VZCZCXYZ0000
OO RUEHWEB

DE RUEHBU #0047/01 0152004
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
O 152004Z JAN 09
FM AMEMBASSY BUENOS AIRES
TO RUEHC/DEPT OF LABOR WASHINGTON DC IMMEDIATE
INFO RUEHNT/AMEMBASSY TASHKENT 0001
RUEHTG/AMEMBASSY TEGUCIGALPA 0021
RUEHUM/AMEMBASSY ULAANBAATAR 0010
RUEHYD/AMEMBASSY YAOUNDE 0020

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 BUENOS AIRES 000047 
 
SENSITIVE 
SIPDIS 
 
STATE FOR G, P, DRL AND WHA 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: ELAB PHUM EAGR EIND ETRD AR
SUBJECT: SERIOUS CONCERNS ABOUT DOL'S DRAFT LIST OF GOODS 
PRODUCED BY CHILD LABOR OR FORCED LABOR IN ARGENTINA 
 
REF: (A) STATE 1730 (B) BEIJING 0100 (C) 08 BUENOS 
     AIRES 0786 
 
BUENOS AIR 00000047  001.5 OF 002 
 
 
¶1. (SBU) Embassy Buenos Aires appreciates the opportunity to 
comment on the Department of Labor's draft list of goods from 
countries that DOL has reason to believe are produced by 
forced labor or child labor in violation of international 
standards.  However, post requests that the Argentine goods 
listed (ref A) be withdrawn from DOL's draft list until post 
and the State Department have the opportunity to review the 
information DOL used to produce this list.  Other than the 
incidence of forced labor in the garment industry reported 
ref C, post is not aware of corroborated information 
regarding the use of child or forced labor in the production 
of the Argentine goods identified in ref A.  Further, we 
believe issuing an uncorroborated list would greatly 
undermine the credibility of the USG's efforts and harm our 
ability to work effectively to counter forced and child labor 
in Argentina. 
 
¶2. (SBU) According to the procedural guidelines published in 
the Federal Register on December 27, 2007, DOL is to consider 
the extent of corroboration from various sources and whether 
the information indicates a "significant incidence" of child 
labor, forced labor, or forced child labor in the production 
of the good.  Ref A, however, requests "information that 
clearly demonstrates that child labor or forced labor is not 
or is no longer used in the production" of certain goods in 
Argentina.  We note that ref A is asking us to prove a 
negative, when the procedural guidelines in the Federal 
Register indicate that the burden of proof lies with those 
who claim that there is a significant incidence of forced 
and/or child labor in the production of a certain good. 
 
¶3. (SBU) In ref C, post said "some companies in Argentina's 
apparel industry appear to use forced and child labor in 
their production chain" but that it was "difficult to 
ascertain the extent of the problem, as reliable statistics 
do not exist."  In addition to the problems in the apparel 
industry, we noted that "There have been a number of isolated 
reports of forced and/or child labor in small scale 
cultivation of the following goods: sugar, cotton, tobacco, 
poultry, tomatoes, strawberries, flowers, sugar, grapes and 
lemons."  With respect to these other goods, however, ref C 
noted that post "has limited data on the extent of the 
problem but believes it merits further research." 
 
¶4. (SBU) The Department of Labor on December 29 informed the 
GOA that Argentina had been included as one of eight 
countries to be studied in a DOL-funded research project on 
the use of forced labor in the production of goods, and we 
were told that in Argentina's case the research will focus on 
the garment industry.  In informing the GOA about Argentina's 
inclusion in this research project, we made the point that 
there is a dearth of information about the problem.  Having 
acknowledged our lack of data about the extent of the problem 
here, we will appear willfully reckless if we go ahead with 
publication of this list. 
 
¶5. (SBU) Conceptually, DOL's draft list suffers from a 
vagueness that belies indifference or a lack of intellectual 
vigor and honesty.  Given the seriousness of the charges, the 
lack of specificity suggests a bureaucratic indifference that 
could be taken for a lack of commitment to combat child labor 
and forced labor or as another case of unfounded U.S. 
"hectoring" of others.  The broad-brush slandering of entire 
industries and countries will lead to the misuse and abuse of 
this list and actually be counter-productive to our efforts 
to build international and local coalitions to combat and 
eliminate forced and child labor.  (In this connection, 
Country Team members, based on their experiences around the 
world, wonder if the list's credibility is undermined by the 
omissions of certain countries where they have seen child or 
forced labor.  We may be off base here, but if others share 
this perception, it would draw into question the objectivity 
and thoroughness of the methodology used to prepare the 
list.) 
 
¶6. (SBU) This list as currently drafted puts the USG in the 
position of making very serious allegations without providing 
evidence.  If it is ultimately determined that there is a 
significant incidence of child labor in the production of 
these Argentine goods, post needs to be fully prepared to 
explain and justify the determinations.  In particular, post 
requests DOL share the extent to which the information about 
the "significant incidence" of child labor/forced labor in 
 
BUENOS AIR 00000047  002.2 OF 002 
 
 
the production of a good(s) is corroborated by other sources. 
 We are enthusiastic about working to eliminate these 
practices, but we want to do so with good evidence and in 
ways that will empower and attract local allies to the effort. 
 
¶7. (SBU) Post believes it is imperative that this list not be 
published until a credible and defensible basis for these 
allegations is documented.  If the list is not 
well-documented, it runs the risk of being misused and 
abused.  It also greatly increases the likelihood that the 
list will be rejected by host government officials, even 
those committed to eliminating forced and child labor.  We 
doubt that such was the intention behind Congressional 
passage of the U.S. legislation.  In Argentina, we have made 
great progress in building a coalitin to fight TIP, 
including for forced labor, and have achieved increased GOA 
cooperation in this effort.  Carelessness in the publication 
of this list will harm our anti-TIP efforts.  We urge careful 
consideration of the evidence used to draft this list, 
because any allegation for which we cannot provide convincing 
evidence will set us back with the GOA and the Argentine 
public. 
 
¶8. (SBU) We look forward to hearing views of other posts.  If 
we are to be successful in further reducing forced and child 
labor, we must be credible in the allegations we make. 
 
WAYNE