within the administration say Clinton, who emphasized domestic policy at the expense of foreign affairs early in his first term, compounded the challenges by redefining U.S. international priorities. He placed terrorism, the drug trade, international crime and the environment at the top of his concerns, rather than striving to control political developments region by region.

The full plate of problems also presents the team that will replace Warren Christopher and William Perry, secretaries of state and defense, respectively, with a chance to make their mark if Clinton allows them.

Examples abound of crisis and opportunity: in the Middle East, Africa and Bosnia, to name a few.

Take central Africa, a region long neglected by the United States and now seemingly on the edge of an explosion. The conflict between tiny Rwanda and sprawling Zaire, which set a million Rwandan refugees in flight into the Zairean interior, could be the start of a regionwide conflagration.

"This could be the biggest geopolitical crisis in Africa since 1960, if not before," said Lionel Rosenblatt, head of Refugees International, an independent humanitarian group. Three crises coincide: the Zaire government's loss of control of its Kivu province to rebels supported by neighboring Rwanda, the flight of Rwandan Hutu refugees, and the succession to the corruption-plagued government of Mobutu Sese Seko, the ailing president of Zaire.

Here as in nearly every other region of the world, the United States appears to be the only country that can lead the international community even in a limited intervention to restore facilities so humanitarian aid can flow once again.

Belgium, the former colonial power, long ago abandoned any responsibility for Zaire, once known as Congo. France, which has tried to take the lead, is viewed with suspicion in Rwanda for its role in backing Mobutu against Rwanda in the past. The U.S. administration recently proposed an African intervention force, but it is not yet in place. Clinton is disinclined to send U.S. ground troops into a highly unstable situation in the absence of U.S. economic or security interests.

But Zaire's loss of control over the province "could be the beginning of a volcanic eruption along the colonial borders," Rosenblatt said.

In the Middle East, Clinton's administration suffered a humiliating setback at the start of September, when Iraq regained control of much of northern Iraq, leading to closure of a covert CIA operation aimed at overthrowing Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein and the withdrawal of all U.S. government employees. The losses were cloaked by Clinton's decision to launch 44 Cruise missiles at radar sites in southern Iraq.

With the collapse of the "safe haven" for Kurds in the north, the U.S. policy of "dual containment" - isolating Iran and Iraq by labeling them terrorist states - has failed, according to experts. Not only is Hussein stronger than before, but Iran, far from being isolated, is now launching diplomatic initiatives to address regional problems.

Yet alternatives are available. "Dual containment became a phrase to cover the fact we have no policy," said an expert at the State Department, who spoke on condition of anonymity. "Can a relationship be established with Iran? I'd like to test the possibility."

Iran's UN ambassador, Kamal Kharrazi, proposed in a Washington Post op-ed article last week to discuss with Washington the common goal of ending the civil war in Afghanistan. The State Department dismissed the offer, saying the primary matter Washington wants to discuss with Iran is its alleged support of international terrorism, making clear the priority it gives to fighting terrorism over resolving a regional conflict.

"The problem is that we got into a competition" with Sen. Alfonse D'Amato (R-N.Y.), who led congressional demands to block other relations with Iran, said the State Department expert. "The fact is that Iran's regional policy is relatively benign."

Iran, by virtue of its location, large Kurdish population and rivalry with Iraq, also has potentially common interests with the United States with regard to Iraq.

"Of course, we can talk to them. You can do it if it is in your own interest," said Albert Wohlstetter, head of the consulting firm Pan-Heuristics and a leading strategic thinker who has advised several Republican administrations. "Just never give them the impression we will reward them in their malefactions."

Another country demanding U.S. policy attention is Turkey, a pivotal NATO ally critical to U.S. security interests in the region and now ruled by a minority Islamic fundamentalist government. State Department experts say that Turkey was taken for granted in Clinton's first term and that the United States must make tough decisions that will require expending diplomatic capital to ensure that Turkey remains in the NATO alliance.

Among the actions are convincing the European allies to overcome their antipathy to a secular Muslim state and allow Turkey to join the European Union.

