Order Code RL32038
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Drug Certification/Designation Procedures for
Illicit Narcotics Producing and Transit Countries
Updated September 22, 2003
K. Larry Storrs
Specialist in Latin American Affairs
Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

Drug Certification/Designation Procedures for
Illicit Narcotics Producing and Transit Countries
Summary
This report summarizes the congressionally-mandated presidential designation
procedures on major illicit narcotics producing and transit countries that will be fully
in effect for fiscal year 2004 and subsequent years. To put the new procedures in
perspective, the report also provides background on the past procedures and
presidential actions, congressional reform efforts, and the transitional procedures in
effect for fiscal years 2002 and 2003.
From the mid-1980s to 2001, Congress required the President to certify that
specified drug producing and drug transit countries were cooperating fully with the
United States in counter-narcotics efforts in order to avoid a series of sanctions,
including suspension of U.S. foreign assistance, and opposition to loans in the
multilateral development banks. The sanctions would also apply if the Congress,
within 30 calendar days, passed a joint resolution of disapproval to overturn the
presidential certification. Spokesmen from many countries complained about the
unilateral and non-cooperative nature of the drug certification requirements, and a
movement to modify the process developed in Congress in 2000-2002.
In 2001, the Congress and President enacted the Foreign Operations
Appropriations for FY2002 (H.R. 2506/P.L. 107-115) that waived the drug
certification requirements for FY2002 only, but required the President, with certain
waiver authority, to designate and withhold assistance from the worst offending
countries that had “failed demonstrably” to adhere to international counter-narcotics
agreements. Acting under this legislation, the President, on February 23, 2002,
designated Afghanistan, Burma and Haiti, but granted national interest waivers to
Haiti and Afghanistan under the new government.
In 2002, the Congress and the President enacted the Foreign Relations
Authorization for FY2003 (H.R. 1646/P.L. 107-228), with new drug designation
procedures requiring the President to make a report in mid-September of each year,
identifying the major drug transit or producing countries. At the same time he is
required to designate and withhold assistance from any of the named countries that
has “failed demonstrably,” during the previous 12 months, to make substantial
counter-narcotics efforts. Acting under these provisions, the President, relying upon
the transitional rule, designated Burma, Guatemala, and Haiti, on January 31, 2003,
but granted national interest waivers to Guatemala and Haiti.
In 2003 and subsequent years, the President is required by Section 706 of the
Foreign Relations Authorization Act (P.L. 107-228), with some waiver authority, to
identify the major drug producing or transit countries by September 15th, and to
designate and withhold assistance from any of those countries that have “failed
demonstrably” to adhere to international counter-narcotics agreements within the
previous 12 months. Acting under these provisions, the President, on September 15,
2003, identified the major drug producing or transit countries. At the same time, he
designated Burma and Haiti as having “failed demonstrably” in counter-narcotics
efforts, but granted a national interest waiver to Haiti.

---

Contents
Drug Certification Requirements for FY1987-FY2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Congress Sets Certification Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Presidential Certifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Drug Designation Requirements for FY2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Congressional Reform Efforts Lead to One Year Waiver
and New Requirements in Foreign Operations Appropriations . . . . . . . 3
President Bush’s Designations under the Appropriations Act . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Drug Designation Requirements for FY2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Congress Establishes Permanent New Requirements
with Transitional Provisions for FY2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
President Bush’s Designations under Transition Rule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Drug Designation Requirements for
FY2004 and Thereafter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Regular Requirements for FY2004 and Thereafter under
the Foreign Relations Authorization Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
President Bush’s Designations for FY2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
List of Tables
Table 1. Comparison of Features of Sections 489-490 of
FAAct (Old Provisions) and Section 706 of Foreign
Relations Authorization (New Provisions) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Table 2. Majors List, FY1987-FY2003, Countries Determined
To Be Major Illicit Narcotics Producing and/or Transit Countries . . . . . . . 11
Table 3. Countries on Majors List, FY1987-FY2001,
That Failed to “Cooperate Fully,” and Were Decertified
or Given National Interest Certification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Table 4. Countries on Majors List, FY2002-FY2004,
That “Failed Demonstrably” and Were Subject to
Sanctions or Given Waivers in National Interest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Table 5. Majors List, FY2004 Countries Determined on
September 15th before Fiscal Year to be Major Illicit
Narcotics Producing and/or Transit Countries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

