Push to End Drug Certification Intensifies

Narcotics: The recent battle over Mexico's status has led to a growing
desire in Congress and the White House for another system.

By STANLEY MEISLER, Times Staff Writer

WASHINGTONThis spring's drug certification battle was so
humiliating for Mexico and so embarrassing for the Clinton
administration that sentiment is growing in Congress and the White
House to scrap the process and come up with something less
troublesome.
President Clinton certified Mexico's efforts in the drug war
despite a bribery scandal that led to the resignation of its antidrug
czar and provoked a drive in Congress to overturn Clinton's
decision. In the end, the drive fell short. If it had succeeded, an
infuriated Mexican government would probably have called off
Clinton's recent official visit to the country.
Clinton seems to think that Congress has taken the first steps
toward change. In an interview with Mexican television
correspondents before his visit, he said "it may not be productive"
to decertify a country such as Mexico for falling short of full
cooperation with the United States in the war on drugs.
"So we have now a bipartisan review going on in Congress,
which I have supported," Clinton said. "A lot of our strongest
members of Congress are questioning whether this is the right thing
to do, whether the process should be reformed. And I'm supporting
the review, and I think you will see the results of it pretty soon."
But, according to State Department and congressional sources,
no formal bipartisan review is going onalthough there's a lot of talk
in Washington about Mexico, drugs and certification. Clinton may
have been guilty of wishful thinking. Or he may have been thinking
of a proposal by Rep. Jim Kolbe (RAriz.) for the appointment of a
bipartisan national commission to study certificationa proposal
that has never been adopted.
In fact, many congressional sources believe that Congress will
not change the process in time to prevent another bruising
certification battle next March.
Under the annual certification process, which began in 1986, the
president is required to certify that countries used by drug
traffickers for production or transshipment are cooperating fully in
the U.S.led war on drugs. If he does not certify them as
cooperative, he must either withhold some economic assistance or
rule that he is exempting the guilty from punishment because of the
U.S. "national interest."
On the 1996 scorecard, Clinton certified 23 countriesincluding
Mexicoas cooperating, denied certification to six and punished
them, and denied certification to three others but exempted them
from punishment.
Some hopes for an end to the certification process were stirred
in early May when the House International Relations Committee
adopted a proposal by Rep. Lee H. Hamilton (DInd.) to scrap it.
The vote was 24 to 18.
Under the Hamilton proposal, which was added to a foreign
policy reform bill, the president would instead have the authority to
impose sanctions on errant countries whenever he felt it would be
useful to do so in the war on drugs.
"What we learned [in the recent certification fight] . . . is that this
tool is a blunt instrument that simply does not work," Hamilton said.
"It does not lead to increased cooperation in the international fight
against narcotics. In fact, it discourages cooperation."
But committee Chairman Benjamin A. Gilman (RN.Y.)
opposed the Hamilton amendment, and he is expected to ask the
House to eliminate it when the bill reaches the floor. The House is
expected to heed Gilman.
Under Kolbe's plan, the Clinton administration and Congress
would appoint a 12member commission to study the effectiveness
of certification in "curtailing international drug trafficking . . .
enhancing international counternarcotics cooperation . . . and
reducing drug use and consumption in the United States." The
commission would operate under the assumption that the present
"annual certification process . . . is flawed."
The commission, which would be known as the High Level
Commission on International Narcotics Control, would be required
to make an interim report in six months and a final report with
recommendations in a year.
Kolbe's proposal is now a bill, but congressional sources believe
that it has only a slim chance of gaining approval despite its success
in the House earlier this year. The House resolution, which was
never expected to win final congressional approval, contained a
hodgepodge of provisions that had not been examined very closely.
Many members of Congress do not relish the idea of handing over
legislative powers to a national commission.

Copyright Los Angeles Times

letters@latimes.com
fax: 2132374712