Marred by controversy, there was a strong turnout to Costa Rica's first ever national referendum on October 7 to vote "yes" or "no" on the Central American Free-Trade Agreement (CAFTA) with the United States.
Despite several polls showing a majority against CAFTA, the results of the recent referendum came in at 51.6 percent for "YES", and 48.4 percent "NO".
This is a bitterly disappointing outcome for thousands of Costa Ricans opposed to the CAFTA, particularly given the controversial tactics used in the lead up to the referendum. Costa Rica was the only member of the seven-nation deal that was yet to ratify the pact, which includes the United States, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and Nicaragua.
In 2004 the CAFTA was sent to Congress for its ratification after having been signed by then President Abel Pacheco. Congress people opposing the treaty with thousands of Costa Ricans backing them used different tactics to delay ratification until a former congressman decided to petition the Supreme Electoral Tribunal (TSE) to call a referendum to decide the fate of this controversial agreement.
In April 2007, the TSE called for a national referendum to decide whether Congress should ratify it or not, and on October 7, a narrow majority of Costa Ricans voted "Yes". "They voted yes not because they thought CAFTA was good for the country, but Yes because of fear of the reprisals the United States (US) would lay on a small country that would dare to oppose its wishes," said a spokeswoman for Mujeres contra el TLC (Women Against CAFTA) a coalition of feminist organisations who had earlier come together as Mujeres Contra el Combo. (In 2003 the government tried to privatise the National Telecommunications System through a law that came to be known as the COMBO).
Leaked memorandum...
With just under two weeks to go before Costa Ricans voted, a memo dated July 29 and written by two high-level government officials (the second Vice President and a Congressman with close ties to Costa Rican President Oscar Arias) was leaked to the public [1]. The document outlined a series of "suggestions" for a campaign which included illegal threats to government officials such as withholding funds for public programs in their regions if their constituents repudiate CAFTA and a host of other dirty manoeuvres intended to convince "simple" people to vote YES.
The authors also proposed smearing CAFTA opponents by linking them with Chavez and Castro. They also called for a public relations campaign to "stimulate four kinds of fear" among citizens about the alleged dangers to Costa Rica if the NO should win. Prominent CAFTA backers, including President Arias, distanced themselves from the memo, which was addressed to the President and his brother, Presidency Minister Rodrigo Arias, but in the days before the referendum took place it was obvious that the campaign was indeed implemented to its full extent.
What's the problem with CAFTA?
Big business and the current government have been solidly behind the deal, saying it's the best way to maintain excellent trading relations with the US, the destination for about half of Costa Rican exports of coffee, fruit, apparel and high-tech products, and its biggest source of direct foreign investment. Opponents insisted that if the CAFTA were such a good deal for Costa Ricans, why then were the negotiations held in secrecy and why were some of the Costa Rican negotiators paid by U.S. companies? Most opponents do not believe that privatisations, government deregulation, unrestricted free market access for foreign corporations, and deep cuts in social spending can be what is needed to "develop" the region.
Most women insist that CAFTA will destroy Costa Rica's unique social model.
Costa Rica abolished its army in 1949, choosing instead to invest in education, universal healthcare and social programs that have made it a prototype of human development for the region. "The benefits of CAFTA will flow mainly to Costa Rica's elite, making the country more like its impoverished neighbours" said Paquita Cruz, a member of Mujeres Contra el Combo. "For example, I know by seeing what has happened in other countries that what CAFTA backers call "healthy competition" for our state-run Telecommunications, which has provided Costa Ricans with the lowest telecom rates in Latin America, will not only run it out of business, but will leave us in the hands of one or two multinational corporations who will then divide up the market and do as they please as has happened in other parts of the region". "Furthermore, we do not want to "donate" our telecommunications infrastructure which has been built over the years with our taxes, to foreign corporations".
Most Costa Rican farmers produce mainly for the domestic market and see no need for CAFTA. What is more, they fear a flood of subsidised U.S. agricultural commodities will wipe out their livelihoods. "True we do not make tons of money, but this business has always been stable," dairy farmer Maria Villalobos said. "We prefer to work hard for not too much money on our own farms than to be employees in a large Agro Industrial Corporation. We have heard about the kind of treatment agro industrial works get. We also worry about the land and what will happen to it after years of great expanses of monocultures."
CAFTA was barely passed by the U.S. Congress in late July 2006. President Bush argued that the deal would help gain political stability in the region and reduce a $2.3 billion deficit with the countries involved. But even supporters of the treaty say negotiators for the region did not have enough leverage to pry many concessions from the United States. And, as has been found out later, many negotiators for the region were not really negotiating for the region since they were paid by U.S. multinationals.
Critics across the region, even in the countries that have already ratified it, see the pact as a one-way street, benefiting US multinational corporations at the expense of Central America's small businesses, farmers, what is left of the commons, women and the region's natural resources.
Opponents point to the experience of Mexico, whose 10-year experiment in "free trade" with the United States has depopulated much of the countryside and sent waves of migration north of the border as well as an increase in violence against women, especially in the now infamous Ciudad Juarez. Rice farmers in Costa Rica see the so called "agreement" as an unmitigated disaster. Even though they have 10 years before the 35 percent duty on imported rice begins to disappear, most say they will never be able to compete with rice farmers in the United States, who receive huge subsidies.