---

Drug Certification/Designation Procedures
for Illicit Narcotics Producing
and Transit Countries
This report provides a summary of the new congressionally-mandated
presidential designation procedures on illicit narcotics producing and trafficking
countries that are fully in effect for fiscal year 2004 and subsequent fiscal years. To
put the new procedures in perspective, it provides background on the past procedures,
presidential action under the procedures, congressional reform efforts, and the
transitional procedures in effect in fiscal years 2002 and 2003.1
Drug Certification Requirements
for FY1987-FY2001
Congress Sets Certification Requirements
In the mid-1980s, Congress became increasingly concerned that the Executive
was giving inadequate attention and effort to blocking and controlling foreign drug
trafficking. As a result, beginning with the Drug Abuse Act of 1986, Congress
required the President to certify that certain countries were cooperating fully with the
United States in counter-narcotics efforts in order to avoid the suspension of U.S.
foreign assistance. Sections 489-490 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as
amended, required the President to designate the major illicit drug producing and
drug transit countries by November 1 of each year. These sections further required
the President to withhold 50% of U.S. assistance for the designated countries for that
fiscal year until he certified by March 1 of each year that the countries had cooperated
fully with the United States in drug control efforts, or had taken adequate steps on
their own to achieve the goals and objectives of the 1988 United Nations Drug
Convention.2
1
This report draws upon material in CRS Report RL30892, Drug Certification
Requirements and Congressional Modifications in 2001-2002, by K. Larry Storrs, which
provides pros and cons and more detailed tracking of the various legislative proposals.
2 For more detail, see U.S. Department of State, Bureau for International Narcotics and Law
Enforcement Affairs, Fact Sheet: Majors List and the Certification Process, March 1, 2001;
and CRS Report 98-159, Narcotics Certification of Drug Producing and Trafficking
Nations: Questions and Answers, by Raphael F. Perl. There were some slight modifications
in the procedures in the 1986-2001 period. Earlier, Congress required reports on drug
producing and transit countries in 1981, and it gave the President the authority to suspend
assistance to non-cooperative countries in 1984.

---

CRS-2
In the event the President was unable to certify that a country was fully
cooperative, or to determine that a less-than-fully-cooperative country should be
given a certification in the national interest, certain sanctions applied to the countries
denied certification. Among the sanctions applied to decertified countries were the
following: (1) most foreign assistance and financing of military sales for the
decertified country were to be suspended, with the exception of counter-narcotics and
humanitarian aid; (2) U.S. representatives were required to vote against loans for the
country in the multilateral development banks; and (3) certain trade sanctions,
including increased tariffs and denial of preferential trade benefits, could be applied
at the President’s discretion. The imposed sanctions were to remain in force until the
country was subsequently certified.
The sanctions would also apply if Congress, within 30 calendar days, passed a
joint resolution of disapproval to overturn the presidential certification, thereby
decertifying a country. However, any such congressional resolution would be subject
to a presidential veto, and would require a two-thirds vote of both houses to override.
Moreover, Section 614 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended, gives the
President the authority to provide assistance to a country, notwithstanding other
provisions in the Act, if he determines and notifies Congress, that to do so is
important to the security interests of the United States.
Presidential Certifications
Acting under the congressionally imposed requirements, U.S. Presidents
regularly certified the vast majority of illicit drug producing and transit countries,
especially countries that were friendly to the United States and that were trading and
diplomatic partners. In a smaller portion of cases, where there were serious doubts
about the counter-narcotics efforts of trade and diplomatic partners, these countries
were given “national interest” waivers that freed them from sanctions on the grounds
that continued aid would facilitate better relations and encourage greater counter-
narcotics efforts.3 In general, the remaining countries that were denied certification
(or decertified) were pariah states, or states with which the United States had little
or no contact.
Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush decertified Iran, Syria, Burma
and Afghanistan, and gave “national interest” waivers to Lebanon. President Bush
decertified Panama in 1988 and 1989, just before and after the United States
intervened militarily to remove military ruler General Manuel Noriega from power
in part because of his involvement in drug trafficking activities. President William
Clinton, decertified Nigeria in 1994, while Bolivia and Peru were given waivers;
Colombia, Paraguay, and Pakistan were given waivers in 1995; and Colombia was
decertified in 1996 and 1997 on grounds that Colombia’s President had received
campaign contributions from drug traffickers.
This determination caused
considerable consternation in Bogota, and some disagreement in Congress. In 1997-
1999, there was criticism in Congress when the Administration removed Iran, Syria,
3
See Passing Judgement: The U.S. Drug Certification Process, Annenberg School for
Communication, University of Southern California, 1998, pp. 1-2.

