U.S. Said To End Mexico Drug Probe

NEW YORK (AP) An undercover probe into Mexican drug trafficking was
shut down by the Clinton Administration even as U.S. Customs agents
were looking at Mexico's defense minister as a suspect, The New York
Times reported today.

The agents were mystified by the decision to end the investigation on
schedule rather than extend it to explore information involving the
top-level official, particularly in view of intelligence reports
"pointing to corruption at the highest levels of the Mexican
military," the Times said.

According to The Times, the agents had learned from drug-trade bankers
in early 1998 that certain "clients" wanted to launder $1.15 billion
in illegal funds, and "the most important" of them was Mexico's
defense minister, Gen. Enrique Cervantes.

Although the information was passed to Washington, "no further effort
was ever made" to investigate Cervantes' alleged role, and prosecutors
did not even raise the subject with traffickers who had pleaded guilty
and were cooperating with the government in the case, the Times said.

The decision was sharply questioned by William F. Gately, identified
by The Times as a former senior Customs agent, now retired, who ran
the undercover operation.

"Why are we sitting on this type of information? It's either because
we're lazy, we're stupid or the political will doesn't exist to engage
in the kind of investigation where our law enforcement efforts might
damage our foreign policy," Gately said.

President Clinton certified last month that Mexico is a fully
cooperating partner in the drug war despite a decline in narcotics
seizures. The decision drew criticism from lawmakers who contend the
administration is not doing enough to stop drug trafficking.

Senior administration officials maintained the decision to end the
inquiry was based on security, not concern about foreign policy, the
Times said.

And they said the undercover agents had not been able to verify the
claims implicating Cervantes, the newspaper said.

Customs Commissioner Raymond Kelley told the Times that the report
"obviously... was a significant allegation," but said, "There was
skepticism about it. Was it puffing? It was just not seen as being... I
won't use the word credible but it wasn't verified."