CAFTA would be good for all

Generally, when Hollywood executives strongly favor something, it ought to be a signal to be skeptical. But not so with the Central American Free Trade Agreement, or CAFTA.

Hollywood, despite its bent toward the left side of the Democratic Party, supports CAFTA because it would make it easier to stem the piracy of intellectual property. In other words, it would make it harder to illegally copy movies and other entertainment.

But there are many other, more important reasons why the House should pass this trade agreement when it comes up for a vote either today or tomorrow. The most important of these has to do with the stability of the region. There is a good reason why Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez and others like them are fighting so hard against the pact among their Latin neighbors. If it passes, CAFTA would result in jobs and, by extension, an increase in freedoms and confidence in the fruits of capitalism. That, in turn, would mean a decrease in illegal immigration into the United States.

If it fails, the results could be disastrous.

The six nations of Central America that are involved in the pact — Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua and the Dominican Republic — don't mean that much to the United States economically. Together, they do about as much trade with the United States as a small European country. However, their stability is vital to the security of the United States.

If CAFTA fails, those countries may easily move further away from freedom. In addition, worldwide textile markets would likely shift their focus to China, instead. According to a Scripps Howard News Service account, the National Association of Manufacturers believes that shift could cost 411,000 jobs within the six Central American countries.

It also would signal that the United States is more interested in protecting its own industries than in opening unrestricted trade with other nations of the world. The chief opposition to CAFTA comes from the sugar and textile industries, which want Congress to provide special protections for their workers at the expense of lower prices and stronger competition.

Most Democrats and a handful of Republicans in the House appear to oppose the deal under the guise that it wouldn't offer enough protections for Central American workers, which is a bit ironic. Offering those workers unemployment won't help them, either. And a surge in U.S. protectionism would do nothing but harm this nation in the long run. Even self-possessed Hollywood can understand that.