---

CRS-3
and Lebanon from the list of major drug producing and transit countries, and when
North Korea was not included in the Majors List.4
In action relating to Mexico, which was often the center of attention despite
being fully certified each year, congressional resolutions to disapprove Mexico’s
certification were introduced in 1987, 1988, 1997, 1998, and 1999.5 Resolutions of
disapproval failed to reach floor action in most years, but both houses passed separate
versions of weakened resolutions of disapproval in 1997, and a Senate resolution of
disapproval reached the floor but was defeated in 1998. Responding to domestic and
international criticisms, measures to modify the drug certification requirements were
introduced but not enacted in 1997.6
On March 1, 2001, in the last presidential certifications under the old provisions,
President George W. Bush certified 20 of the 24 designated drug producing or transit
countries as fully cooperative in counter-narcotics efforts, and he granted national
interest certifications to Cambodia and Haiti. Only two countries — Afghanistan and
Burma — were decertified and subject to the sanctions.
President Bush’s
determinations were very similar to the determinations of President Clinton in the
previous year, except that Nigeria and Paraguay were elevated from national interest
waiver status to fully cooperative status. By the end of the 30-day period for
congressional review of presidential drug certifications, no resolutions of disapproval
had been introduced to disapprove President Bush’s certification of Mexico or any
other country.
Drug Designation Requirements for FY2002
Congressional Reform Efforts Lead to One Year Waiver
and New Requirements in Foreign Operations Appropriations
After more than a year of efforts to modify the drug certification requirements,
in December 2001 and January 2002, Congress passed and the President signed the
Foreign Operations Appropriations Act for FY2002 (P.L. 107-115) that contained a
temporary, one-year suspension of the drug certification procedures, along with new
requirements.
Following the July 2000 election of opposition candidate Vicente Fox as
President of Mexico, bills were introduced but not enacted to exempt Mexico from
the drug certification requirement in FY2001. However, the Senate did pass S. Res.
366 in October 2000, expressing the sense of the Senate that a one-year waiver was
4 See CRS Report 98-159 cited above.
5 For details on the certification process and an illustration of the possible consequences of
decertification of Mexico, see CRS Report RL30080, Mexico and Drug Certification in
1999: Consequences of Decertification, March 4, 1999, by K. Larry Storrs.
6 For more detail, see CRS Report 98-174, Mexican Drug Certification Issues: U.S.
Congressional Action, 1986-2001, by K. Larry Storrs.

---

CRS-4
warranted for Mexico so that the new presidents in Mexico and the United States
could develop more effective and cooperative counter-narcotics programs.
In late January 2001, Senator Dodd introduced S. 219 to suspend the existing
drug certification process for all countries for two years and encourage a high-level
conference to develop an effective multilateral strategy. In mid-February 2001,
Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison introduced S. 353 to exempt Mexico from the drug
certification requirement in FY2001 but require enhanced bilateral counter-narcotics
cooperation. About the same time, Senator Grassley and Senator DeWine introduced
S. 376 to modify the certification process for FY2002-FY2004 to require the
President to identify only those countries that are failing to cooperate fully with the
United States in drug control efforts.
In mid-February 2001, on the eve of President Bush’s visit with President Fox
in Mexico, the Senate passed S.Con.Res. 13 expressing the sense of the Congress that
the President should work with the President of Mexico to advance bilateral
cooperation. The measure urged the President to seek, among other things, “to
review the current illicit drug certification process, and should seek to be open to
consideration of other evaluation mechanisms that would promote increased
cooperation and effectiveness in combating the illicit drug trade.” During the joint
press conference following the meeting in Mexico, President Bush indicated that
there was a movement in Congress to review the drug certification requirements, and
he expressed confidence in President Fox’s efforts to combat drug trafficking.
In late February and early March, additional measures were introduced to
modify the existing drug certification procedures.
On February 27, 2001,
Representative Kolbe introduced H.R. 753 to exempt Mexico from the drug
certification requirements in FY2001. On March 1, 2001, Senators Boxer and
Gramm introduced S. 435 to provide that the drug certification procedures would not
apply to countries with which the United States has bilateral counter-narcotics
agreements; and Representative Reyes introduced H.R. 841 to suspend the
certification procedures for two years and encourage development of an effective
multilateral strategy.
On March 1, 2001, the same day that President Bush certified that Mexico was
cooperating fully with the United States in counter-narcotics areas, the Senate
Foreign Relations Committee held a hearing in which several of the proposed
modifications to the drug certification requirements were discussed. Then Assistant
Secretary of State for International Law Enforcement Affairs Rand Beers testified
that the certification process had been “an effective, if blunt, policy instrument,” but
he recognized a growing sense in Congress that there may be more effective
approaches. He added: “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

