US embassy cable - 05TEGUCIGALPA957

UNCLAS TEGUCIGALPA 000957 
 
SIPDIS 
 
DEPT. FOR WHA/PD; IIP/G/WHA DIPASQUALE; AND IIP/T/ES 
DEPT. FOR EB/TPP DCLUNE, WHA/EPSC AND WHA/CEN 
DEPT. PASS USTR 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: OIIP, KPAO, ETRD, HO, USTR 
SUBJECT: MEDIA REACTION ON CAFTA, MAY 05, 2005 
 
 
1. On 05/03 the evening television newscast "Hoy Mismo" on 
Channel 3 broadcast a statement by Melvin Redondo, CAFTA 
negotiator who said, "Central American and Dominican 
Republic presidents will visit certain U.S. communities in 
which there is still some opposition to CAFTA." 
 
"With the non-approval of CAFTA in the U.S. the situation 
will become complex. We will have to seek alternatives in 
Honduras for the finalization on the Caribbean Basin in the 
next three years. Obviously it will not stimulate the 
investment and commerce in the country, and we believe it 
will be difficult to handle this situation." 
 
2. On 05/05 the San Pedro Sula-based liberal daily "Tiempo" 
carried an op-ed by Pablo Rodas Martini, Director of the 
Regional Program `Central America in the XXI Century in 
global economy,' entitled "Humorous critics against CAFTA." 
"Before NAFTA, criticisms were made, now it sounds funny to 
read them, because in most cases the U.S. critics sustain 
arguments opposed to our Central American ones. First: there 
is a contradiction because the critics say there will be 
unemployment in the U.S., others say Central America will 
suffer it. With NAFTA employment in both countries 
increased." 
 
"Second: another contradiction with the commercial deficit. 
Both say they will suffer it.  The statistics of the USITC 
show that the U.S. hasn't had deficits and Central America 
exported more than the imported." 
 
"Third: contradiction in which agriculture has been 
affected. Historically Central America has had an important 
growth in its external commerce, including the U.S. CAFTA is 
a step forward to total openness. And Mexico is absolutely 
not the best reference in agriculture." 
 
"Result: Central America's critics 0 vs. U.S. Critics 0." 
 
Palmer