The worsening violence in Haiti has forced the Bush administration to abandon its reluctance to become involved in a country where previous intervention has not brought stability.

  BY FRANK DAVIES AND NANCY SAN MARTIN

  WASHINGTON - Witnessing a bloody revolt in Haiti, the Bush administration is starting to shed its deep-seated resistance to getting involved there and is increasing diplomatic efforts to ease the crisis.

  The reasons for the administration's hands-off approach the last three years are numerous, policy experts say. The reasons include an aversion to ''nation building,'' a
  preoccupation with Iraq and the war on terrorism, pessimism over the failure of past initiatives in Haiti and U.S. hostility to President Jean-Bertrand Aristide.

  ''This administration approaches Haiti with the greatest trepidation and reluctance, and they have only begun to focus on it now because they realize that if they don't, it could get a lot worse,'' said Robert Pastor, who was an advisor on Latin America to President Jimmy Carter.

  As an armed revolt against Aristide spread through parts of Haiti this week, top U.S. officials and leaders of the Organization of American States and the Caribbean Community began a renewed effort to pressure the president and Haitian opposition groups to move toward a political settlement.

  INTERCESSION

  Roger Noriega, the State Department's top diplomat for the hemisphere, is part of a group of diplomats planning to meet today with Aristide and opposition leaders to push them toward a settlement.

  Secretary of State Colin Powell has said there is ''no enthusiasm'' for a military intervention such as the 1994 use of force that restored Aristide to power after a coup.

  ''The Haitians have to come up with a political solution,'' Powell said this week.

  Many policy experts say a more aggressive U.S. role is essential and may require the deployment of a multinational peacekeeping force to stabilize the impoverished country.

  ''We're the only ones with influence,'' said James Dobbins, President Clinton's special envoy from 1994 to 1996 and now an analyst for the RAND Corp. ``The OAS and the Caribbean Community don't have influence.''

  U.S. Rep. Mark Foley of Palm Beach, a Republican who criticized the administration two weeks ago for its lack of involvement, sees progress.

  ''I was very concerned about a lack of response, but I'm more confident now -- a real effort is being made,'' Foley said Friday after conferring with Noriega.

  Dobbins and Pastor, while critical of Bush policy, also acknowledge that the roots of the current indifference go back to the Clinton administration, which avoided a committed effort to build institutions and stability in Haiti after the 1994 invasion.

  The 20,000 U.S. troops had left by 1996. U.S. aid decreased from about $100 million a year in 1995 to $52 million last year, according to José Fuentes, a spokesman for USAID.

  ''Clinton set a narrow goal: restore Aristide, hold elections and then leave,'' Dobbins said. ``In retrospect, we should have gone down with a broader set of objectives and stayed longer.''

  Bob Shacochis, author of The Immaculate Invasion on the 1994 intervention, said the ''hands-off'' approach to Haiti continued with Bush.

  ''We just put a Band-Aid on a mortar wound,'' he said.

  Until the recent crisis, Haiti -- 650 miles from Florida -- was barely on the Bush administration's agenda.

  ''After Iraq and Afghanistan, the administration did not want to be seen as getting involved in another messy country, or in nation building,'' said Robert Fatton, a Haiti expert who heads the department of politics at the University of Virginia.

  FEAR OF FAILURE

  Another factor, analysts said, was the perception that past assistance to Haiti has not made much difference and that U.S. efforts there had little chance of success.

  The Bush administration wanted nothing to do with Aristide and blames him for much of the current crisis. And many U.S. backers of Aristide have become disenchanted with him, ''realizing he's no Nelson Mandela,'' Pastor said.

  The lack of appetite for a U.S. military intervention stems from the disappointments of the 1990s, Dobbins said: ``We tried that once. It didn't turn out to be brilliantly
  successful.''

  Hanging over the crisis now is a political reality: the threat of a massive migrant flow by sea in an election year.

  ''For this administration, this crisis is a huge political headache, and they probably wish Haiti would just disappear,'' Fatton said.