---

CRS-5
time. Future carve-outs may be appropriate, however, for regions where there is a
mutually acceptable and credible multilateral evaluative mechanism in place.”7
On April 3, 2001, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee reported out S. 219
with an amendment in the nature of a substitute, with elements from the various
proposals, that would suspend the existing drug certification procedures for three
years, require the President to designate only the worst offenders subject to sanctions,
and encourage a high-level conference to develop effective multilateral drug
reduction and prevention strategies.
On August 1, 2001, the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee approved S. 1401, the Foreign Relations Authorizations Act for
FY2002-FY2003, with the provisions of the previously reported S. 219 incorporated
as Sections 741-745 in Title VII, Subtitle D, Reform of Certification Procedures
Applicable to Certain Drug Producing or Trafficking Countries. The Committee
reported out S. 1401 (S.Rept. 107-60) on September 4, 2001, and the measure was
placed on the Senate Legislative Calendar, but not acted upon in 2001.
During President Fox’s official state visit to the United States on September 5-7,
2001, the Mexican President, in addressing a joint session of the U.S. Congress,
called upon Congress to pass legislation to suspend the drug certification
requirements as a gesture of trust and faith in the new government, arguing that “trust
requires that one partner not be judged unilaterally by the other.” Following the
Bush-Fox talks, the joint communique praised the growing law enforcement
cooperation between the countries, expressed support for the OAS’ multilateral
evaluation of counter-narcotics efforts, and noted President Bush’s commitment “to
work with the U.S. Congress, on a priority basis, to replace the annual counter-
narcotics certification regime with new measures designed to enhance international
cooperation in this area.”
In December 2001 and January 2002, Congress passed and the President signed
the Foreign Operations Appropriations Act for FY2002 (H.R. 2506/P.L. 107-115)
that contained a temporary, one-year waiver of the drug certification procedures on
a global basis for all major drug transit and drug producing countries. In place of the
old requirements, the legislation required the President to designate and withhold
assistance from the worst offending countries, namely the countries among the major
7 This was a reference to the Multilateral Evaluation Mechanism (MEM) developed by the
Inter-American Drug Abuse Control Commission (CICAD) of the Organization of American
States (OAS). Following up on the Hemispheric Anti-Drug Strategy of 1996 and the Plan
of Action of Summit of the Americas II (1998) in Santiago, Chile, the CICAD agreed upon
the Multilateral Evaluation Mechanism (MEM) in 1999, and a CICAD working group
developed a questionnaire with 61 indicators to which governments responded for the first
time in 2000. A Governmental Experts Group, made up of one representative from each
country, assessed achievements in 1999-2000 for all countries except their own country.
The resulting overview Hemispheric Report and the individual National Reports make
assessments and recommendations for future action. Critics argue that the reports are
preliminary, bland, and without any sanctions. Proponents argue that the reports make
important recommendations, that the MEM process will advance beyond the early efforts,
and that countries care about their performance under the agreed upon criteria. For more
detail on the CICAD and the MEM process, see the CICAD’s internet site at
[http://www.cicad.oas.org/en/mem/Main.htm].

