Contact Info for Sacramento Bee:
oped pieces sacbedit@netcom.com
FAX: SACRAMENTO BEE SACRAMENTO CA 19163211109;
FAX: SACRAMENTO NEWS SACRAMENTO CA 19167371437 MELINDA WELSH;

Gen. Barry McCaffrey, point man in the White House's
antinarcotics campaign, says it would be hypocritical to
condemn Mexico for its failure to make progress against
drugtrafficking given the enormous demand for drugs in the
United States. He's right, but the hypocrisy doesn't stop
there in the annual charade that Congress forces the White
House to go through in rating antidrug efforts in 32 other
countries but not our own.

President Clinton has again certified that Mexico's
government remains an ally in the anti drug war in the
face of much contrary evidence: the recent arrest of
Mexico's top antinarcotics official on charges of
collaborating with drug dealers; Mexican officials' attempt
to keep secret that arrest (and the subsequent escape of
another suspect); and the testimony by the head of the U.S.
Drug Enforcement Agency that DEA agents can trust no one in
conducting joint operations south of the border.

At the same time, Colombia, which since being
"decertified" last year has taken major steps to meet U.S.
demands letting the U.S. Coast Guard board Colombian
ships; passing an assetforfeiture law; jailing top leaders
of the Cali cartel was again decertified (along with
eight others), although U.S. sanctions apparently will not
be imposed. Why the difference?

In a nutshell, it's that Mexico is far more important to
Washington as the main source of illegal immigration and
a partner in the North American Free Trade Agreement
than Colombia. U.S. officials also believe that Mexican
President Ernesto Zedillo is doing his best against heavy
odds massive corruption and deadly intimidation while
Colombian President Ernesto Samper has been bought off by
the drug cartels.

Certification is arbitrary and is defensible only in
broader foreign policy terms. Even then, it's
selfdefeating. Demands that Samper be ousted provoked a
nationalistic reaction that actually bolstered him. And
although Clinton has put Mexico on notice that next year
may be different unless there is real progress, that rings
hollow in the larger foreign policy context.

U.S. law gives the president no option but to certify or
decertify or, in the latter case, to waive penalties "in
the national interest." Even then, the result is
humiliating to a cited country and understandably generates
great resentment. Now, California Sen. Dianne Feinstein,
who opposed Clinton's decision on Mexico, is pushing
legislation to overturn it. That would make a bad situation
worse, magnifying the image of an America in disarray over
how to fight the drug menace. Congress would do better to
amend the 1986 law by eliminating certification but
continuing annual State Department reviews of progress, or
the lack of it, in all affected countries, including this
one.

McCaffrey notes that the United States and Mexico are
fated to live next to one other and to share the burden of
fighting drug trafficking. The administration's failure to
make much headway in shrinking demand among its own
citizens, and the enormous burden Mexico's government faces
against drug barons with no compunction about killing
anyone who resists them, are powerful arguments for close
cooperation and persistent pressure for positive results
but not formal report cards issued by the world's largest
consumer of illicit drugs.