NEWS ANALYSIS : Crisis Clouds U.S. Role as Champion of Democracy : Haiti: Decision to suspend mission may avert casualties. But it weakens view of American strength.

WASHINGTON — President Clinton’s decision to suspend plans to send U.S. military advisers to Haiti because of opposition from a handful of armed thugs throws the Administration’s post-Cold War policy of “enlargement” into disarray.

Although the action averts the possibility of U.S. casualties in Haiti, it raises serious questions about the Administration’s ability to take even relatively minor risks in support of its stated goal of increasing the reach of democracy around the world.

The 200 American and Canadian military trainers and construction specialists who were prevented from landing on the impoverished Caribbean island were to have formed the heart of a U.N. force designed to support the return of exiled President Jean-Bertrand Aristide and the restoration of democracy after two years of military rule under Lt. Gen. Raoul Cedras.

The force was the result of an agreement between Aristide and Cedras, signed July 3 on Governors Island in New York Harbor, under which Aristide, the nation’s only democratically elected chief executive, would be returned to power Oct. 30.

While suspending the U.N. military operation may not prove fatal to the agreement, it could make restoration of democracy in the troubled island nation far more difficult.

Withdrawal of the military advisers “signals that the United States does not have the resolve to enforce the Governors Island accords,” said Ira Kurzban, a Miami lawyer representing Aristide and his exiled government. “It will embolden the anti-democratic forces.”

Clinton urged the U.N. Security Council to reimpose a crippling economic embargo on Haiti, a step that ultimately may force Cedras to keep his promise and give way to Aristide. Nevertheless, by backing away from the military support mission, the Administration raises new doubts about its pro-democracy policy.

Last week, the State Department said that the Haiti mission met all three of Clinton’s conditions for U.S. participation in multinational military operations: It was limited to six months, had a clear and well-defined military objective and was in the national interest both because it would enhance democracy in the Western Hemisphere and because it would head off a flood of refugees that can be expected if Aristide does not regain power.

But, in the face of growing opposition on Capitol Hill to any use of American troops in U.N.-run forces, the Administration quickly became less sure of the operation’s value.

Just before the U.S. troop ship was withdrawn from Haitian waters, California Rep. John T. Doolittle (R-Rocklin) sent a letter to Clinton signed by 38 other House Republicans opposing U.S. military action in Haiti.

“What are the vital national security interests that require the placement of United States forces in Haiti under the auspices of the United Nations?” Doolittle demanded. “I am greatly concerned that the Clinton Administration will once again rush into another U.N. operation in Haiti without thoroughly defining our vital interests and mission.”

But on Capitol Hill, there also were complaints that the Administration was unwilling to do its part on behalf of democracy.

Rep. Major R. Owens (D-N.Y.) told the House: “Now is the time for the United States to come to the aid of democracy in Haiti. Now is not the time to waffle. . . . Democracy in Haiti is definitely a vital interest of the United States.”

There is no question that the U.S. and Canadian soldiers would have faced a difficult and frustrating situation had they been allowed to land. Unlike the troops in Somalia, the force in Haiti would have had no authority to use force except in self-defense. However, their presence in Haiti could have served as a tripwire because any attack on the Americans by the Haitian army or by the paramilitary “attaches” could have triggered an armed response.

Although neither the U.S. government nor Aristide wants a major confrontation between the U.S. military and the Haitian army, experts said that the threat of outside military intervention may be required to make Cedras and his fellow commanders abide by the Governors Island agreement.

Under that accord, Cedras, other members of the high command and Port-au-Prince Police Chief Michel-Joseph Francois are required to resign and leave the island by Friday.