---

CRS-6
illicit drug producing and trafficking countries that have “failed demonstrably,”
during the previous 12 months, to make substantial efforts to adhere to obligations
under international counter-narcotics agreements.
It provided, however, that
notwithstanding poor counter-narcotics performance, the President could waive the
sanctions and continue to provide assistance to the designated countries if he
determined and reported to Congress that the assistance to the countries was vital to
the national interests of the United States.
President Bush’s Designations under the Appropriations Act
Acting under the provisions of the Foreign Operations Appropriations Act for
FY2002, President Bush designated the countries with the worst counter-narcotics
records on February 23, 2002, having previously identified the major illicit drug
producing and drug transit countries in November 2001. He designated three
countries — Afghanistan, Burma, and Haiti — as having failed demonstrably within
the last 12 months to make substantial counter-narcotics efforts, but he granted
national interest waivers to Haiti and Afghanistan under the new regime.8 Shortly
thereafter, on March 1, 2002, the State Department issued the annual International
Narcotics Control Strategy Report, in accordance with a requirement that was not
changed, with descriptions of the counter-narcotics activities of illicit drug producing
and trafficking countries.9
Drug Designation Requirements for FY2003
Congress Establishes Permanent New Requirements
with Transitional Provisions for FY2003
Continuing the reform efforts of the previous years, in September 2002,
Congress passed and the President signed the Foreign Relations Authorization for
FY2003 (H.R. 1646/P.L. 107-228), with permanent new requirements in Section 706
of the Act dealing with International Drug Control Certification Procedures.
Drawing from S. 1401, mentioned above, the new procedures require the
President to make a report, not later than September 15 of each year (15 days before
the start of the fiscal year), identifying the major drug transit or major illicit drug
producing countries. At the same time, the President is required to designate any of
the named countries that has “failed demonstrably,” during the previous 12 months,
to make substantial efforts to adhere to international counter-narcotics agreements
8 See State Department Fact Sheet, Overview of Annual Presidential Determinations on
Major Illicit Drug Producing and Drug-Transit Countries, February 25, 2002 available on
line at [http://www.state.gov/g/inl/ris/fs/8480.htm] for information on the procedures and
the presidential action.
9 See the International Narcotics Control Strategy Report covering 2001, available online
at [http://www.state.gov/g/inl/rls/nrcrpt/2001/].

---

CRS-7
(defined in the legislation) and to take other counter-narcotics measures.10 U.S.
assistance would be withheld from any designated countries unless the President
determines that the provision of assistance to that country is vital to the national
interest of the United States, or that the designated country subsequently made
substantial counter-narcotics efforts. Notwithstanding the general suspension of the
previous drug certification and sanctions procedures, subsection 706(5)(B) of the Act
provides that the President may apply those procedures at his discretion. A transition
rule provided that for FY2003, the required report must be submitted at least 15 days
before foreign assistance funds are obligated or expended.
President Bush’s Designations under Transition Rule
Acting under the transition rule in Section 706 of the Foreign Relations
Authorization Act for FY2003 (P.L. 107-228), President Bush identified 23 countries
as major drug producing or transit countries 11 on January 31, 2003, four months into
the fiscal year, rather than the established date of September 15, before the start of
the fiscal year. As he identified the countries, he designated three countries —
Burma, Guatemala, and Haiti — as having “failed demonstrably” within the last 12
months to make substantial counter-narcotics efforts, but he granted national interest
waivers to Guatemala and Haiti on grounds that continued U.S. assistance to those
countries serves U.S. national interests. At the same time, the President expressed
concern about the amount of illegal synthetic drugs ( particularly ecstasy) entering
the United States from Europe (particularly the Netherlands), and the amount of
pseudoephedrine and high potency marijuana entering the United States from
Canada.12
By making the identifications and the designations at the time and the way that
he did, the President made clear, and it was so stated in a fact sheet on the FY2003
narcotics certification process, that he was not exercising his option to utilize the
procedures and standards of the old certification system.
Several months later, on March 1, 2003, the State Department issued the annual
International Narcotics Control Strategy Report, in accordance with a requirement
10 According to statements in the floor debate, September 15 was picked as a time just before
the start of the new fiscal year when the Congress could exercise oversight and take some
action if it was dissatisfied with the identifications and designations.
11 The countries identified as major illicit drug producing or transit countries were:
Afghanistan, Bahamas, Bolivia, Brazil, Burma, China, Colombia, Dominican Republic,
Ecuador, Guatemala, Haiti, India, Jamaica, Laos, Mexico, Nigeria, Pakistan, Panama,
Paraguay, Peru, Thailand, Venezuela, and Vietnam. In general, nations are identified as
major drug producing countries when a thousand hectares of illicit opium poppy or illicit
coca, or five thousand hectares of illicit cannabis are harvested or cultivated during a year.
Nations are identified as major drug transit countries when they are a significant direct
source of illicit drugs affecting the United States, or such drugs are transported through the
nation’s territory.
12 See the text of the presidential determination, the factsheet on the procedures, and the
briefing and explanation on the FY2003 narcotics certifications available online at the State
Department’s website at [http://www.state.gov/g/inl/narc/c8342.htm].

