ASHINGTON - A few months ago, it was widely perceived that one of Vice President Al Gore's biggest advantages over George W. Bush was his foreign policy experience. Gore has spent years globe-trotting and helping to frame Clinton administration policies, while Bush has been portrayed as knowing little beyond Mexico, and he famously flunked a quiz about foreign leaders.
But as attention focused on the House vote yesterday in favor of permanent normal trade relations with China, Gore's foreign policy advantage may be waning. Bush went to Capitol Hill to fight for the China bill, while Gore maintained a relatively low profile on the issue because an ally, organized labor, opposes the trade measure.
''I was glad to see the vice president finally emerge and make a statement'' on China, Bush said Tuesday in Washington, showing confidence in trying to turn the foreign policy issue against Gore.
At the same forum, Bush also unveiled a national security policy that would reduce the number of US nuclear weapons while creating a costly new missile defense system.
Flanked by a host of Republican foreign policy luminaries, including Colin L. Powell, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and former secretaries of state George P. Shultz and Henry A. Kissinger, Bush said: ''We should not keep weapons that our military planners do not need.''
All of this followed what many analysts described as a Gore blunder on foreign policy. Last month, after much waffling, Gore distanced himself from the administration's position on the Elian Gonzalez case, suggesting that the custody of the Cuban boy, then in the hands of Miami relatives, be determined by a family court.
Shortly after Gore announced his position, the Clinton administration used force to seize the boy and return him to his father.
The message behind these moves, analysts said, is that Bush is no longer shrinking from the debate over foreign policy. He has made a tactical decision to engage Gore on numerous fronts from missile defense to China to Israel.
''There seemed to be this notion that Bush wasn't ready on foreign affairs,'' said William Hyland, a former editor of Foreign Affairs magazine. ''But it is probably less an advantage then before.''
Hyland also proposed some perspective, saying the Bush-Gore differences cannot compare to Cold War clashes, when Republicans and Democrats debated who was soft on communism. Now, Hyland said, the candidates agree on key foreign policy issues, and differ mostly in ''nuances that are a little esoteric for the public.''
Barring the outbreak of a war that involves the United States or some other international crisis, foreign policy may turn out to be a relatively minor campaign issue, as it was in 1996. That could work to Bush's advantage.
Bush and Gore both know that foreign policy is a fickle issue. In 1991, just before the start of the 1992 presidential campaign, Bush's father soared in public opinion polls after winning the Gulf War.
Clinton and Gore then repeatedly accused President Bush of focusing too much on foreign matters and not enough on domestic concerns, particularly the economy. That strategy played a major role in the election of the Clinton-Gore team. This makes it difficult for Gore to argue that foreign policy should be a vital issue in this campaign.
Bush and Gore do have foreign policy differences. Bush wants to build antiballistic missiles even if Moscow considers it a violation of the ABM treaty; Gore wants to work with the Russians on the issue. Bush also says he would use the US military much more sparingly on humanitarian missions.
But the two candidates generally share the philosophy of internationalism that was the hallmark of President Bush and that has animated President Clinton's policy.
Governor Bush, for example, supported the Clinton administration's use of force in Kosovo last year. And last week, when some congressional Republicans wanted to establish a deadline for removing US troops from Kosovo, Bush questioned the move, saying it would tie his hands if he became president.
If voters are looking for a distinctly different foreign policy philosophy, they may have to turn to the likely Reform Party candidate, Patrick J. Buchanan, an isolationist who opposes many trade deals, or the Green Party candidate, Ralph Nader, an opponent of measures such as the China deal.
For months, Bush looked uncomfortable discussing some international matters, and he made headlines when, asked by a television interviewer, he was unable to name four foreign heads of state. Since then, Bush has stepped up his foreign policy briefings.
Nearly a year ago, retired General Brent Scowcroft, the national security adviser for President Bush, acknowledged that the Texas governor has little foreign policy experience. ''Is he comfortable with foreign policy? I would say not,'' Scowcroft said last June. But in an interview, Scowcroft said Bush has done a turnaround.
''I think he is a little more comfortable with the shape of the world. As he gets more comfortable, Gore's advantage does diminish,'' said Scowcroft, who talks regularly with Bush's advisers.
Gore is knowledgeable about international affairs, and his experience in foreign policy could still help him in the campaign, especially if a major issue or crisis comes up before Election Day. But there is risk in that as well: While Gore might get credit for a successful foreign policy decision or military action by the administration, he also could share the blame for an unpopular move beyond his control.
The stylistic differences between Bush and Gore were on vivid display this week in Washington. On Monday, Gore found himself in the awkward position of speaking before a union group that - like much of organized labor - opposes permanent trade relations with China. So Gore mentioned his support of the China measure in a couple of sentences and quickly moved to other issues.
''I respect your view,'' Gore said at a political conference of the 1.4 million-member United Food and Commercial Workers. ''You know I do not share that view. I respect the fact we have agreed to disagree on this issue.'' Separately, United Auto Worker officials said they may consider backing Nader this fall because both Bush and Gore backed the China measure.
A couple of hours later, Bush appeared before the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee and seemed comfortable delivering a tough, well-received foreign policy speech. On Tuesday, Bush spelled out his missile defense plan.
That day, Gore, speaking to the same organization, rejected a charge made by Bush that the Clinton administration had taken sides in the last Israeli election. To the contrary, Gore said, it was the administration of Bush's father that tried ''to bully Israel'' into a peace agreement by using US loan guarantees as leverage.
