Roanoke Times
                 Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.

DATE: SUNDAY, March 19, 1995                   TAG: 9503200052
SECTION: NATIONAL/INTERNATIONAL                    PAGE: A-8   EDITION: METRO 
SOURCE: Associated Press
DATELINE: WASHINGTON                                LENGTH: Medium

IS CLINTON PLAYING POLITICS AT FOREIGN POLICY'S EXPENSE?

What's still not clear is whether it was good foreign policy.

Domestically, there has been nary a word of dissent about Clinton's decision to declare Adams a man of peace and good will. Adams was routinely denied U.S. visas in an earlier era because of his links to the Irish Republican Army.

But while Adams exulted, Britain fumed.

Peter Rodman, of the Nixon Center for Peace and Freedom, said Clinton's intervention over Britain's objections ``is very risky and very damaging.''

``Britain is the most steadfast ally we have had on the planet,'' and its judgment on this sensitive issue should be respected by Washington, Rodman said.

But Helmut Sonnenfeldt of the Brookings Institution believes that judgment is too harsh because of the gains made since Clinton tried to break the diplomatic impasse. Clinton's involvement has done more good than harm thus far, he said, acknowledging that the situation could sour.

For now, though, a truce declared six months ago is holding and there is more hope in Northern Ireland than at any time in a quarter-century.

It's neither new nor unusual for U.S. presidents to shape their foreign policy with an eye toward politically potent ethnic, racial or religious groups. No country is as diverse or has the breadth of foreign policy interests as the United States.

``The American political system is peculiarly susceptible to ethnically based pressures,'' said Sonnenfeldt, a onetime aide to former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger.

At times, it's difficult to say whether policies are driven by merits or local politics. One example of the ambiguity is the administration's push for NATO membership for Poland. In weighing that issue, is Clinton able to ignore the large Polish-American vote in up-for-grabs Illinois, for example?

There is little doubt that the Congressional Black Caucus helped Clinton shape U.S. policy toward Haiti. It also had a decisive impact on inducing the Congress to impose sanctions on South Africa nine years ago.

American Jews have weighed in on Middle East policy for years, and lately, Arab-Americans are being heard from more than before. Greek-Americans, sometimes in league with Armenians, try, often successfully, to head off a U.S. tilt toward Turkey.

The south Florida Cuban exile community carried little weight among policymakers 15 years ago, but nowadays - thanks to a combination of money, organization and tenacity - exiled leaders such as Miami's Jorge Mas Canosa exert a crucial influence over U.S.-Cuban policy.

In the memorable phrase of the Wall Street Journal's Carla Ann Robbins, ``When Mas Canosa says jump, politicians lace up their sneakers.''

The centerpiece of the U.S. policy toward Cuba is the trade embargo, often the subject of derision abroad. The last time the embargo came to a vote in the U.N. General Assembly, only Israel voted with the United States.

French President Francois Mitterrand calls the embargo stupid and, in a gesture of defiance, invited President Fidel Castro to a glittering luncheon at the presidential palace in Paris Monday.

Castro felt vindicated but, in Washington, his tormentors on Capitol Hill were busy working on legislation to tighten the embargo still further, with Mas Canosa's blessing.