HYPOCRISY OF U.S. DRUG-WAR POLITICS WON'T BE HELPING JUAN

SO, PRESIDENT Clinton wants to certify Mexico as a worthy ally in the war
against drug trafficking. Critics of Mexico say the country has flunked and
should be punished with less aid. Personally, I think this whole argument
is beside the point, especially when I see it through the life of Juan.

That's what I'll call him. He was a young Mexican I helped convict and send
to prison a few years ago for peddling little packets of cocaine in San Jose.

We jurors had no choice. The cops had cased him out for weeks, taking
pictures and tape-recording his drug peddling. It was an open-and-shut case
to everyone except Juan. He wouldn't accept a plea bargain.

When he put himself on the stand, he responded in Spanish over and over, "I
didn't do it" or "I'm innocent." Even the prosecutors looked embarrassed by
Juan's naive, pathetic effort at defending himself.

I learned a little more about him after the trial. Juan had immigrated
illegally to the United States to work any job he could, just like
thousands of poor Mexicans. And like a very tiny percentage of them, he
risked everything to make a few fast bucks feeding the American addiction
to narcotics.

Looking back, Juan's story is bigger than one two-bit pusher. His hapless
denials reflect two greater, cynical denials spouting from Washington and
Mexico City. One is Mexico City's blind eye to illegal immigration. The
other is Washington's unwillingness to admit that its home-grown drug
addiction is what fuels international drug trafficking.

The president must certify by March 1 which countries are reliable partners
in the war on drugs.

Here are the main arguments for Mexico: It's sniffed out hundreds of
corrupt petty officials, driven marijuana and poppy growers into hiding and
increased anti-narcotics spending by $500 million since last year.

Here's the argument against Mexico: President Zedillo hasn't brought in any
of the identified drug kingpins or purged his government of corrupt
officials, seizures of drugs have dropped significantly from last year, and
Mexico won't extradite alleged criminals to the United States.

Everybody's probably more right than wrong here. The point is that the
certification process is a blatant sham.

Every year, Colombia, Afghanistan and Iran are decertified. Not because
they're meccas for drug lords, although they are. It's just that they're
easy targets for chest-pounding U.S. drug czars. Those countries are far
away and can't cause much trouble inside the United States.

But Mexico could if problems there became worse.

Clinton is smart to certify Mexico. Better to accept a half-hearted
government of 100 million people on our southern border as an ally and
partner than to dis it like some renegade Persian Gulf tyrant.

Now that the Cold War is over, Mexico and its many problems present the
United States with its greatest foreign-policy challenges. The two
governments must deal on all problems as equals, not as a tough cop and his
snitch.

Anyway, here are two more reasons for certifying Mexico: First, it repaid a
$12.5 billion international bailout loan, with interest. That saved a ton
of American investments there. Second, the Mexican people endured a 20
percent slash in their standard of living and did not revolt. Now that
really would have sent illegal immigration through the roof.

If that isn't worth a few good-faith points for Mexico, what is?

I don't know where Juan the illegal immigrant-turned-drug-dealer is today.
Maybe he's still behind bars here or in Mexico, or back on the streets. All
I know is that the draw of easy money was so strong that the annual
hypocrisy of drug-war certification could not have stopped him from
crossing illegally and doing what he did.

Write Joe Rodriguez at the San Jose Mercury News, 750 Ridder Park Drive,
San Jose, Calif. 95190; or e-mail jrodriguez@sjmercury.com