The new national security team also faces the option of refocusing U.S. diplomacy from Christopher's quest for an Israel-Syria accord and concentrating on negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority.

Clinton defused a massive flare-up of violence in September by calling an urgent summit between Israeli Prime Minister Benjanmin Netanyahu and Palestinian Authority President Yasser Arafat. Now the agreement to conclude quickly an accord handing over Israeli control of the West Bank town of Hebron has stalled and is in need of another kick-start.

At his news conference Friday, Clinton implied that priorities in the Middle East have shifted. "The first and most important thing we can do is to nail the agreement on Hebron," he said. "If we can clear the Hebron hurdle . . . I believe that will open the door to go on and fulfill all the other challenges that are now before us."

In Asia, the administration has to decide whether to placate China by curbing Taiwan's drive for a UN seat or to confront China, should tensions resume over the island republic. "If our relationship with China sours because of Taiwan, it will lead to an aggravation of other disputes over proliferation of nuclear weapons, trade, and a generally hostile relationship," said Selig Harrison, an expert on Asia with the Carnegie Endowment, an independent think tank in Washington.

Another decision to be made is in Bosnia, where Clinton is weighing whether to maintain a sizable NATO presence including thousands of U.S. troops or to withdraw most forces. The administration claims it has brought peace to Bosnia, but most observers speak of an armistice in view of the failure to repatriate the 2.2 million displaced people to their homes or to arrest war criminals indicted by the new Hague Tribunal.

For NATO troops to arrest war criminals would require a presidential decision, for it entails risk of casualties among NATO troops and a change in relations between NATO and the Bosnian Serbs. The Bosnian Serbs have resisted resettling Muslims and Croats who were "ethnically cleansed" from their ancestral homes in the Drina and Sava river valleys, and requiring their return would raise tensions but ultimately permit NATO to withdraw its troops. Without justice and the return of refugees, war is likely to resume when NATO leaves, observers said.

U.S. officials said Clinton, in this as other areas, is loath to risk American lives and generally prefers to allow problems to simmer. The fear is that he will soon have to deal with multiple crises and have little idea of how to cope.

"For fifty years we were confronted by another superpower," said Goble. "But now we are challenged by a geopolitically complex world. Our elite hasn't figured it out. They are not stupid, but this is a world they didn't live in."

HEADLINE: ELECTION '96 / THE AFTERMATH / CAST CHANGES / CHRISTOPHER, PERRY, KANTOR, O'LEARY LEAVING THE CABINET

BYLINE: By Patrick J. Sloyan. WASHINGTON BUREAU; Roy Gutman and Martin Kasindorf contributed to this story.

Washington - Within hours of his re-election, President Bill Clinton was in the midst of a major cabinet shake-up yesterday with two top posts being vacated by Secretary of State Warren Christopher and Defense Secretary William Perry.

Also leaving are Energy Secretary Hazel O'Leary and Commerce Secretary Mickey Kantor, according to administration officials.

Stay tuned,'' said one Clinton aide who predicted even more job changes.

The disclosures triggered speculation as to who jumped ship, who was pushed overboard and who might be a replacement. New blood may invigorate his administration as Clinton begins an unpredictable second term where daily battles are expected with a new but still Republican Congress.

The dapper, self-effacing Christopher, 71, and the 69-year-old Perry both told Clinton they wanted out, according to their aides and White House officials.

Clinton told reporters aboard Air Force One that he would talk about personnel changes later. Today we just want to savor what happened yesterday,'' Clinton said.

But he did discuss his Tuesday meeting with Christopher. I had a warm conversation,'' Clinton said. We're very close, and we have an unusual relationship. I've never known anybody quite like him. I think people have come to appreciate him more over time.''

Even so, Christopher's critics in Congress and the White House led to his offer to resign in 1994, an offer Clinton rejected. At the time, Christopher was under fire for his mishandling of administration policy on the Balkans and U.S. inability to enlist Europeans for a solution to the civil war in Bosnia.

There is no clear successor on the horizon for the juciest plum a president can offer. Speculation includes former Senate Democratic Leader George Mitchell; the president's adviser for national security affairs, Anthony Lake; and Madeleine Albright, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations.

