Mexico Scandal Focuses Attention on Process of Drug Certification

When Congress passed the Drug Free America Act of 1986, it included so many provisions that an obscure clause about certifying foreign countries as doing their part in the fight was barely noticed.

Two athletes--University of Maryland basketball forward Len Bias and Cleveland Browns defensive back Don Rogers--had died earlier that year in cocaine incidents, and the public mood bristled with anger against the incessant flow of drugs over U.S. borders.

Republican President Ronald Reagan and the Democratic leaders of Congress tried to outdo each other in packing the bill with weapon after weapon for what Reagan called “a national crusade.”

Now, one of the least discussed weapons--certification--has become the focus of attention, presenting President Clinton with a nettlesome choice.

Rocked by recent revelations on the extent to which drug-related corruption apparently extends to Mexico’s ruling elite, several members of Congress are demanding that Clinton refuse to certify that nation as one cooperating fully with the United States in the war on drugs.

That may be a wise political step for the president to take. But if he follows that course, he could have a foreign policy disaster on his hands.

The fear among many State Department officials is that a failure to certify Mexico would so enrage the Mexicans that they would halt any cooperation with the United States. Feelings might turn so bitter that Clinton would have to call off his planned visit there in April.

Mexican Foreign Minister Jose Angel Gurria Trevino alluded to this earlier in the week when he told a radio interviewer that he hoped “good judgment prevails and that the United States will not make any decision which might change the atmosphere . . . when [Clinton’s] visit is taking place.”

The issue has become so intense that some authoritative voices are demanding an end to the certification process.

Even Gen. Barry R. McCaffrey, the Clinton-appointed federal narcotics chief, cast some doubt on it in an interview Tuesday with a Mexican television journalist. Asked if he believed that certification was a valid process, McCaffrey replied in Spanish: “Possibly not.”

This viewpoint was endorsed in a report issued Wednesday by a task force of the Council on Foreign Relations, a New York-based research group. Calling for an end to the current certification system, the task force called the process “corrosive in its effects on U.S. relations with other countries.”

The report, which called for a complete revamping of U.S. drug policy, did not deal specifically with Mexico. But Everett Briggs, a member of the task force and a former U.S. ambassador to Panama, Honduras and Portugal, told a news conference: “We risk losing the cooperation we have had . . . if we decertify Mexico.”

As Clinton approaches his decision, expected later this week, many federal agencies are feeding him advice.

If he certifies Mexico, however, Congress has the power to override his decision, and several important legislators, including House Democratic Leader Richard A. Gephardt of Missouri and Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California, said earlier this week that they will seek to do just that.

As an alternative, they propose that, while withholding certification, Clinton should soften the blow by granting a waiver from the economic punishment that is supposed to follow.

On Wednesday, Sen. Paul Coverdell (R-Ga.), chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere, told a news conference that he will join in urging Clinton not to certify Mexico.

Under the procedures of the 1986 law, the White House must make a list of foreign countries that are either major drug producers or major drug exporters and then issue a report card to Congress by March 1 each year on how well these countries are cleaning themselves up. There are now 31 countries on the list.

The law provides that these countries be punished unless they are certified by the president or he issues a waiver to suspend the sanctions against them. If he does neither, the country is slapped by the United States with a 50% cut in foreign assistance and an American vote against all loans to that country by the World Bank and other international financial institutions.

Although the president makes the final call on certification, a procedure has developed in recent years that funnels and summarizes advice to him from the U.S. departments and agencies that deal with narcotics.

According to State Department sources, the attorney general, the secretary of the Treasury, the secretary of Defense, the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy and others send their recommendations to the office of Robert Gelbard, assistant secretary of State for international narcotics affairs. His office then prepares a memo for the secretary of State, who makes a final recommendation to the president.

The various position papers are supposed to include dissenting points of view, even if they are not accepted by the Cabinet officer in charge.

It is well known, for example, that the Drug Enforcement Administration, a unit of the Justice Department, was against the certification of Mexico last year and probably still holds that position.

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX / INFOGRAPHIC)

American Standards

Decertification, the strongest of President Clinton’s three options on Mexico, would put the United States’ neighbor in the company of such nations as Afghanistan and Iran.

CLINTON DECISIONS IN ’96

* Certification (cooperating fully in war on drugs): the Bahamas, Belize, Bolivia, Brazil, Cambodia, China, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Guatemala, Haiti, Hong Kong, India, Jamaica, Laos, Malaysia, Mexico, Panama, Peru, Taiwan, Thailand, Venezuela and Vietnam.

* Decertification (country not cooperating; foreign aid halted): Afghanistan, Colombia, Myanmar, Iran, Nigeria and Syria.

* Waiver (not cooperating, but U.S. waived punishment): Lebanon, Pakistan and Paraguay.