U.S. MUST GET BACK TO URGENT BUSINESS.

Byline: Flora Lewis 

THE United States isn't definitely deciding much of anything these days.

That is partly because the Federal Reserve's Alan Greenspan and the U.S. Treasury's Robert Rubin focus on their duty to attend to the American economy, rather than taking the world view.

And it is partly because the U.S. president is forced to lower his horizon.

This presidency - and thus the United States as such - has been weakened in three vital ways by the continuing obsession with a tawdry scandal of sex and lies.

First, it is a preoccupation, distracting time and energy from urgent problems. Second, a caution is imposed stalling any bold projects which might be wise and useful but not immediately popular for fear of losing support. Third is the need to hoard clout. The influence a president can exert and the obligations he can call in must be focused on what he most wants done. If he needs them to save himself, not much is left for other projects.

It doesn't matter whether you believe President Clinton should or should not be punished for his attempt to cover up his misbehavior. The country, and as the affair drags on the world, is being punished by the American failure to get on with vital decisions.

France's Le Monde sees ``something profoundly unhealthy in this obsession

with demanding purity and transparency in a private matter.'' Others see outrageously self-serving partisan politics or ideological manipulation.

Where is the voice that can rise above all the yammer and snickers and speak to the national interest, the world's need? There doesn't seem to be an individual with the compelling stature, the assured respect, to articulate with resonance the common concern. It is not a matter of passing judgment but of renewing a sense of national commitment and dignity, so that Washington can do its proper job.

It would be salutary and refreshing if the three living and lucid ex-presidents - unfortunately Ronald Reagan can no longer speak responsibly - could jointly recall the country to its duties, senses and needs. Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter and George Bush disagree about a lot but they all have a serious idea of what the presidency is for, and what the United States means to the world.

Eventually, historians will wonder what on Earth this nasty farce was all about and why Americans persisted so stubbornly in disgusting themselves with titillation.

But it's dangerous to wait. Let the commanding voices ring out and remind us there's a real world.

Clearly, among the pressing problems are those on the economic front. At least there seems to be a general recognition that the world financial system has drastically, and messily, outgrown the context of its normal function. That awareness provides a little reassurance that we aren't just headed helplessly down the drain because nobody is making the effort to stop it, as in the 1930s.

But it's a source of serious discouragement to see the World Bank and G-7 meetings come and go with no more than vague calls for a new ``financial architecture'' and no clear proposals. Certainly it is past time for a new Bretton Woods conference to map the guidelines for international monetary cooperation, as was so brilliantly done in 1944.

The sheer quantity of money involved and the volume of transactions have grown overwhelming, beyond anybody's control or capacity for defense. It is not a matter of ideology-free markets vs. regulation.

No serious national economy operates without rules for banking reliability, honest accounting and so forth. But there are no such international rules. When a single hedge fund can owe $100 billion gambling with some $3 billion and drag down other institutions, nothing is reliable. It's not good enough to argue whether the International Monetary Fund was too tough on Indonesia or too lax with Russia.

There needs to be a whole new, coherent set of rules to match the new global market. The way to develop it is to start immediately on calling an international conference to discuss and determine what can be agreed.

There are differences of approach, but a convergence of understanding that panic can be contagious and support needs to be organized. It was John Maynard Keynes who mapped out the principles adopted in Bretton Woods, in response to a U.S. invitation to create institutions to underwrite post-war recovery.

There isn't a Keynes on the horizon at this point. But the essential ideas of properly maintained banking systems, financial transparency and adequacy of assets are clear enough. The specifics need to be debated in an international setting. What is lacking, however, is a sponsor.

Other leaders have favored the idea but it will take a definite decision by the United States to get it launched. The world is waiting.