01 March 2001

Text: State Department's Beers Testifies on 2001 Drug Certifications

President Bush has certified 20 of 24 major drug-producing and drug-transit countries as fully cooperating with Washington in counter-narcotics efforts, says Rand Beers, assistant secretary of state for international narcotics and law enforcement affairs.

In testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee March 1, Beers said that two countries, Haiti and Cambodia, failed to meet certification standards, but would not be subject to possible sanctions because of national security considerations. Afghanistan and Burma were denied certification.

Those countries certified as fully cooperating with the United States on drugs are the Bahamas, Bolivia, Brazil, the People's Republic of China, Colombia, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Guatemala, India, Jamaica, Laos, Mexico, Nigeria, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Thailand, Venezuela and Vietnam.

Beers said that U.S. law requires the president to certify that the governments of the major drug-producing and -transit countries have cooperated with the United States -- or have taken adequate steps on their own -- to meet the goals and objectives of the 1988 United Nations Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances.

Over the past 15 years, the certification process has been an "effective, if blunt" policy instrument for enhancing counter-narcotics cooperation, Beers said. He added, however, that though he has long supported certification, "we should not hesitate to investigate other ways to encourage cooperation on counter-narcotics," as some in Congress are now advocating.

Following is the text of Beers' prepared testimony on the background of the drug certification process:

Statement of Rand Beers
Assistant Secretary of State
for
International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs
before the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee

March 1, 2001

COUNTERNARCOTICS CERTIFICATION

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate this opportunity to discuss the narcotics certification mechanism and the president's certification decisions for this year with the Western Hemisphere, Peace Corps, and Narcotics Subcommittee of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Certification is a straightforward procedure. Every year the president must certify that the governments of the major drug producing and transit countries have cooperated with the U.S. -- or have taken adequate steps on their own -- to meet the goals and objectives of an international standard that most countries have signed onto, the 1988 U.N. Drug Conventions. If the president does not certify a government, it is ineligible for most forms of U.S. assistance, with the exception of humanitarian and anti-drug, aid. The U.S. is also obliged to vote "no" to any assistance loans in the multilateral development banks for countries denied certification.

BACKGROUND

The certification process is a statutory requirement. In 1986, the Congress --frustrated by what it perceived at the time as reluctance on the part of the State Department to take effective measures against the governments of drug source and transit countries -- introduced the drug certification process. It requires the executive branch to identify the major drug producing and transit countries and impose sanctions on those that do not cooperate with us -- or take adequate steps on their own -- in meeting international drug control goals. The law provides a waiver for those countries which, because of their vital interest to the United States, should be exempted from the sanctions related to a denial of certification.

Most governments are now aware that U.S. law requires the president to provide this annual assessment of counternarcotics cooperation. Many governments resent what they describe as a unilateral, subjective assessment of their performance, with no reciprocal accountability from the United States. I would point out, however, that each determination is the product of a year-long consultative process. We work with our partners to establish realistic, mutually acceptable goals for certification evaluation purposes, based on the goals and objectives of the U.N. Convention. The relevant benchmarks are established by mutual consensus and the factual basis for any judgment is clearly set forth in the certification determinations.

Though controversial, throughout its 15-year existence the certification process has proved to be an effective, if blunt, policy instrument for enhancing counternarcotics cooperation. Prior to the March 1 deadline for certification each year, we have seen countries introducing legislation, passing laws, eradicating drug crops, and capturing elusive drug kingpins. The timing is no coincidence. These countries know that their actions will have an impact on the president's certification decisions. They also know what the U.S. expects from them.

Over the past several years, we have made the administration of the certification process more transparent. Each spring after the decision announced, our embassies give a formal demarche to each country, explaining the prior year's decision and setting benchmarks for the coming year. The benchmarks become the standard by which the country is reviewed in the following year's process. Throughout the year, the embassy goes back to the government to discuss progress and barriers in meeting the benchmarks, supplemented by high-level USG visits. When the president finally makes his decisions on March 1, there should be no government taken by surprise.

That said, we are aware that there is a growing sense among some in Congress that there may now be more effective approaches to strengthening international counterdrug cooperation. Three different bills have recently been introduced in the Senate that would change the certification process in some way. While I have long supported certification and believe that it has been a useful tool, we should not hesitate to investigate other ways to encourage cooperation on counternarcotics. Recent years have seen a dramatic shift towards greater international cooperation in this area, and certification, or any alternative, should reflect the evolving international environment in an effort to strengthen that cooperation.

MULTILATERAL EVALUATION MECHANISM

Over the past decade the international community has intensified its collective efforts to counter illegal narcotics production, trafficking, and abuse, moving away from finger-pointing and toward greater emphasis on shared responsibility. One of the most encouraging developments is the Multilateral Evaluation Mechanism or "MEM," a peer review system for assessing individual and collective performance, mandated by the 1997 Summit of the Americas. The MEM was developed by the Inter-American Drug Abuse Control Commission (CICAD) of the Organization of American States (OAS).

The MEM involves an intensive review by a group of independent experts of information submitted by the 34 OAS Member States in a detailed questionnaire breaking down the components of their anti-drug efforts: their policies, strategies, and programs. The experts' findings were reviewed and approved at a Special Session of CICAD in December 2000 and the OAS formally released this first, baseline report on February 2. Having participated in the CICAD Special Session, I was struck by the frankness and openness of the discussions about national policies and programs that were prompted by these objective preliminary evaluations. With the baseline study completed, the second phase of evaluation will include follow-up on the initial recommendations as well as the addition of other, more qualitative, indicators that will probe more deeply into performance.

The MEM process provides a consensual framework for such frank exchanges of views, as well as critical evaluation and recommended remedial action. While the process is still evolving, the MEM seeks to cover national and regional compliance with international norms and treaty obligations. This parallels the goals and standards of the U.S. certification process and could, potentially, make our unilateral process an anachronism in the Western Hemisphere. The proof will, of course, be in the actions governments take to address the gaps or weaknesses in their anti-drug efforts that have been identified by the MEM. We believe, however, that most governments will be more responsive to constructive criticism offered by a community of nations after an objective and collaborative process, than to requirements imposed by a subjective, unilateral process accompanied by the threat of sanctions for non-compliance.

PENDING LEGISLATION

We in the Administration are reviewing the legislation recently introduced in the Senate that would revise the certification process in some way. We believe that it is appropriate to consider how the current process might be altered to better reflect the changes in the international situation that have occurred since narcotics certification was first introduced. Any regime that might modify or replace certification should have an enforcement mechanism to ensure continued international counternarcotics cooperation. If there were efforts to suspend the certification procedure, we believe the president must retain in the interim the power to decertify or sanction individual countries using the standards of the current process.

We do not believe that there should be exemptions for individual countries or regions at this time. Future carve-outs may be appropriate, however, for regions where there is a mutually acceptable and credible multilateral evaluative mechanism in place.

CERTIFICATION DECISIONS FOR 2001

(See President Bush's Decision Memo)

SUMMARY

I know that all of us -- both in the Administration and in the Congress - are interested in developing the best and most effective mechanisms to counter the threat of international narcotics trafficking -- whether that be through the certification process or some other procedure -- and I look forward to working with you to that end.

end text