Clinton’s Foreign Policy

* Your editorial, “Home Alone? No, Foreign Policy Just Won’t Wait,” Dec. 1, is a long overdue wake-up call for the Clinton Administration. The warning on North Korea and its nuclear bomb program is especially timely.

Unfortunately, the Administration’s actions may be too little, too late. The President’s team announced it would seek a review of U.S. commitments to South Korea. Dec. 1, the commander of U.S. forces in Korea said that additional U.S. troops may be needed in Korea to head off a North Korean invasion in advance of tougher U.N. sanctions aimed at compelling North Korean acceptance of U.N. nuclear inspection teams.

This talk only makes the North Koreans more likely to use military force soon, before additional U.S. forces are in place on the Korean peninsula. A better plan would have been to secretly and rapidly deploy additional forces in South Korea with the announced intention to review defense needs for South Korea occurring after the deployment.

North Korea is said to have only a six-month supply of food remaining. They see time as their enemy now with the recent Administration announcements. Their atomic weapons program alters the military equation significantly, as the North Koreans may think they can now use their huge chemical warfare arsenal with impunity, as previous U.S. policy to threaten a nuclear response to chemical warfare use rings hollow if the North can respond in kind on South Korean and Japanese cities.

CHUCK DeVORE

Irvine

The writer served in the Reagan Administration as a White House appointee in the Pentagon.

* Your editorial concerning Secretary of State Warren Christopher’s work to get President Clinton to devote one hour a week to foreign affairs was right on target. But the question is, as you suggest, how much time.

In today’s world, especially in view of our international status, the time spent on world affairs cannot be measured in hours alone. Both foreign affairs and domestic affairs are now full-time jobs; it is questionable whether one person can handle both jobs. What we really need is a co-president system where one person is responsible for foreign affairs and one for domestic affairs. Perhaps the Constitution may make this arrangement difficult. However, we do have a vice president whose functions are minimal. Why not have the President and vice president divide the responsibility for foreign and domestic affairs between them? This could be done informally or by legislation. Certainly each area demands a full-time person. SANFORD ROTHMAN

Los Angeles