Leading Article: A global policeman must be worldly-wise

Around the world, from Kabul to Jerusalem, Belfast to Port-au- Prince, American diplomatic missions had put up the shutters: normal service was to be resumed on 8 November. The presidential election over, the United States would pick up the reins. But the world does not work that way. However much President Clinton might have wished for a quiet time, Israeli construction crews and Palestinian rock-throwers saw to that. Perhaps, had Israel commanded more American attention in recent weeks, the events of recent days might have been put off. But after such violence Mr Clinton had little choice but to intervene. Who else could fill the role? An American-brokered summit looks like the only way to get Messrs Arafat and Netanyahu to sit down together.

On past evidence of two-term presidencies, foreign affairs will get more of the attention of a man who has clearly matured in office. It is difficult is to generalise across an array of situations and gauge how valuable or harmful is the American presence, military or diplomatic. What can be said is that during his first time of office, Mr Clinton has rushed and stumbled; American intervention has often been half-baked, answering to no easily identifiable principles or strategic calculation. The hope for Mr Clinton if he wins in November - is that he will have the breathing space and judgement to choose his ground with more care.

American strategic interests will inevitably propel the president's attention towards certain regions, notably the Pacific Rim and China and the Arabian peninsula. There can surely be no part of the world which might not profit from American "good offices", such as the impartial chairmanship of a Senator Mitchell. But where the United States has no direct interests, too often American involvement is cloudy and unfocussed. Just what is the American view of the future of the United Nations?

Northern Ireland may be a case where American absence might have been more valuable than American presence. In Northern Ireland President Clinton celebrated peace prematurely. His investment in Gerry Adams has produced precious little return - in terms of IRA policy, that is, Mr Adams will doubtless have gained some extra sales for his self-serving memoirs. On his return to office, Mr Clinton might be advised to treat Ireland strictly under the terms of his vaunted global initiative against terrorism and seal up any American conduits that remain open. For the rest, it is a matter for Dublin, London and Belfast.

President Clinton backed the wrong horse in the Israeli elections and so was left with little or no personal leverage over the winner, Binyamin Netanyahu. Israel remains one of the strongest lobbies in American politics and while there may, just, be votes in facing down the gun owners of American, there are precious few for a Democrat in talking harshly about the conduct of Israeli leadership. Virtually every piece of new building on the West Bank (and demolition) is directly or indirectly financed by the United States through subsidies and loan guarantees. In his second term Mr Clinton may accomplish more by intervening less - for example normalising relations with Israel by requiring of its government the same standards of conduct as the United States expects and demands of other favoured allies. But for the time being, the best he can hope for - for the sake of the belligerents - is to get them talking and keep them talking so as to restore the status quo ante tunnel.

President Clinton came to power promising to concentrate on the domestic agenda. He enters the November election able to claim that employment and the economy have improved during his term. He has matured in office and now has around him a formidable military and diplomatic apparatus. But if he is next to turn himself into a "foreign policy" president we probably need to be wary - not because he lacks capacity but because he has yet to demonstrate he can knuckle down and think through the longer- term basis of American engagement. In Russia, the problem has been not so much been the president's exaggeration of his personal relationship with Boris Yeltsin as the lack of an American strategy for dealing with tumultuous Russia, whoever is in power.

There are two reasons why we might hope President Clinton might on re- election take time to think. One is that many Americans are far from convinced it is that nation's manifest destiny to be the world's policeman and diplomatist; for them intervention is only really justified if high moral principles are at stake. American foreign policy, far more say than British, retains an ethical dimension. That in turn means there will always be a tension in American policy leading to hesitations and confusions. The popular wish, in any given situation, will be to try to identify the guys in the white hats - in a world where dim shades of grey are the norm. Since the takeover of Kabul by the Taliban, confusion has reigned: the CIA backed the guerrillas and they now turn out to be a potential source of regional instability - though hardly likely, as Sunnis, to make common cause with their Shia neighbours in Iran and, potentially, useful counterweights to fundamentalists in Pakistan. Not an easy game for a foreign policy president anxious to be seen to be pursuing the Right.

The other reason has to do with responsibility. Mr Netanyahu ultimately has to treat with Yasser Arafat however much lubrication Mr Clinton can supply the relationship. The sooner the Israeli leader buckles down to that, the better. A hovering Uncle Sam must not be an excuse to put off that necessary day.