May 11 (Bloomberg) -- The Bush administration, taking a strategy from previous presidents, is increasingly making national security the focus of its argument for the U.S.-Central American Free Trade Agreement to sway lawmakers who remain unconvinced of the accord's economic promises.

Cafta, a December 2003 accord that was to be a centerpiece of President George W. Bush's trade agenda, has been blocked by lawmakers because of concern about a widening trade deficit, potential job losses in the U.S. sugar and textile industries and a lack of labor protections for Central American workers.

In an attempt to break the 16-month stalemate, President George W. Bush brought Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice into the debate last week, arguing Cafta is necessary to political and economic freedom in Latin America. Rice's deputy, Robert Zoellick, plans to devote a speech next week to the foreign policy aspects of engaging the Cafta nations -- Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Nicaragua.

``These are countries that just 10 or 15 years ago were in chaos,'' said former Defense Secretary William Cohen, who served under President Bill Clinton and is now chief executive of the Cohen Group, a consulting firm in Washington. ``The roots of democracy are not deep and their economies need to grow. In our own backyard we might have a breeding ground for terrorists.''

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who traveled to Guatemala in March, is scheduled to meet with the presidents of the six Cafta-region nations today. Those leaders are scheduled to meet later with Republican Henry Hyde, chairman of the House International Relations Committee, and Harold Rogers, chairman of the House Appropriations subcommittee on Homeland Security.

``The idea is to convey the message that this is about more than just trade,'' Honduran Ambassador Mario Canahuati said in a telephone interview from Miami, where he was accompanying his president, Oscar Berger, May 8.

A Political Agreement

Cafta would immediately end duties on as much as 80 percent of the $15 billion in U.S. exports to the region. When Bush announced in January 2002 plans to pursue the trade agreement, he said he wanted the deal partly to secure democracy and development in a region wracked by civil war, drugs and economic stagnation over the past two decades.

In recent months, the administration had chosen to focus more on Cafta's benefits for expanding U.S. trade and cutting costs for domestic producers, leaving Bush's commerce secretary and trade representative to do most of the salesmanship.

U.S. Trade Representative Rob Portman yesterday indicated he is now embracing the diplomatic advantages of promoting the national security benefits of Cafta.

``I don't think it's our trump card, but it's clearly a very important part of the agreement,'' Portman told reporters in Washington. The Central American leaders ``look at this as an economic agreement, but also as a political agreement.''

Bush's Strong Suit

The Clinton administration used the national security issue to help with passage of the 1994 North American Free Trade Agreement, secure the Uruguay Round agreement that would establish the World Trade Organization in 1995, and prepare the foundation for China's entry into the WTO in 2001, analysts say.

``In the early part of a trade debate, there are these technical arguments about sugar or textiles, but as you move closer to the vote, proponents always move to the national security argument,'' said Richard Feinberg, the former director of the National Security Council's Inter-American Affairs office under Clinton. ``It's the executive branch's strong suit.''

The six Cafta presidents will wrap up their visit tomorrow with a stop at the White House to meet with Bush.

`Opponents of Democracy'

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce predicts U.S. sales to the region could expand by more than $3 billion in the first year, and the American Farm Bureau estimates that agriculture exports could grow by $1.5 billion a year.

Proponents say the agreement is about more than just trade, because it will lock in protections for private investors and secure rule-making necessary for economic development in a region with per capita income of less than one-tenth of the U.S.

``Cafta is vital to the Central American economy, which is in trouble,'' Senator John McCain, an Arizona Republican and a former Commerce Committee chairman, told reporters yesterday.

U.S. Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez denounced opponents of Cafta in Central America, arguing that they are political parties formed out of the anti-American leftist groups of the 1980s; the Sandinistas in Nicaragua and the Frente Farabundo Marti para la Liberacion Nacional, or FMLN, in El Salvador.

``The opponents of Cafta are the same opponents of democracy and freedom of 20 years ago,'' Gutierrez told a Council of the Americas meeting in New York on May 3.

The FMLN and Sandinistas are ``legitimate political parties operating in a legitimate political system,'' said Geoff Thale, an analyst at the Washington Office on Latin America, a human rights group. ``It's one thing to disagree with them, but to say they are opponents of freedom and democracy is outrageous.''

Period of Engagement

If Cafta is voted down, it would be a blow to pro-U.S. political elites in Central America that could lead to a backlash against the economic and political policies supported by Washington, Feinberg said.

A defeat ``would shake to the roots their legitimacy within those countries,'' he said, and potentially bolster political groups the U.S. sought to eliminate in the 1980s.

Diplomats including Feinberg, former Secretary of State Warren Christopher, Clinton's special envoy to the Americas, Thomas McLarty, and President Jimmy Carter's trade representative Robert Strauss sent a letter to Congress on April 20 urging passage of Cafta.

Cafta ``will reinforce democratic processes and rule of law in Central America,'' the letter read. ``This emphasis is timely, because opponents of democracy are increasingly active.''

`A Kick in the Teeth''

In addition to the tariff limits, Cafta would protect companies that invest overseas by setting up a system for them to appeal disputes with local officials.

Still, lawmakers haven't been convinced. Four leaders of the so-called New Democrats group in the House of Representatives, who typically support the expansion of trade, came out against Cafta last week, and House minority leader Nancy Pelosi predicted other Democrats would unite in opposition.

Republican Senator Conrad Burns of Montana said last month there didn't appear to be enough support to even bring Cafta to a vote in the Senate, while Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid of Nevada predicted a vote on Cafta would ultimately fail.

Some of the opponents could be swung over to Cafta if they are convinced that cutting tariffs is needed to keep the region safe and keep illegal immigrants out of the U.S., supporters say.

``If Congress defeats Cafta that will be seen as a kick in the teeth to Latin America,'' said John Murphy, vice president for Latin America at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. ``And that will harm not just on trade but anti-terrorist and anti-narcotic efforts.''

To contact the reporters on this story: Mark Drajem in Washington at mdrajem@bloomberg.net

Last Updated: May 11, 2005 00:26 EDT