Associates describe Lake as "physically tired,'' from his National Security Council duties. If Clinton picks someone else, Lake would be likely to join Christopher and Perry in leaving government, according to one associate who spoke on condition he not be named.

That would mean a clean sweep of the president's national security team and a chance for new foreign and military policy initiatives,'' the Clinton aide said. Though the president has free rein on foreign policy decisions, Clinton has focused on domestic issues and left Christopher, Lake and Perry to call the shots.

Some see Albright with the inside track. She's articulate, she's principled and she knows process,'' said one expert.

Officials said Christopher would fulfill his commitments through Jan. 20. He travels next week to the Middle East where peace between Israel and Syria appears to have eluded his most intensive efforts. He then is to go to Paris for a meeting on Bosnia followed later in the month with a mission to China.

Perry, too, plans to stay on the job through Inauguration Day or even later, depending on Clinton's selection of a successor, according to Pentagon officials.

"Dr. Perry is very flexible,'' said a senior aide.

John Deutch, director of Central Intelligence, is known to want Perry's job but may have wounded himself during congressional testimony in the midst of the presidential campaign. According to Deutch, Iraqi President Saddam Hussein was better off than before recent U.S. military strikes, a comment Bob Dole used during one of his debates with Clinton. Deutch hurt himself,'' said one administration insider.

Deutch and Perry, both brilliant technocrats with close ties to the defense industry, lack the political savvy of past defense chiefs. Les Aspin, Dick Cheney and Melvin Laird were all veterans of Congress.

If Clinton seeks less partisan relations with Congress, he could pick former Republican Sen. William Cohen for the defense job. The Maine politician is an expert in defense issues after serving on the Senate Armed Services Committee, according to Pentagon officials. Also mentioned was Navy Secretary John Dalton, a Texas political operator.

One of Perry's great contributions to Clinton was a thriving California defense industry. Clinton boasted about major defense programs engineered by Perry during 27 trips to the state that helped re-elect him.

Although Perry lacks foreign policy credentials, he was seen as a possible replacement for Christopher, according to White House officials. Perry has traveled to more than 60 countries while defense chief.

Aides saw Perry as instrumental in talking Russian military leaders into joining the military deployment by NATO in Bosnia last year. But Perry has stumbled abroad, too. His gaffes included implied threats to use nuclear weapons against a Libyan chemical weapons plant and a call for disproportionate'' attacks on Iraq.

In both cases, the White House and State Department made clear that Perry's comments did not reflect official U.S. policy.

It was during one of Perry's trips that 19 U.S. soldiers were killed in Saudi Arabia when U.S. military commanders failed to take adequate security precautions, according to a Pentagon study, despite a series of terrorist threats. Perry later took responsibility for the security breakdown.

The White House has been displeased with Perry's handling of new disclosures about exposure of U.S. troops to nerve gas during the 1991 Persian Gulf War. When the initial announcement was made in June, Perry's aides said only 150 soldiers were exposed. Now, however, the latest Pentagon disclosure says more than 20,000 soldiers may have been exposed.

Perry seemed ready to leave office during a chat with reporters earlier this month.

At the Energy Department, O'Leary has gotten high marks from consumer groups for forcing disclosures about nuclear weapons programs and cleaning up radioactive waste.

Republicans in Congress criticized her extensive overseas travels. Reuter news service, which reported her departure, said retiring Sen. Bennett Johnston, a Louisiana Democrat, was a possible successor.

Reuter also reported that Kantor was returning to private life. Kantor was active in Clinton's 1992 fund-raising programs and served as the U.S. trade negotiator until he replaced the late Ron Brown as Secretary of Commerce.

