MISSOURI COMMENTARY: GOING FROM TENTATIVE TO DECISIVE

When candidate Bill Clinton developed his strategy for winning the presidency, foreign policy was nowhere in the plan. As a little-known governor of an obscure, landlocked southern state, he had no identifiable foreign affairs experience.

His opponent, President George Bush, had devoted most of his public life to international politics. Foreign affairs was Bush's strong suit. Clinton, in contrast, rightly perceived that foreign policy issues were not going to put him in the White House. As a good student of presidential history, Clinton knew that foreign policy (except in time of war) was seldom the decisive factor in swaying voters.

When he took office in January, 1993, Clinton was a new president with an exclusive domestic policy tilt. Foreign relations would be entrusted to more experienced professionals.

Generally speaking, presidents do not start out with an overwhelming background in foreign relations. The two Roosevelts, Wilson and Nixon, all with unfailing egos, did fancy themselves as foreign policy adepts. Hoover had some experience, but didn't consider it his strong suit. Eisenhower could lay genuine claim to some expertise. So too Bush. Kennedy was intrigued by foreign policy, but could not be classified as experienced. Harding, Coolidge, Truman, Johnson, Ford, Carter and Reagan found themselves, like Clinton, not well versed.

Over time, a change in attitude and interest occurred in Bill Clinton -- just as a change in attitude has occurred in every new president. Conversations and communications with foreign leaders take on an exhilarating prominence. Daily briefings and discussions on world affairs quickly developed a heightened interest in the mind of a new chief executive.

Foreign policy is the one area where the president has things to himself. There are foreign affairs committees of the Congress that have to be pacified, but the president directs a huge force of diplomats stationed in every capital around the globe. The President also commands the world's greatest armed forced which can be deployed, if need be, to back up his diplomatic decisions.

A president may be rebuffed by Congress on some domestic legislative proposals, but in foreign policy he reigns supreme -- unless, like Johnson in Vietnam, that policy blows up in his face.

As things now stand, Clinton enters the election year on the high ground. In foreign policy, he is in the equivalent political position to Bush in 1992. As things now stand, Clinton will win or lose the presidency on domestic concerns.

Clinton's first major foreign policy decision, Somalia, was a failure. It was akin to Kennedy's Bay of Pigs disaster in the early months of his administration. It's hard to imagine an effort more poorly planned and executed than the Bay of Pigs. McGeorge Bundy, the National Security Adviser, described it as "the stupidity of freshmen." Admiral Arleigh Burke, the recently deceased former Chief of Naval Operations, characterized is as a "lieutenant junior grade on a PT boat pretending to be commander-in-chief." Kennedy recover. So too did Clinton form Somalia.

The Israeli/PLO accord signed on the White House lawn is a plus for Clinton. America is the always looming encourager of peace in the Middle East and when something positive occur, the incumbent American president gets some credit.

NAFTA was skillfully lobbied through a reluctant Congress. It's still too early to tell whether this is a home run, an error or perhaps a strikeout.

Haiti is scored as a success. Aristide was restored to power and reasonably fair elections have been held to pick a new president. In the context of American politics, if Haiti doesn't explode in 1996, Clinton will consider it a victory.

A touchy, delicate confrontation with North Korea on nuclear development was resolved.

At times to the annoyance of the Brits, Clinton inserted himself into the troubles in Northern Ireland. Both the British and Irish representatives later gave him measured credit for helping to keep the peace talks on course.

Finally, there is Bosnia. For Clinton, a haunting nightmare has been converted into a diplomatic gem -- as things now stand. He inherited a stumbling policy of avoidance from Bush and continued it. The Dayton peace treaty was a coup. The open question is how the electorate will evaluate the implementation of the treaty next November.

Bosnia is Clinton's severest foreign policy risk. Success in implementation will not ensure his re-election. Failure could cause his defeat.

~Tom Eagleton of St. Louis is a former U.S. senator from Missouri.