---

CRS-8
that was not changed by the legislation, with descriptions of the counter-narcotics
activities of illicit drug producing and trafficking countries.13
Drug Designation Requirements for
FY2004 and Thereafter
Regular Requirements for FY2004 and Thereafter under
the Foreign Relations Authorization Act
As indicated above, the Foreign Relations Authorization for FY2003 (P.L. 107-
228), established permanent new requirements in Section 706 of the Act dealing with
International Drug Control Certification Procedures.
The new procedures require the President to make a report, not later than
September 15 of each year, identifying the major illicit drug producing or transit
countries. At the same time he is required to designate any of the named countries
that has “failed demonstrably,” during the previous 12 months, to make substantial
efforts to adhere to international counter-narcotics agreements and to take other
counter-narcotics measures. U.S. assistance for the coming fiscal year would be
withheld from any designated countries unless the President determines that the
provision of assistance to that country is vital to the national interest of the United
States, or he determines that the designated country subsequently made substantial
counter-narcotics efforts. Notwithstanding the general suspension of the previous
drug certification and sanctions procedures, subsection 706(5)(B) of the Act provides
that the President may, at his discretion, apply the old procedures and the more
demanding standards of the previous legislation.
President Bush’s Designations for FY2004
Acting under Section 706 of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act for
FY2003 (P.L. 107-228), President Bush identified 23 countries as major drug
producing or transit countries 14 on the established date of September 15, 2003 — 15
days before the start of the new fiscal year as intended by Congress. The countries
named on the “majors list” were the same countries identified in the previous
determination. In keeping with the new procedures, among the countries on the
majors list, the President designated two countries — Burma and Haiti — as having
“failed demonstrably” within the last 12 months to make substantial counter-
narcotics efforts. However, Haiti was exempted from sanctions by a presidential
determination that continued U.S. assistance to Haiti advances U.S. national interests.
13
See the International Narcotics Control Strategy Report covering 2002 at
[http://www.state.gov/g/inl/rls/nrcrpt/2002/].
14 The countries identified as major illicit drug producing or transit countries were:
Afghanistan, Bahamas, Bolivia, Brazil, Burma, China, Colombia, Dominican Republic,
Ecuador, Guatemala, Haiti, India, Jamaica, Laos, Mexico, Nigeria, Pakistan, Panama,
Paraguay, Peru, Thailand, Venezuela, and Vietnam.

---

CRS-9
In the text of the presidential determination, the President expressed concern
about the flow of illegal synthetic drugs (particularly ecstasy) to the United States
from the Netherlands, the amounts of precursor chemicals for producing
methamphetamine as well as the amounts of high potency marijuana entering the
United States from Canada, and the involvement of North Korea in heroin and
methamphetamine traffic in East Asian countries. He indicated that the government
of Guatemala had more adequately met international counter-narcotics obligations
in the eight months since the last determination when it was listed as having failed
demonstrably, but he explicitly stated that further progress was expected in the
coming year.15
15 See the text of the presidential determination and the briefing on the FY2004 narcotics
certification determinations available online at the State Department’s website at
[http://www.state.gov/g/inl/narc/].

