Keep Us Strong WikiLeaks logo

Currently released so far... 97115 / 251,287

Articles

Browse latest releases

Browse by creation date

Browse by origin

A B C D F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W Y Z

Browse by tag

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z
ETRD EAGR ETTC EAID ECON EFIN ECIN EINV ELAB EAIR ENRG EPET EWWT ECPS EIND EMIN ELTN EC ETMIN EUC EZ ET ELECTIONS ENVR EU EUN EG EINT ER ECONOMICS ES EMS ENIV EEB EN ECE ECOSOC EK ENVIRONMENT EFIS EI EWT ENGRD ECPSN EXIM EIAD ERIN ECPC EDEV ENGY ECTRD EPA ESTH ECCT EINVECON ENGR ERTD EUR EAP EWWC ELTD EL EXIMOPIC EXTERNAL ETRDEC ESCAP ECO EGAD ELNT ECONOMIC ENV ETRN EIAR EUMEM ENRGPARMOTRASENVKGHGPGOVECONTSPLEAID EREL ECOM ECONETRDEAGRJA ETCC ETRG ECONOMY EMED ETR ENERG EITC EFINOECD EURM EENG ERA EXPORT ENRD ECONEINVETRDEFINELABETRDKTDBPGOVOPIC EGEN EBRD EVIN ETRAD ECOWAS EFTA ECONETRDBESPAR EGOVSY EPIN EID ECONENRG EDRC ESENV ETT EB ENER ELTNSNAR ECHEVARRIA ETRC EPIT EDUC ESA EFI ENRGY ESCI EE EAIDXMXAXBXFFR EETC ECIP EIAID EIVN EBEXP ESTN EING EGOV ETRA EPETEIND ELAN ETRDGK EAIDRW ETRDEINVECINPGOVCS EPEC ENVI ELN EAG EPCS EPRT EPTED ETRB EUM EAIDS EFIC EFINECONEAIDUNGAGM EAIDAR ESF EIDN ELAM EDU EV EAIDAF ECN EDA EXBS EINTECPS ENRGTRGYETRDBEXPBTIOSZ EPREL EAC EINVEFIN ETA EAGER EINDIR ECA ECLAC ELAP EITI EUCOM ECONEFINETRDPGOVEAGRPTERKTFNKCRMEAID EARG ELDIN EINVKSCA ENNP EFINECONCS EFINTS ECCP ETC EAIRASECCASCID EINN ETRP EAIDNI EFQ ECOQKPKO EGPHUM EBUD ECONEINVEFINPGOVIZ ENERGY ELB EINDETRD EMI ECONEFIN EIB EURN ETRDEINVTINTCS EIN EFIM ETIO ELAINE EMN EATO EWTR EIPR EINVETC ETTD ETDR EIQ ECONCS EPPD ENRGIZ EISL ESPINOSA ELEC EAIG ESLCO EUREM ENTG ERD EINVECONSENVCSJA EEPET EUNCH ECINECONCS ETRO ETRDECONWTOCS ECUN EFND EPECO EAIRECONRP ERGR ETRDPGOV ECPN ENRGMO EPWR EET EAIS EAGRE EDUARDO EAGRRP EAIDPHUMPRELUG EICN ECONQH EVN EGHG ELBR EINF EAIDHO EENV ETEX ERNG ED
KMDR KPAO KPKO KJUS KCRM KGHG KFRD KWMN KDEM KTFN KHIV KGIC KIDE KSCA KNNP KHUM KIPR KSUM KISL KIRF KCOR KRCM KPAL KWBG KN KS KOMC KSEP KFLU KPWR KTIA KSEO KMPI KHLS KICC KSTH KMCA KVPR KPRM KE KU KZ KFLO KSAF KTIP KTEX KBCT KOCI KOLY KOR KAWC KACT KUNR KTDB KSTC KLIG KSKN KNN KCFE KCIP KGHA KHDP KPOW KUNC KDRL KV KPREL KCRS KPOL KRVC KRIM KGIT KWIR KT KIRC KOMO KRFD KUWAIT KG KFIN KSCI KTFIN KFTN KGOV KPRV KSAC KGIV KCRIM KPIR KSOC KBIO KW KGLB KMWN KPO KFSC KSEAO KSTCPL KSI KPRP KREC KFPC KUNH KCSA KMRS KNDP KR KICCPUR KPPAO KCSY KTBT KCIS KNEP KFRDCVISCMGTCASCKOCIASECPHUMSMIGEG KNNB KGCC KINR KPOP KMFO KENV KNAR KVIR KDRG KDMR KFCE KNAO KDEN KGCN KICA KIMMITT KMCC