Clinton Certifies Mexico in War on Drugs

WASHINGTON — Mexico on Friday won President Clinton’s stamp of approval as a full partner in the crusade against drugs despite testimony from U.S. law enforcement officials that narcotics syndicates south of the border have gained enormous power in that country.

Clinton’s certification of Mexico as “fully cooperating” in the counter-narcotics campaign sent the matter to Congress, which has grown increasingly exasperated in recent years over reports of continued drug-related corruption in a Mexican justice system that has failed to corral many major traffickers.

Anti-certification forces in Congress denounced the president’s action Friday and pledged a campaign to overturn it. It remained unclear whether congressional critics were merely going through the motions or whether they will wage an uphill fight to demote Mexico in the annual drug rankings.

Congress, which has 30 days to overturn the ruling, has never rejected a presidential certification.

Certification has become an annual, angst-ridden rite since Congress enacted a law in 1986 requiring the president to evaluate the level of counter-narcotics cooperation by countries deemed to be major producers or transit points for the lucrative worldwide drug trade.

Countries not certified as full partners face sanctions, including loss of foreign aid and U.S. opposition to loans from international development banks.

Some lawmakers are already looking beyond this year’s report.

In a letter to Clinton made public Friday, Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) and a handful of others argued that the president should hold Mexico to stricter standards in the coming year.

They want Mexico to make progress in extraditing drug traffickers to the U.S. because Mexico has yet to extradite alleged cartel leaders. They also would like to ratify new bilateral protocols for extradition and maritime cooperation, as well as make a “major improvement” in seizing the cocaine, marijuana, heroin and methamphetamine that pass through its territory en route to the United States.

The senators, who described themselves as holding “varying positions” on certification this year, stopped short of threatening to mount an effort to overturn Clinton’s decision.

In the House, however, a bipartisan coalition may do just that.

“The situation has gotten worse rather than better,” said Rep. John L. Mica (R-Fla.). “I’m really concerned [the Mexicans] may be on the verge of losing control of their country. You could have the creation of another narco-terrorist state. When it’s along our border, you have a very serious problem.”

House Minority Leader Richard A. Gephardt (D-Mo.), an ally of the White House, said he will oppose Clinton’s decision. “The law requires that we objectively assess what the Mexican government has done over the past year, not put our hopes in what progress may come in the future,” he said.

Clinton pledged unstinting support for Mexican President Ernesto Zedillo’s efforts to crack down on the drug trade.

“As I certify to Congress today, Mexico is cooperating with us in the battle for our lives,” Clinton said in a speech in San Francisco, “and I believe the American people will be safer in this, as in so many other ways, if we fight drugs with Mexico rather than walk away.”

Of 28 countries evaluated in the drug scorecard this year, the only ones Clinton chose to punish with economic sanctions were Myanmar and Afghanistan, the world’s No. 1 and No. 2 producers, respectively, of opium poppy, which is the source of heroin.

Aside from Mexico, 21 countries, including Colombia, were certified without question marks. Four others--Cambodia, Haiti, Nigeria and Paraguay--failed to meet U.S. standards as full anti-drug allies but were exempted from sanctions under a national security waiver.

In the report that accompanied the president’s decision, the State Department found “solid gains” in 1998. The report praised Peru for cutting its coca cultivation by 26% in the past year as part of a continuing assault on the source crop of cocaine. In Bolivia, coca cultivation fell to a 10-year low.

The report also praised Central American countries for stepping up efforts to seize cocaine from South America bound for Mexico and the United States. In fact, Costa Rica, Nicaragua and Panama together seized about as much cocaine in 1998 as the much larger Mexico.

On Mexico, the report noted that “persistent corruption at all levels of the justice sector” has hampered the nation’s progress. In addition, the report said Mexico “still lacks the institutional capability” to fully carry out anti-drug laws enacted in 1997. Yet there was also liberal praise for Zedillo’s efforts to fight drugs and corruption.

Mexican officials, who have long opposed the certification process, greeted Clinton’s announcement and the report cautiously--an acknowledgment that the Clinton administration had shown some restraint.

“This year’s report, even though we don’t like everything in it, is not an obstacle to keeping up our cooperation with the United States,” said Jose Antonio Zabalgoitia, spokesman for the Mexican Embassy in Washington.

In Mexico, where critics of the U.S. point out that the drug trade depends on a vast market north of the border, certification has stirred such fierce passions that some in the media have suggested that the country begin its own review of whether Americans are “fully cooperating” in the war on drugs.

“We should certify them [the Americans],” huffed Vicente Yanez, the director of Mexico’s main manufacturers’ organization. “Let’s see how well they are doing. . . . I feel commercial relations shouldn’t be affected by this.”

Greg Brosnan in The Times’ Mexico City Bureau contributed to this report.