---

CRS-10
Table 1. Comparison of Features of
Sections 489-490 of FAAct (Old Provisions) and Section 706
of Foreign Relations Authorization (New Provisions)
Section 706 of
Sections 489-490 of
Features
Foreign Relations
FAAct of 1961
Authorization
Legal status of the legislation
Sections 489-490 are
Section 706 is permanent
permanent law
law with new requirements;
old provisions available to
President as an option
Naming of major illicit drug
Known as Majors List,
Required by Sept. 15,
producing and drug transit
required by November 1, four
same time as designation of
countries
months before certification
worst offenders.
International Narcotics
Required by March 1
Still required by March 1
Control Strategy Report
(INCSR) describing country
performance and U.S.
programs
Certification/Designation
Procedures:
a. Responsibility for
President
President
certification or designation
b. Congressional
Congressional review and
No congressional review of
review/reversal
disapproval of certification
determination, but
oversight available
c. Date of certification or
By March 1
By Sept. 15, at same time
designation
as designation of Majors
List
d. Country coverage of
All “major” countries must be
President to designate
certification or designation
certified as fully cooperative
worst offenders only.
to avoid sanctions
e. Period for evaluation
Previous Jan.-Dec. calendar
During the previous 12
year
months
f. Standards for certification
Country has fully cooperated
Designation of worst
or designation
with U.S., taken steps to
offenders which have failed
comply with U.N. Convention
demonstrably to meet
objectives, and engaged in
defined international
other cooperative measures
counter-narcotics
obligations
g. Effect of non-certification,
Withholding of U.S. assistance
Withholding of U.S.
or designation as worst
and sales financing, voting
assistance
offender
against country loans in
MDBs, and possible trade
sanctions
h. Presidential waiver
President may waive sanctions
President may waive
if in vital national interest of
sanctions if in vital national
United States
interest of United States
International counter-narcotics
Defined as compliance with
Defined as compliance with
cooperation
U.N. drug convention, and
U.N. drug convention, and
bilateral and multilateral
bilateral and multilateral
agreements
agreements, with key
features specified.
Table 1 compiled by K. Larry Storrs, Congressional Research Service.

---

CRS-11
Table 2. Majors List, FY1987-FY2003,
Countries Determined To Be Major Illicit Narcotics Producing and/or Transit Countries
Country
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
Afghanistan
Aruba
The
Bahamas
Belize
Bolivia
Brazil
Burma
Cambodia
China
Colombia
Dom Rep
Ecuador
Guatemala
Haiti
Hong Kong
India

---

CRS-12
Country
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
Iran
Jamaica
Laos
Lebanon
Malaysia
Mexico
Morocco
Nigeria
Pakistan
Panama
Paraguay
Peru
Syria
Taiwan
Thailand
Venezuela
Vietnam
Note: Prepared by K. Larry Storrs, with technical assistance from Nancy Shaffer and Sarah Mitchell, from International Narcotics Control Summary provided by the Department of State.
In nearly all cases, determinations were made on November 1 of each year.

---

CRS-13
Table 3. Countries on Majors List, FY1987-FY2001, That Failed to “Cooperate Fully,”
and Were Decertified or Given National Interest Certification
Country
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
Afghanistan
Iran
Syria
Panama
Laos
Lebanon
Burma
Bolivia
Nigeria
Peru
Colombia
Pakistan
Paraguay
Belize
Cambodia
Haiti
Legend:
Decertified.
National interest certification.
Note: Prepared by K. Larry Storrs, with technical support by T. Lisbeth, from International Narcotics Control Summary provided by the Department of State.
In nearly all cases, certifications were made on March 1 of each year.

---

CRS-14
Table 4. Countries on Majors List, FY2002-FY2004,
That “Failed Demonstrably” and Were Subject to Sanctions
or Given Waivers in National Interest
Country
2002
2003
2004
Afghanistan
Burma
Haiti
Guatemala
Legend:
Subject to sanctions.
National interest waiver.
Note: Prepared by K. Larry Storrs, with technical assistance from Nancy Shaffer and Sarah Mitchell,
from International Narcotics Control Summary provided by the Department of State, and the
FY2004 presidential determinations.
Determinations for FY2002 were made on February 23, 2002; for FY2003 were made on
January 31, 2003; and for FY2004 were made on September 15, 2003.

---

CRS-15
Table 5. Majors List, FY2004
Countries Determined on September 15th before Fiscal Year
to be Major Illicit Narcotics Producing and/or Transit Countries
Country
2004
2005
Afghanistan
Bahamas
Bolivia
Brazil
Burma
China
Colombia
Dominican Republic
Ecuador
Guatemala
Haiti
India
Jamaica
Laos
Mexico
Nigeria
Pakistan
Panama
Paraguay
Peru
Thailand
Venezuela
Vietnam

---