This argument got a lot of traction last week, and not just in Bishop's office. Even the Washington Post, which hardly has a right-wing, 1950s type editorial page, supported CAFTA because, "In the past few years. . . an attempt has been made to revive the political challenge once represented by (Fidel) Castro."

This challenge comes largely from Venezuela's Hugo Chavez, who has been emboldened by his country's oil riches. "Mr. Chavez has spread his money around the region, sponsoring anti-American and anti-democratic movements and promoting alternatives to U.S. initiatives."

Bishop has had ambassadors from the region into his office, as well as members of the Nicaraguan Cabinet. They all say the same thing. CAFTA would help freedom, and it would help them beat back the leftist forces that claim the United States is untrustworthy and only interested in enriching itself.

I take issue with only one part of Bishop's argument. That is the one that says Utah won't be affected at all by CAFTA. Anything that could dent the illegal immigration problem in this state is worth considering, and at least a part of that problem stems from Central America.

The Washington Post claims the agreement will "create 300,000 new jobs in shoes, textiles and apparel; it would create a new mechanism for enforcing labor rights; and. . . the vast majority of poor families in the region would gain from the deal."

But groups opposed to the pact say just the opposite, that large corporations will destroy local economies and take away self-rule. That is the legacy of NAFTA, they say.

Given the vote this week, we'd better all hope that Bishop, as well as the rest of Utah's congressional delegation, which also voted for it, were right.

---

Jay Evensen is editorial page editor of the Deseret Morning News. E-mail: even@desnews.com