Who's Going . . . . . . and Who May Replace Them Secretary of State. Warren Christopher, at left, resigned. Possible replacements include, above, from left: Madeleine Albright, U.S. ambassador to the UN; former Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell, and Anthony Lake, national security advisor. Secretary of Defense. William Perry, at left, resigned. Possible replacements include, above, from left: CIA Director John Deutch, outgoing Sen. William Cohen (R-Maine) and Navy Secretary John Dalton. Secretary of Commerce Mickey Kantor is leaviing, according to administration officials. No possible replacements were mentioned. Secretary of Energy Hazel O'Leary is leaving, administration officials said. Retiring Sen. Bennett Johnston (D-La.), right, is a possible replacement.

HEADLINE: CAMPAIGN 96 / CRITICAL ISSUES / FOREIGN POLICY / CANDIDATES ALIKE, YET WORLDS APART / CRITICS ATTACK LACK OF DEBATE ON WORLD AFFAIRS

BYLINE: By Roy Gutman. WASHINGTON BUREAU

Washington - To Warren Christopher's defenders, his record in the Middle East makes him the most effective secretary of state in that region in more than 30 years.

His single-minded devotion to the region helped produce treaties between Israel and the Palestinians and Jordan, a record that exceeds that of any recent administration, said spokesman Nicholas Burns.

Even more than former President Jimmy Carter, who convened the Camp David summit and achieved peace between Israel and Egypt?

"Absolutely," Burns said.

President Bill Clinton asserts he also has achieved peace in Bosnia, democracy in Haiti and stability in what had been rocky relations with China.

Critics charge that Clinton officials are claiming credit for accomplishments that are incomplete or not theirs and that they have wasted time and credibility in other areas, especially through Christopher's frequent trips to Syria, whose leader, Hafez Assad, has worked to undercut U.S. policy objectives.

They say the record shows that Clinton does not understand the role of power in world affairs and that as a result, tyrants and thugs everywhere are challenging the United States.

"My fundamental criticism of them would be that they are squandering this position of enormous American influence. It isn't going to last forever," said Paul Wolfowitz, a former undersecretary of defense in the Bush administration and an adviser to Republican challenger Bob Dole. "It ought to be used for building a firmer foundation for the future. They use it to skate by and put Band-Aids on problems."

Americans going to the polls Tuesday will be hard pressed to decide which view to endorse. Partly because Dole ruled out foreign policy as a major theme of his campaign, there has been little debate on America's world role. And while the administration has had to confront repeated crises in the past year, Clinton has managed through displays of military power in Bosnia and Iraq - Dole advisers call them "sound and light shows" - to banish them from the news and public consciousness.

On the surface, Clinton and Dole have similar outlooks. Clinton has adopted Republican views on many issues, while Dole, as former Senate majority leader, has solid internationalist credentials and has supported the administration in most foreign policy areas. Yet interviews with Clinton aides and Dole advisers make clear that there are fundamental differences in world view and leadership style.

Take their overall priorities. According to a senior State Department strategist, the No. 1 area of American foreign policy concern is "transnational" issues - fighting international terrorism, crime, drugs and nuclear proliferation. The second-most-important is interdependence with the world economy, and the third is supporting the development of democracy abroad. According to that official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, the reason the United States has 18,000 troops in Bosnia is that commerce is not possible in regions where war is raging.

Dole views the world from a more traditional perspective of power politics. The major power centers today are the United States, western Europe, East Asia and the Persian Gulf, said Wolfowitz, and the job of the president is to "concentrate on getting as much power on your side as you can, which you do by strengthening existing alliances."

"We emerged from the Cold War the most powerful country on earth, but it was also because other countries were on our side. It is terribly important we do not throw this away but extend it," he said. The other priority, he said, is to develop the best relations possible with Russia and China, bearing in mind future complications are likely because of their internal instability.

Then there is leadership style. Differences between Clinton and Dole are "very hard to articulate, because they say the same things, but they don't do the same things," said Jeane Kirkpatrick, UN ambassador in the Reagan administration and Dole adviser. "Dole is a man of action, not words."

Clinton "is much more prone to living with illusions and peddling illusions to the public," said Wolfowitz, who is now dean at the Johns Hopkins School for Advanced International Studies.

Wolfowitz asserted that Dole would emphasize "trustworthiness" and that his word is his promise. "Words and promises come easily to the president, but they are much more significant in foreign policy than in domestic policy. People make long-term calculations on their own life and safety based on whether they can trust American promises," he said.

