AS President Clinton grapples with putting together a new team for his second and last administration, the Northern Ireland peace process is not engaging his attention the way it was just a year ago during his triumphant visit there.

There are too many other things on his mind and that of his national security team which has been handling the Northern Ireland situation. Question marks hang over the future of senior security adviser, Tony Lake, his assistant Nancy Soderberg and the chairman of the peace talks, former senator George Mitchell.

This does not mean that Mr Clinton is not still committed to doing whatever he can to bring about a peaceful settlement. In his first press conference since his election, he said he hoped very much that during the next four years, he could "make some contribution to the ultimate resolution" of the problem.

The toll of the past four years is, also showing. Mr Lake made an uncharacteristic faux pas in a recent widely watched Meet the Press television programme when questioned about the peace process. Asked about the prospects of "another ceasefire in Ireland soon", Mr Lake replied: "The talks, frankly, are not going well." But when he added: There's always the danger that the ceasefire could again be broken" alarm bells rang in Washington and Dublin.

At a sensitive time in the Government's efforts to help the SDLP leader, John Hume, bring about a new IRA ceasefire in the face of British and unionist scepticism, here was a key US official already speculating about it being broken. The next day Ms Soderberg rushed out a clarification. Mr Lake had been speculating about the danger of another IRA bombing at the present time and not about a future ceasefire.

It was pointed out that Mr Lake had also said that "the president and all of us are working very hard to try and bring about both a cease fire and then comprehensive and inclusive talks". This was the main message - he wanted to get across.

Then came the flurry of Dublin London Washington diplomacy over the planned British government statement on its position concerning a new IRA ceasefire. Dublin sought Washington's aid to make this position flexible enough to meet the Sinn Fein and IRA conditions as mediated by John Hume.

Irish diplomatic influence could be detected behind an editorial in the influential New York Times urging Britain not to require a "lengthy delay" before admitting Sinn Fein to talks after a future ceasefire.

IT WAS a delicate time, for the White House which tries hard not to be seen publicly as supporting one government against another. The time when Mr Clinton took pleasure in the discomfiture of London as he granted a visa to the Sinn Fein leader, Gerry Adams is now long gone.

The White House most wanted an agreed position between the two governments on how to secure a second ceasefire leading to Sinn Fein taking its place at the peace talks table. The US administration could then throw its weight and influence behind this joint position in a rerun of the lead up to the ceasefire of September 1994.

The unilateral British statement of November 23rd, which the Government saw as imposing new conditions for Sinn Fein entry into the talks following a ceasefire, was also a disappointment to the White House. A White House spokesman briefed by the Lake Soderberg team could only say: "The British statement, speaks for itself".

While this would not be admitted publicly, the White House is converted to the Irish view that the peace, talks go nowhere until they are inclusive code word for Sinn Fein at the table.

The arrival of the UUP leader David Trimble, in Washington this week highlighted this. In interviews before he got to the White House, he insisted the talks could move to a "substantive" stage without waiting for an on again off again IRA ceasefire and what he sees as caving in to a Sinn Fein "veto" on the talks. He, was determined to put this view across strongly to the US administration even if he was dealing with officials with a possibly limited shelf life before they pass to higher things.

The influential Irish American lobby which had helped broker the first ceasefire told the White House in strong terms that Mr Trimble's involvement in the events at Drumcree last July - events which had shocked Mr Clinton - meant he should not be given access to the president as he "did not deserve this reward".

MR Trimble was fairly certain that as in his previous visits, Mr Clinton would drop by during his planned meeting with Tony Lake. It could hardly have been a worse time, however, as Mr Clinton was engrossed in working out cabinet changes and is still suffering from painful hoarseness. In the event it was Vice President Al Gore who dropped by during the hour long meeting which former UUP leader, Sir James Molyneaux, and party secretary, Mr Jeffrey Donaldson, also attended with Mr Trimble and Mr Lake. This could be read two ways.

Mr Trimble was either "snubbed" by Mr Clinton, who was sensitive to Irish American displeasure over Drumcree, or he was genuinely indisposed and made the gesture of sending Al Gore instead. But more important is how Mr Trimble's arguments for the talks to move ahead without Sinn Fein were received.

The British government's scenario in the event, of an IRA ceasefire was discussed in detail, Mr Trimble said, later, but he was coy on what the US attitude to it was.

The White House statement following the meeting was more revealing. Mr Lake and Mr Trimble "expressed support for serious and substantive negotiations" in Belfast under George Mitchell as chairman.

But Mr Lake, alone underscored the strong US view that "the ceasefire be restored immediately" and added that the administration hopes inclusive and substantive talks would move forward as quickly as possible". So the key word "inclusive" was deliberately put into the White House statement.

Asked about this later, Mr Trimble joked about not knowing that "Kremlinology" was still in vogue in Washington where every word was scrutinised for significance. But he said "inclusive" could be read to mean the view that the priority was to get Sinn Fein into the talks rather than proceed without it.

Meanwhile, there will always be immense goodwill and a helping hand for those working to secure a lasting peace in Northern Ireland, but no US administration will want to be seen to be imposing a solution favoured by just one party.

Sir James Molyneaux said he drew "great comfort" from how the US administration had "remained rock solid with the British and Irish governments since the day the Downing Street Declaration was signed by the two governments and under written by the one superstate left in the world, namely the United States of America."