At the same time, critics point out that vulnerable parts of the United States economy remain protected, even in areas where Central American negotiators managed small inroads, like sugar and textiles. The agreement, for instance, leaves in place the price supports for American sugar, while opening the door only a crack, letting in imports equal to 1 percent of United States production. The part on textiles was also written to protect United States fabric and yarn factories, this time from Chinese competition. It requires that 90 percent of apparel turned out by Central America makers use American fabrics, which they can buy duty free.
Defenders of the pact say most of the complaints are born of fear of change. They insist there is only one way forward and that way is freer access to the U.S. market, even if that means many will lose their livelihoods. According to the Yes campaign, ruined farmers can always shift to export crops or find other kinds of work. What they fail to mention is that this "other kind of work" is one with extremely low wages and no labour rights. The President has been quoted saying "We are condemned to be traders because we produce what we do not consume and we consume what we do not produce, that is why it is essential for us to have access to the U.S. market." "You would think that a better plan would be for the national government to support farmers so that they can produce what we Costa Ricans consume and educate the population to consume what we produce" said Paquita Cruz.
Some of the biggest winners are expected to be U.S. companies who already have manufacturing plants in Costa Rica, like Intel, Conair, subsidiaries of Lee and Wrangler jeans, and Rawlings Sporting Goods, which makes major league baseballs in Costa Rica and was in the news last year because of the horrible conditions their employees, mostly women, work under.
But for many Costa Ricans, the most difficult points in the treaty are not only those provisions that "open" the telecommunications market, protect the property rights of big American pharmaceutical companies from generic drug makers and permit the sale of human organs and the production of weapons in a country whose constitution does not permit the latter, but those that are not even trade related to begin with, such as the definition of what constitutes the Costa Rican territory or what the Costa Rica courts can or cannot do.
The "YES" Campaign
CAFTA has proved so divisive among Costa Ricans that, after several different initiatives coming both from the government and from civil society, the TSE called a first ever referendum to allow voters to decide whether to ratify it. This could have been a very democratic way to solve the divide but the TSE was too partial to the Yes side, allowing high government officials to campaign in favour of the treaty. The women of Mujeres contra el TLC reason that if the benefits of CAFTA were so patently obvious, then supporters wouldn't need to craft a clandestine campaign to scare people into voting for it.
An analysis of the strategies used by the YES campaign showed that most of the suggestions in the leaked memorandum had already been carried out and headed by high government officials. On the Thursday before the Referendum, the last poll by UNIMER Company indicated the NO was winning by 12 points. By Friday the scare tactics which had been outlined in the memo had increased. President Arias was on television every day of last week insisting that without this treaty Costa Rica would be isolated and as poor as Cuba. He was able to do this because he was granted permission by the TSE to campaign freely in favour of the YES, in spite of the fact that the referendum law clearly says that no public monies can be spent on campaigns for either side of a referendum.
On Sunday, at the schools which were converted into polling places, opponents and supporters of this controversial trade treaty rallied side by side, the Yes people waving commercially made flags, wearing identical Yes T-shirts and giving away thousands of stickers and fancy store bought food.
The No people waved their home made banners, wearing their individually designed or hand painted NO T-shirts which each opponent of CAFTA paid for with her or his own money and sharing their home made lunches.
In general, the streets of the country were festive as both sides made final pushes to win over undecided voters, with cars honking horns and waving banners reading "Yes" and "No" rolling down the streets. At every polling place there were dozens of young activists, mostly female, eager to help voters find their way to the voting booths. Packed crowds outside the schools and long lines outside polling places were evidence of a good turnout.
Calls coming in to Fire reported hundreds of people on the streets in front of the schools were the voting was taking place. The NO people arriving by foot or being brought by private citizens who had offered their cars and time for transportation while the YES people arrived in big buses covered with commercial banners paid for by the multimillion dollar campaign.
Inside, after months of subtly and not so subtly favouring coverage of the campaign in favour of the Yes, the two major local television stations continued their strategy: for every NO, at least 10 images of the Yes, for every interview favouring the NO, triple those favouring the Yes.
On Monday morning it was clear that the final push by the Yes side to instil fear into undecided voters was a fruitful if illegal and unethical strategy. "I was at a dinner Saturday night when I received a call from the president himself begging me to believe what the newspapers had reported about the reprisals the U.S. would take should the NO win" said Sandra Bonilla, a housewife for the NO. "Several other people got calls that same night and later told me they could not risk getting the U.S. angry at us. They changed their minds right then and there."
What now?
The Latin Business Chronicle stated this week that "foreign investors and Costa Rican exporters breathed a sigh of relief after the results of Sunday's CAFTA referendum". However, they have also recognised that the referendum is not the end of the battle, because in order for CAFTA to be implemented, Costa Rica has to pass 13 laws by February next year: "Despite the referendum success, passing the laws will face tough opposition. The governing PLN party only has 25 of 61 seats in the national assembly, but usually can count on the six deputies from opposition party PLM for support on CAFTA and pro-business legislation.
However, the largest opposition party, PAC, holds 17 seats and has vowed to aggressively oppose and delay the pending bills. It can likely count on a further two votes from other opposition parties that oppose CAFTA." [2]
For more information and unedited original texts please visit Feminist International Radio Endeavour
Notes:
[1] Contact FIRE for an English translation of the leaked Memorandum.
[2] Latin Business Chronicle, October 9, 2007.
www.latinbusinesschronicle.com/app/article.aspx?id=1697