Dole, he said, takes the issue of military force and strength "as more important than does this president. Dole thinks military force is to stop people like Hitler." He would emphasize alliance relations over multilateral institutions such as the United Nations, Wolfowitz said.

Christopher acknowledged earlier this month that leadership was lacking during Clinton's first two years in office, particularly on Bosnia. "I wish we had realized earlier how essential U.S. leadership is. That is something we had to learn or have brought home to us very forcefully," he told the Washington Post.

Christopher recalled his ill-fated trip to Europe in 1993, when he advocated - then backed away from - lifting the arms embargo on the Bosnian government and using air strikes against the Bosnian Serbs. That taught him "that the U.S. had to lead, we cannot look to others to take the burden. We have a responsibility there. In order to carry it out, you have to be purposeful." When constructing a program, "you have to have more confidence in what you are doing," he added.

Christopher also said the administration had erred in allowing the U.S. peacekeeping mission in Somalia "to get out of hand" and in sending an aircraft carrier to Haiti "without a substantial backup force."

A subsequent Washington Post editorial commented tartly that "nothing that Sen. Bob Dole or his surrogates have said about the Clinton record bites so deep as the secretary's own evaluation of it."

"It was an outrageous editorial. His remarks were taken totally out of context and didn't bear any resemblance to what he said," spokesman Burns said. Burns, however, refused to provide a transcript, and Christopher declined a Newsday request for an interview.

Aides said Christopher was infuriated over the editorial. Other State Department officials declined to go on the record on Clinton's first-term foreign policy.

Christopher told West Point cadets on Friday, "There is no doubt we will use force if we must" to protect U.S. security interests abroad.

The most specific criticism of Christopher is the enormous investment he put into Syria - some 24 visits to Damascus - for which he has little to show. He all but avoided visiting some other major areas of foreign policy concern, making but two trips to the Balkans, both after the U.S.-engineered ceasefire of a year ago, one trip to China and one trip to Turkey.

Syria has not only failed to achieve peace with Israel but has helped undermine U.S. aims by supporting the Hezbollah guerrillas in southern Lebanon and the PKK Kurdish guerrilla group, which has helped destabilize Turkey.

"I'd never say Syria was a good friend of ours. Syria is the country we decided we would work with closely because we were after a Middle East peace," Burns said. "All these trips to Damascus were part of regionwide shuttles, and those trips were all worthwhile. I suggest you judge Warren Christopher by the results here."

A close observer of Middle East diplomacy thinks Christopher made a mistake. "The strategy for dealing with Syria has failed. It was the wrong strategy," said Judith Kipper of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington think tank.

"It may take three or four visits to find out what Assad thinks," she said. "Somewhere along the line, after the 14th or 15th trip, they should have accounted for what made this worth their while."

By comparison, Kipper said, the administration "terribly neglected" relations with Turkey, the most critical U.S. NATO ally in the region, where an Islamic fundamentalist has become prime minister. "I suppose when it's over, someone will write a profile about a secretary of state who was dedicated and worked harder than perhaps any ever did, but lost sight of his mission," she said.

The problems ahead fall into two categories - major developments such as the growth of Chinese power and the decline of Russian influence, and more immediate crises caused by rogue states or by miscalculation of foreign leaders.

Clinton critics say the crises are likely to multiply. "There are lots of signs of a decline in American credibility in the Clinton years," Kirkpatrick said. She cited Cuban leader Fidel Castro's action in shooting down two unarmed planes over international waters, China's menacing military exercises in the Taiwan straits and Iraq's regaining control over much of the U.S.-protected Kurdistan zone in the north of Iraq.

The latest U.S. climbdown was last week, when the administration agreed to postpone municipal elections in Bosnia after the Bosnian Serbs rejected an international oversight team that was to have been led by U.S. envoy Robert Frowick. Kirkpatrick, who teaches at Georgetown University, sees an ominous trend. "We the United States never had MiGs operating under government orders firing on unarmed American planes," she told Newsday, referring to the Cuban episode. "China's behavior toward Taiwan and the United States was more aggressive than anything since the Communists arrived in power." And Saddam Hussein of Iraq, she said, has mounted "repeated provocations" against the U.S.-led coalition that forced him to withdraw from Kuwait in 1991.

