Clinton Certifies Mexico as Ally in War on Drugs

President Clinton again certified Mexico on Thursday as a fully cooperating partner in the war on drugs, despite congressional critics who berate the United States’ southern neighbor as an ineffectual, corrupt warrior against narcotics.

The president acknowledged that Mexico faces enormous problems in trying to beat down an array of powerful criminal organizations and their “persistent corrupting influence.”

But he said he was convinced that the government of President Ernesto Zedillo in Mexico has the “firm intention to persist in its campaign against the drug cartels and its broad-sweeping reform effort.”

In an annual report card on 30 drug-producing and drug-transiting countries, Clinton ruled that Colombia was not cooperating fully. But, in a kind of recognition for some progress, he exempted it from punishment, issuing it a waiver under the law.

In all, Clinton punished four countries for noncooperation: Afghanistan, Myanmar, Iran and Nigeria. Those nations get little U.S. foreign aid and, thus, may not be seriously affected by the sanctions meted out by the law--a cut in U.S. foreign aid and a U.S. vote against loans for them by international banks and agencies.

Mexican certification provoked a battle in Congress last year and may do so again this year. Congress, which has 30 days to overturn the rulings of the president, has never rejected a presidential certification since this annual assessment was enacted into law in 1986.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) led a campaign against Mexican certification last year but relented when Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and other administration leaders promised to pressure Mexico to make major reforms. She said the president was wrong to certify Mexico this year but did not say whether she will introduce legislation to overturn the certification. Sen. Paul Coverdell (R-Ga.), however, said he will do so.

Mexican certification was also denounced by Sen. Jesse Helms (R-N.C.), the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, who said: “Everybody knows it [Clinton’s move] is a scam, because Mexico is not fully cooperating.”

In the House, Democratic leader Richard A. Gephardt of Missouri said the president erred in certifying Mexico. He should have decertified Mexico but exempted it from sanctions, Gephardt said.

“The standard in the statute requires a retrospective look at what they’ve done,” Gephardt said, “not an evaluation of the steps a country may take in the future.” Rep. John L. Mica (R-Fla.) said he will introduce a bill to decertify Mexico.

Congressional critics of Mexican certification could bolster their argument with the testimony Thursday of Thomas A. Constantine, administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration.

Speaking shortly after the White House announced its certification of Mexico, he told a Senate Foreign Relations subcommittee that it “may take decades” for Mexico to revamp its law enforcement institutions so they can battle the drug cartels.

“Several programs have been initiated,” Constantine said, “but the institution-building process is still in its infancy.”

Constantine said his DEA agents limit exchanges of information with Mexican counterparts “to individual cases when we are sure the information would not put our agents or sources of information at risk.”

In sharp contrast, Gen. Barry R. McCaffrey, the White House anti-narcotics czar, told reporters that he wanted “to note the absolutely superlative cooperation between the United States and Mexico.”

“A few weeks ago,” he went on, “we were able to release a joint strategy to deal with this [drug] threat. We have now committed ourselves in the coming months to developing concrete performance measures of effectiveness by which the two parties can assist each other in this common effort.”

In Mexico, the Zedillo government was undoubtedly relieved about the certification, but its officials repeated their contention that certification was a flawed process. In a statement, the foreign ministry said Mexico rejected the procedure “because it’s a unilateral process, contrary to the spirit of international cooperation.”

“The government of Mexico fights drug trafficking because of its own decision [to do so], and in recognition of the danger this phenomenon represents for the well-being and security of our country,” the statement said.

Meantime, Colombians found little to celebrate about Clinton’s decision not to punish them even while declaring them uncooperative. Officials had expected full certification.

Colombia was decertified last year largely because of revelations that $6 million in drug money had found its way into President Ernesto Samper’s election campaign in 1994. Many Colombians believed this embarrassment would be outweighed in Washington’s eyes this year by their government’s increasing cocaine and heroin crop eradication, its stiffening penalties for drug trafficking and its restoration of a limited form of extradition of drug criminals.

When alleged drug kingpin Nelson Urrego was captured last week, Samper said, “If there is any justice, we will expect by mail, before 6 this afternoon, full certification for Colombia’s efforts in the struggle against drug trafficking.”

Moreover, Colombians insisted that decertification is a poor way of trying to induce cooperation.

Some critics believe that the different treatment of Colombia and Mexico exposes a major flaw in the system. They insist that Colombia probably has a better record than Mexico in fighting drug criminals yet is castigated while Mexico escapes any punishment. But the White House, the critics say, holds back from decertifying Mexico because it does not want to spoil relations with its large neighbor and major trading partner.

It is probably for this reason that the White House is trying to persuade Congress to abandon this whole process in favor of an international treaty committing Western Hemisphere countries to a war on drugs.

In addition to Colombia, Clinton decertified three other countries, Cambodia, Pakistan and Paraguay, but waived sanctions for reasons of U.S. national security.

Times staff writers Mary Beth Sheridan in Mexico City and Juanita Darling in Bogota, Colombia, contributed to this report.