Bush Administration So Badly Wants CAFTA, It Quashed Study Disputing Talking Points

When a government report on working conditions in Central America disagreed with official Bush Administration talking points, the administration was faced with a tough choice.

Should it re-evaluate its talking points, even if it hurt the proposed Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA)? Or should it squash the report, discredit its findings and push forward with the agreement — facts be damned.

If you're a regular reader of JABBS, you already know the answer. This administration has never let the facts get in the way of a good talking point.

***

The Labor Department hired International Labor Rights Fund (ILRF) in 2002 to report on working conditions in Central America. ILRF concluded that countries proposed for free-trade status have poor working environments and fail to protect workers' rights.

"In practice, labor laws on the books in Central America are not sufficient to deter employers from violations, as actual sanctions for violations of the law are weak or nonexistent," the ILRF concluded.

But that didn't fit in with the official White House spin. So the Labor Department kept the reports a secret for more than a year, and when they became known, dismissed the conclusions as inaccurate and biased.

The Senate Finance Committee, which approved the agreement by a voice vote June 29, sent it to the full Senate for consideration today. The committee was not given full access to the final version of the ILRF reports.

***

According to the Associated Press, beginning in the spring of 2004, the department moved to block public release of reports for the countries covered by CAFTA — Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua and the Dominican Republic.

ILRF briefly posted its reports on its Internet site, before the department instructed it to remove the reports, ordered it to retrieve paper copies before they became public, banned release of new information from the reports, and even told the contractor it could not discuss the studies with outsiders.

Continued on the next page Page 1 — Page 2

Article tags

Spread the word
Bookmark and Share
Read comments on this article, and add some feedback of your own

Article comments

  • 1 - Randy Kirk

    Jul 01, 2005 at 12:59 am

    If what you're saying is true, it is sad. However, I assume that you and your source are against the extension of the free trade agreement to Central America. That's a shame, because the benefits to Mexico are incredible. My Mexican employees are giving me reports when they vacation in their hometowns of an economy on the roll.

    As there economy improves it provides consumers for the items we make and for our service providers. It also reduces the need for Illegal crossings. Lets get the whole world up to our standard of living or close. That will help everybody.

    I feel bad for those who work in less than ideal conditions. But if you ask some of them, you'll find that they are thrilled to have a job, and commonly the working conditions are better than their last job, and the improvement in their standard of living gives them a double win.

  • 2 - David R. Mark

    Jul 01, 2005 at 11:14 am

    I have not offered an opinion on CAFTA.

    My source is the Associated Press, which I assume also has no opinion on CAFTA.

    My only beef, as stated, is the Bush Administration propagandizing, again, to get its way.

Add your comment, speak your mind

Personal attacks are NOT allowed.
Please read our comment policy.
Please preview your comment.

blogcritics lists for Nov 30, 2009

fresh articles Most recent articles site-wide

fresh comments Most recent comments site-wide

most comments Most comments in 24hrs

top writers Most prolific Blogcritics for October

top commenters Most prolific Commenters in 24 hrs