One of the biggest setbacks to U.S. interests occurred last month, when the Iraqi strongman, playing Kurdish leaders off against each other, regained control over much of northern Iraq. Clinton fired 44 cruise missiles at targets in southern Iraq but did nothing to counter Saddam's moves in the north. "It is something absolutely new in history, using real weapons against imaginary targets," Kirkpatrick said.

Burns acknowledged that "certainly we've been very disappointed by events in northern Iraq," and he expressed hope that U.S.-chaired political reconciliation talks due to start this week will restore balance there.

Dole has sharply attacked Clinton's policies on Russia, which he said had delayed NATO expansion, and China, which he said had led to heightened military tensions between China and Taiwan.

Dole disparaged Clinton's Russia policy as "misguided romanticism" and said the president delayed a NATO expansion that would include East European states in deference to Russian nationalists. "I will not grant Russia a veto over NATO enlargement," Dole said in a June 25 speech in which he called for admission of new members by 1998. "The Russians should be told that NATO is a defensive alliance."

Last month Christopher announced that negotiations for NATO enlargement will begin next year, and Clinton said Oct. 22 that the first admissions should be in 1999.

In the view of most analysts, Clinton has stumbled badly on China. On taking office, he conditioned low-tariff trade on China's improving its human rights record, then about six months later reversed himself, "substantially damaging America's international credibility," Dole said in May. Last year Clinton rejected a visa to Taiwan president Lee Teng-hui, then reversed himself under congressional pressure.

The Chinese "read us as both unreliable and easily pushed around," said Wolfowitz, who described China's recent military exercises as "the worst crisis in the Taiwan straits in thirty years." But in his Post interview, Christopher blamed Congress and Lee for the China crisis. "I did not apprehend how political Lee would make the trip," he said. "It turned out to be a lot more than a trip to get a college degree."

Dole said in his May speech that China is the most important challenge facing the United States and that Washington should set a clear goal of a China "which does not threaten its neighbors," which "plays by the rules of the international system" on nuclear nonproliferation and trade, and which is peaceful, prosperous and free. Clinton has not delivered a major speech on China.

In no area of policy have Dole and Clinton differed so much as on Bosnia, although on the surface they appear to be on the same track. As a candidate in 1992 Clinton called for lifting the arms embargo, but once in the White House he backed away. Dole championed lifting the arms embargo, and in 1995 he rallied a veto-proof two-thirds majority for it in the Senate. That was an added factor in Clinton's decision to launch the diplomatic initiative that led to the Dayton peace accords and the deployment of 20,000 U.S. troops. Dole backed him and made it possible.

Today, the administration seems uncertain about what it wants to achieve in Bosnia. The troops are due to leave at the end of the year, and NATO is debating what follow-on force to send. Originally the troops were to remain in Bosnia until elections were held to establish legitimate political authority. But last week the administration postponed municipal elections until next year.

One top U.S. official described U.S. goals in Bosnia as a spectrum. He said the minimal goal for the next year is to preclude a future war, while the maximum is to integrate the Muslim-Croat federation and the Serb entity into a durable unitary state. But he could not say which point along that spectrum is the administration's target. Another high-level official, the expert on strategy, said that unifying Bosnia might take 20 to 50 years, and that "everyone is determined not to have a permanent obligation" in Bosnia.

That uncertainty raises the question of whether the administration has learned the lesson of the need to lead described by Christopher. A high U.S. military official now based in Bosnia said what is lacking in Washington is a clear definition of goals for Bosnia. "That is what gives us stomach knots. What the military needs is an agreed statement of purpose so we can know and agree when we have success," said the official, who asked not to be identified by name.

Dole adviser Wolfowitz said it appears the administration has no strategy in Bosnia. "They say they have an exit strategy," he said, "but in fact the only aim of the strategy is to exit."