KLFU KMSG KSEC KUM KCUL KMNP KSMT KCOM KOMCSG KSPR KPMI KRAD KIND KCRP KAUST KWAWC KTER KCHG KRDP KPAS KITA KTSC KPAOPREL KWGB KIRP KJUST KMIG KLAB KTFR KSEI KSTT KAPO KSTS KLSO KWNN KPOA KHSA KNPP KPAONZ KBTS KWWW KY KJRE KPAOKMDRKE KCRCM KSCS KWMNCI KESO KWUN KPLS KIIP KEDEM KPAOY KRIF KGICKS KREF KTRD KFRDSOCIRO KTAO KJU KWMNPHUMPRELKPAOZW KEN KO KNEI KEMR KKIV KEAI KWAC KRCIM KWCI KFIU KWIC KCORR KOMS KNNO KPAI KBWG KTTB KTBD KTIALG KILS KFEM KTDM KESS KNUC KPA KOMCCO KCEM KRCS KWBGSY KNPPIS KNNPMNUC KWN KERG KLTN KALM KCCP KSUMPHUM KREL KGH KLIP KTLA KAWK KWMM KVRP KVRC KAID KSLG KDEMK KX KIF KNPR KCFC KFTFN KTFM KPDD KCERS KMOC KDEMAF KMEPI KEMS KDRM KEPREL KBTR KEDU KNP KIRL KNNR KMPT KISLPINR KTPN KA KJUSTH KPIN KDEV KTDD KAKA KFRP KWNM KTSD KINL KJUSKUNR KWWMN KECF KWBC KPRO KVBL KOM KFRDKIRFCVISCMGTKOCIASECPHUMSMIGEG KEDM KFLD KLPM KRGY KNNF KICR KIFR KM KWMNCS KAWS KLAP KPAK KDDG KCGC KID KNSD KMPF KPFO KDP KCMR KRMS KNPT KNNNP KTIAPARM KDTB KNUP KPGOV KNAP KNNC KUK KSRE KREISLER KIVP KQ KTIAEUN KPALAOIS KRM KISLAO KWM KFLOA
PHUM PINR PTER PGOV PREL PREF PL PM PHSA PE PARM PINS PK PUNE PO PALESTINIAN PU PBTS PROP PTBS POL POLI PA PGOVZI POLMIL POLITICAL PARTIES POLM PD POLITICS POLICY PAS PMIL PINT PNAT PV PKO PPOL PERSONS PING PBIO PH PETR PARMS PRES PCON PETERS PRELBR PT PLAB PP PAK PDEM PKPA PSOCI PF PLO PTERM PJUS PSOE PELOSI PROPERTY PGOVPREL PARP PRL PNIR PHUMKPAL PG PREZ PGIC PBOV PAO PKK PROV PHSAK PHUMPREL PROTECTION PGOVBL PSI PRELPK PGOVENRG PUM PRELKPKO PATTY PSOC PRIVATIZATION PRELSP PGOVEAIDUKNOSWGMHUCANLLHFRSPITNZ PMIG PREC PAIGH PROG PSHA PARK PETER POG PHUS PPREL PS PTERPREL PRELPGOV POV PKPO PGOVECON POUS PGOVPRELPHUMPREFSMIGELABEAIDKCRMKWMN PWBG PMAR PREM PAR PNR PRELPGOVEAIDECONEINVBEXPSCULOIIPBTIO PARMIR PGOVGM PHUH PARTM PN PRE PTE PY POLUN PPEL PDOV PGOVSOCI PIRF PGOVPM PBST PRELEVU PGOR PBTSRU PRM PRELKPAOIZ PGVO PERL PGOC PAGR PMIN PHUMR PVIP PPD PGV PRAM PINL PKPAL PTERE PGOF PINO PHAS PODC PRHUM PHUMA PREO PPA PEPFAR PGO PRGOV PAC PRESL PORG PKFK PEPR PRELP PREFA PNG PGOVPHUMKPAO PRELECON PINOCHET PFOR PGOVLO PHUMBA PRELC PREK PHUME PHJM POLINT PGOVPZ PGOVKCRM PGOVE PHALANAGE PARTY PECON PEACE PROCESS PLN PRELSW PAHO PEDRO PRELA PASS PPAO PGPV PNUM PCUL PGGV PSA PGOVSMIGKCRMKWMNPHUMCVISKFRDCA PGIV PRFE POGOV PEL PBT PAMQ PINF PSEPC POSTS PHUMPGOV PVOV PHSAPREL PROLIFERATION PENA PRELTBIOBA PIN PRELL PGOVPTER PHAM PHYTRP PTEL PTERPGOV PHARM PROTESTS PRELAF PKBL PRELKPAO PKNP PARMP PHUML PFOV PERM PUOS PRELGOV PHUMPTER PARAGRAPH PERURENA PBTSEWWT PCI PETROL PINSO PINSCE PQL PEREZ PBS

