U.S. officials say they have not been able to stop the smuggling of drugs at the country's borders. The drug traffickers can pick and choose their places, times, and methods of entry to thwart interdiction. There are always more drugs, more transports, and more couriers for the drug suppliers.

The United States in recent years has been focusing its international narcotics control efforts against targets that have the greatest impact -- the crops, the criminals involved, and the corrupt governments that allow this illicit commerce to continue unchecked. The United States is also working through diplomatic channels to encourage governments that lack the "political will" to make anti-drug efforts a priority.

Officials in the State Department's Bureau for International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs (INL) argue that the U.S. approach is not the easiest but the "most effective." They made their comments in a background interview with the United States Information Agency.

"We have embarked on a much more courageous policy than in the past," an official emphasized. "We are going after the most critical targets in this trade, not the easiest targets." Besides targeting the crops, he asserted that the United States "wants to destroy the ability of the top-level traffickers to operate with impunity."

He observed that "politically it is very hard to get some governments to go after these targets, but if you can attack them then you stand a much better chance of undermining and reducing the drug trade."

The United States has become more willing to expose corruption in governments that permit drug trafficking. "The administration has made narcotics corruption a fundamental issue in our bilateral relations with many of these key supply countries," he said.

U.S. officials have been working for many years to build up the ability of countries to respond to drug problems. "But an effective response requires both the ability of a government to do something and their willingness to act. You have to have both elements," according to the INL official.

He said the United States in the past had hoped that action would follow the ability of governments to respond to narcotics problems. "But increasingly, we are putting more effort at getting these governments to have the will, to apply the ability that we've been working to build up."

The official emphasized that the United States continues to place primary emphasis on reducing the use of drugs in the United States. But without an effort to curb supplies, the flow of drugs into the United States would overwhelm any demand reduction efforts.

In the past five years, an official said, the narcotics trade has been clearly defined as a national security threat to the United States. Previously, drugs was a law enforcement problem, addressed by traditional law enforcement means. As a national security threat, the Clinton administration has involved a wide range of government agencies to address the issues of drug trafficking.

Two factors, the officials said, give drugs a national security status. First, most of the illicit drugs in the United States are produced elsewhere. The United States wants to reduce production and trafficking abroad "to give our domestic demand reduction programs a better chance of succeeding," one of the officials stressed.

Second, narcotics production and trafficking abroad is more and more a threat to governments and economies that are important to the United States. "We want to prevent drug trafficking organizations from becoming so powerful that they, in effect, destroy governments that we deal with," the official said.

One diplomatic tool has been the annual determination by the U.S. President of countries that are major illicit drug-producing or transit countries. This list now includes Colombia, which is a friend and ally of the United States. The other countries on the list are Afghanistan, Burma, Iran, Nigeria, and Syria.

By law, the President groups countries into three categories:

• Countries or territories that have cooperated fully with the United States in bilateral or multilateral anti-drug agreements, or have taken adequate steps on their own to achieve full compliance with the goals and objectives of the 1988 United Nations Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances.

• Countries that do not meet the standard for cooperation with the U.S. and compliance with the UN convention, but it would be in the "national interest" of the United States to certify that they have met the standards. This designation waives penalties because of overriding security interests at the time.

• Countries that do not meet the standards for certification. U.S. law calls for most foreign assistance to be stopped to nations in this category. And by law, the United States is required to vote against multilateral development bank lending to these countries.

The official said that the stricter standards "have sent a very strong signal that we take the international problem more seriously, and we are going to hold foreign countries increasingly accountable for their own performance."

He said the results of this effort have brought about intensified efforts by nations to improve their anti-drug record. Countries not certified or given a waiver want to improve their standing and international image, and some countries act because they are worried that they might be denied certification.

"In response to adverse world opinion, we've seen most countries take more effective, more aggressive counter-narcotic efforts," the official said. "The certification process has become a very effective tool."

Those nations demonstrating a commitment to deal with the drug problem have received help from U.S. agencies, particularly in the destruction of drug crops.

"We have more and more countries accepting the concept of drug crop controls, especially in Central and South America," a U.S. official said.

The administrations's emphasis on crop reduction is more effective and less costly than broad, constantly expanding interdiction operations, he said. "Interdiction takes more money and technology. We had to defend all places at all times and in the end interdiction is not going to have a long-term effect.

"Unchecked production would make up for the seized drugs and interdiction could not attack the growing power of drug lords," he continued.

Cocaine has three major source countries -- Colombia, Bolivia, and Peru. The opium plant, which is the basis for heroin, is produced across the globe and involves many more criminal groups than cocaine does.

An official noted that many countries remain reluctant to go after the drug trade. "They see drugs as a consumer-driven product used mainly in the United States and Western Europe." He said that international cooperation against drug trafficking has made slow progress.

"For the most part, it is still the United States leading the effort," he said.

Ed Scherr writes on narcotics and other global issues for the U.S. Information Agency.