LET'S STOP THE FARCICAL DRUG CERTIFICATION OF MEXICO

Close your eyes, and you can hear the message in the media. You've
heard the words: peace, prosperity, promise.

Now try these: deception, drugs, death.

Is it any wonder politicians and pundits are ignoring one of the most
insidious problems that will face the next president just assuredly as
it has faced presidents for the past 25 years? The issue: a losing
effort in the war on drugs south of the border.

In a move that was little noticed, the Clinton administration acted
this month to reaffirm U.S. strategy in anti-drug efforts with Mexico.
The process is called certification. The president is required by law
to certify to Congress that Mexico (along with 25 other nations) is
cooperating in the drug war. Decertification would mean restrictions
on U.S. assistance and economic sanctions. The administration's report
noted that Mexico's overall anti-drug performance has not improved,
but the country was still certified.

This year, as in most years, when Mexico was certified, Republicans
led by Sen. Jesse Helms of North Carolina protested. They fired off a
letter to Secretary of State Madeleine Albright. The letter noted,
"There has been no major progress in uprooting the drug cartels that
do business with virtual impunity in Mexico."

Just before certification, the U.S. ambassador to Mexico, Jeffrey
Davidow, seemed to agree with the critics. During an unguarded moment
while speaking in Mexico City to alumni of the University of Southern
California, the ambassador said, "The fact is that the headquarters of
the drug-trafficking world are now in Mexico. Just as the
headquarters, the main base, of the Mafia was in Sicily, now the main
bases of drug traffickers are in other countries, and Mexico is one of
them."

Mexican politicians and newspapers expressed shock and disappointment
with the ambassador's frank words. Isn't the United States responsible
for its drug habits? Feeding the United States' enormous illegal drug
appetite - estimated at $57 billion by the Office of National Drug
Control Policy, or ONDCP - keeps the cartels in business. The
government's certification report admits that as much as 60 percent of
the cocaine from South America flowing into the United States is
routed through Mexico. So, at some point, these illegal shipments are
supervised by the powerful Mexican cartels.

Despite an internecine gang war, the cartels have grown more powerful
in the past decade. The Tijuana cartel assassinated that border city's
police chief less than a week before certification. The hit occurred
on the highway where gunmen from the cartel assassinated another
Tijuana police chief six years ago. The latest demonstration of
violence by the cartels is just one of a string of hits aimed at law
enforcement officials, prosecutors and journalists stretching back at
least a decade.

As the saying goes in Mexico, people have two choices: plata or plomo,
silver or lead. Those unwilling to take a bribe from the cartels end
up with a bullet instead.

Not surprisingly, last year's certification report noted the existence
of "persistent levels of corruption" in the Mexican government.
However, Mexican President Ernesto Zedillo has made fighting
corruption and drug trafficking a centerpiece of his administration.
As Gen. Barry McCaffrey, the White House drug czar, likes to point
out, despite corruption, Mexico is investing $1 billion in its
anti-narcotics fight.

The debate over certification comes at a delicate time. Virtually
unnoticed in the United States, Mexico also is preparing for
presidential elections this year. The ruling party, the Institutional
Revolutionary Party or PRI, which has ruled the country for more than
70 years, faces a tough challenge from opposition forces. Still, the
status quo looks to be headed toward another victory.

Decertification might have an impact on that process and would hurt
U.S.-Mexican relations. In a country where politicians and patriots
still remind the populace about a war lost to the United States 150
years ago, pointed criticism of Mexico's problems with drugs and
corruption could also curdle strategic business relationships.

What Mexicans resent is not only that certification is insulting and
demeaning, but also that it is a modern version of Uncle Sam's
economic big stick at work in Latin America. The political and
economic aftershocks of decertification in Colombia during the 1990s
serve as stark examples for nations that might want to ignore the process.

Certification is another example of the Clinton era's
go-along-to-get-along foreign policy, as opposed to bold strokes. The
boldest stroke would be to kill the meaningless and divisive
certification process altogether.

For all the Republican invective that is part of the process, Congress
is unlikely to overturn the president's certification before the April
1 deadline. Attempts at doing so have failed in the past.

Both McCaffrey and Albright support abolishing the current
certification system, substituting it with a multinational review of
anti-narcotics efforts overseen by the Organization of American
States. But the likelihood of that happening during this lame duck
year for the Clinton administration seems remote.

What's left are the euphemisms of the certification system and
attempts at salving diplomatic wounds. "There is no option but to
certify Mexico," said Bob Weiner, spokesman for McCaffrey's ONDCP. "We
can't just damn them for everything that goes wrong."

During the Reagan era, Deane Hinton, who was the U.S. ambassador to El
Salvador, called certification "a political cop-out by a lot of
congressmen." Hinton was speaking about a different type of
certification, which said El Salvador's government respected human
rights during its civil war despite obvious evidence of atrocities.

Now we have another version of certification. The government tells us
that all is well in the war on drugs. Don't worry. Never mind that
drug trafficking is the fuel for many other crimes. Never mind that
the drug cartels are gaining the upper hand in Mexico. Even the
Mexicans want us to ignore the facts and get on with business.

This begs the question: Wouldn't it be better to eliminate this mealy
mouthed political process and just face the truth?