Browse by classification

Community resources

courage is contagious

Viewing cable 04QUITO3260, ECUADOR SPLIT ON SUPPORT OF FREE TRADE AGREEMENT

If you are new to these pages, please read an introduction on the structure of a cable as well as how to discuss them with others. See also the FAQs

Understanding cables
Every cable message consists of three parts:
  • The top box shows each cables unique reference number, when and by whom it originally was sent, and what its initial classification was.
  • The middle box contains the header information that is associated with the cable. It includes information about the receiver(s) as well as a general subject.
  • The bottom box presents the body of the cable. The opening can contain a more specific subject, references to other cables (browse by origin to find them) or additional comment. This is followed by the main contents of the cable: a summary, a collection of specific topics and a comment section.
To understand the justification used for the classification of each cable, please use this WikiSource article as reference.

Discussing cables
If you find meaningful or important information in a cable, please link directly to its unique reference number. Linking to a specific paragraph in the body of a cable is also possible by copying the appropriate link (to be found at theparagraph symbol). Please mark messages for social networking services like Twitter with the hash tags #cablegate and a hash containing the reference ID e.g. #04QUITO3260.
Reference ID Created Released Classification Origin
04QUITO3260 2004-12-20 20:52 2011-05-02 00:00 UNCLASSIFIED Embassy Quito
This record is a partial extract of the original cable. The full text of the original cable is not available.
UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 QUITO 003260 
 
SIPDIS 
 
DEPARTMENT PLEASE PASS TO USTR BENNETT HARMAN 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: BEXP ECIN ECON ETRD PGOV PREL EC FTA
SUBJECT: ECUADOR SPLIT ON SUPPORT OF FREE TRADE AGREEMENT 
 
 
1. Summary.  A public opinion poll sponsored by USAID shows 
that about half of the Ecuadorian public has heard about the 
FTA and about half of the public (both informed and 
uninformed) supports it.  Not surprisingly, solid majorities 
believe that the FTA will benefit the U.S. far more than 
Ecuador.  About half of those polled expressed no confidence 
in Ecuador,s negotiating team and the vast majority felt 
that the GOE is not adequately informing the public about the 
process.  Almost 85% feel the FTA should be put to a popular 
vote.  While the GOE flatly opposes a referendum on the FTA, 
an uneducated population and mandatory voting could present 
an obstacle to the FTA if a vote were to take place.  End 
Summary. 
 
2.  As part of USAID,s campaign, a public opinion poll was 
conducted on the FTA between the U.S. and the Andean 
countries.  The poll was conducted from November 16 through 
December 4, 2004.  The sample was 2,673 persons between the 
ages of 18 and 65.  The sample error is  /- 1.9%.  The 
results were mixed and sometimes contradictory. 
 
------------- 
Mixed Results 
------------- 
 
3.  Half of those polled had heard of the FTA negotiations. 
About half of those polled, both those who were aware of the 
negotiations and those who were not, said an FTA with the 
U.S. would be beneficial for Ecuador.  Roughly one third 
thought it would be detrimental for Ecuador. 
 
4.  The poll reflects the contradictory gut reactions of 
Ecuadorians to both like and mistrust the U.S.  Two-thirds of 
the sample, without regard to socio-economic class or age, 
saw the U.S. as a friend of Ecuador, but an interested 
friend, a country whose friendship was conditioned by its own 
interests.  While majorities thought the FTA would bring more 
employment (54%) to Ecuador, increase exports (58%) to the 
U.S., and bring more U.S. investment (82%) to Ecuador, a 
majority (58%) also felt that the U.S. would benefit more 
from this agreement than Ecuador.  Moreover, vast majorities 
felt that the U.S. was looking to take advantage of 
Ecuador,s natural resources (74%) and would impose 
conditions on Ecuador that would favor the U.S. market (78%). 
 Far more respondents thought an FTA with Europe would be 
beneficial to Ecuador (70%) than thought the same about an 
FTA with the U.S. (50%).  The perception of benefit from a 
U.S. agreement was slightly greater among people aged 18 to 
35 (51-53%), than among older respondents (46-47%). 
 
5.  More than half (54%) felt that big business would be the 
greatest beneficiary from the FTA.  Politicians came in 
second at 18%.  A likely result of a campaign by small 
business leaders against the FTA was that small enterprise 
was thought by 27% of the respondents to be the group that 
would be affected most detrimentally by the FTA.  Agriculture 
came in second with 18% of respondents, behind both "other" 
and "don,t know", possibly reflecting the fact that 
agricultural interests will likely be among those most 
benefited, as well as those most challenged, under the FTA. 
 
6.  Most people (85%) did not know who was negotiating the 
FTA for Ecuador.  Of those who did (15%), most only knew 
Ivonne Baki, the flamboyant Minister of Trade.  Despite not 
knowing who was negotiating the agreement for Ecuador, half 
gave a vote of no confidence to the team, 22% were confident, 
and 28% were undecided.  Of those who knew of the negotiating 
team, about half still (52%) had no confidence in them, 
although the number who did feel confident increased from 22 
to 37%. 
 
7.  Almost half (46%) felt the GOE was not adequately 
informing the public about the negotiations.  Only 10% felt 
adequately informed.  By far, Ecuadorians received most of 
their information about the FTA from television (72%) and 
radio (9%).  Only 6% gained their information from newspapers. 
 
8.  Not surprisingly, most people thought the FTA should be 
subject to a popular vote (84%).  Of those who thought there 
should be a popular vote, 38% said they would vote in favor 
of the FTA, 30% would vote against it, and 32% were 
undecided.  The large number of undecided voters is probably 
a good thing, since it implies that prejudices are not 
decisive, but this certainly points to a great deal of work 
still to be done by the GOE in getting the word out. 
 
--------------- 
More To Be Done 
--------------- 
 
9.  The USAID campaign has made tremendous headway in 
educating the Ecuadorian public about the FTA.  Through its 
partnership with Comisin Negociadora, about 150 workshops 
have taken place, its Website is up and receiving hits, and 
several events have taken place with Congress.  The current 
phase of the campaign is expected to inform directly more 
than 8,000 persons. 
 
10.  The next phase is currently being planned and will 
involve more Congressional interaction and probably dialogues 
with specific sectors addressing their concerns with impact 
analyses. 
 
------- 
Comment 
------- 
11.  The fact that half of the population supports the FTA 
makes us optimistic that, once an agreement is reached, it 
will enjoy enough support to pass the Ecuadorian Congress. 
The clear desire for a popular vote on the FTA reflects a 
concerted effort by civil society groups including the main 
indigenous organization to compel a referendum on the 
subject.  Their effort to collect nearly one million 
signatures, however, has fallen flat (so far only 35,000). 
Business groups claim they have collected three times as many 
signatures in favor of an FTA (115,000).  The GOE is 
adamantly against a referendum on the FTA. 
 
KENNEY