CAFTA referendum heightens social tensions in Costa Rica
Published Nov 2, 2007 11:32 PM
In the Oct. 18 issue of Workers World we covered the news that Costa Rican
voters had narrowly approved the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA).
We have since received the following in-depth article from an associate who has
been living in Costa Rica.
By Carlos Morales-Mateluna
Costa Ricans approved the so-called Central American Free Trade Agreement
(CAFTA) by a margin of only 3 percent of the votes in the Oct. 7 referendum.
Sixty percent of registered voters went to the polls.
Costa Ricans have discussed CAFTA since the start of the
“negotiations” with the U.S. in 2003. But with a somewhat strong
government sector that has provided basic services to Costa Ricans since the
1950s—including health, education, insurance, electricity and
telecommunications—many were hesitant to include these services in CAFTA.
Only three years ago, large popular mobilizations prevented former and now
indicted President Miguel Angel Rodríguez from opening up the national
telecommunications company (ICE) to foreign buyers. It remains a state-run
monopoly today.
Costa Rica’s “negotiating” team was mostly educated in the
U.S. and team leader Anabel González holds U.S. citizenship. Her husband,
Francisco Chacón, was involved in the sale of the international airport to
a Bechtel subsidiary, Alterra.
Former President Abel Pacheco delayed sending CAFTA to the Legislative Assembly
(Congress), and so it was left to current President Oscar Arias, elected in
2006, to make sure it was approved. Arias made it his top campaign issue and,
for most of his presidency, it seemed that it was “his”
government’s only project.
Tensions were rising in Costa Rican society. As CAFTA languished in Congress, a
group of citizens asked the Electoral Tribunal (TSE) to allow a referendum to
decide whether CAFTA was approved or rejected. Costa Rican law provides for
citizens to gather signatures to request that controversial projects be decided
by popular vote.
Surprisingly, the TSE authorized this initiative. The next day, Arias submitted
a decree requesting Congress to authorize the vote. The groups that had
originally requested the referendum protested, claiming that this would prevent
them from educating the public, which they expected to do while requesting
signatures. Arias himself had previously refused to allow a referendum.
Eventually “his” initiative won and the legislature approved the
referendum.
Costa Rican society generally welcomed the opportunity to decide about CAFTA.
Some opponents of CAFTA, however, warned that the government
“allowed” the referendum only after massive street protests and
when pro-CAFTA groups realized they might not be able to win a vote in
Congress. They estimated they had only the exact number of votes needed to
approve it.
By holding a referendum, the battle for CAFTA could be moved off the streets
and people would be demobilized. In the electoral arena, money, the media and
the government—including a friendly TSE—could influence the
results, the pro-CAFTA forces reasoned.
Ruling class favors CAFTA 100 percent
The mainstream media, business chambers, major corporations and government
officials favored CAFTA’s approval. Production Minister Alfredo Volio
resigned and was named head of the Alianza por el SÍ (Alliance for YES).
The regime launched a massive public relations offensive. The YES campaign
spent an estimated $3 million, bombarding Costa Ricans with billboards,
television ads, full-page ads, all in favor of CAFTA.
Costa Rica’s so-called “paper of record,” La Nación,
which has long favored neoliberal policies that reduce wages and cut social
services, openly campaigned in favor of CAFTA, using its editorial pages to
print several articles a day favoring the treaty.
The Yes campaign included virtually all elected officials, headed by none other
than the president, who used all their public appearances to campaign in favor
of CAFTA, often offering housing assistance or scholarships in front of
television cameras and the press. In one of these appearances, Arias told a
group assembled in an industrial park, in what has become a common occurrence,
that “those who come by bicycle, with CAFTA will come in a BMW
motorcycle, and those who come in a Hyundai, will come in a Mercedes
Benz.” (www.prensalibre.co)
Arias likened rejecting CAFTA to “massive suicide.” Not
surprisingly, and just as he had done in the electoral campaign, Arias refused
to debate anyone, even his rivals. So the main proponent of CAFTA in Costa Rica
did not dare to defend it in front of anyone willing to challenge him.
Other methods used to influence public opinion included “informative
talks” held in large industrial parks and corporations, where employees
were herded to one-sided meetings where they were told in various ways that if
CAFTA was rejected, their company might close or that they might lose their
jobs. Many Costa Ricans work for the private sector in manufacturing or in the
service sector.
These talks often featured government officials. Astonishingly, even U.S.
Ambassador Mark Langdale visited companies to “warn” about the
consequences of a NO win. Langdale also published opinion articles, and made
regular statements to the press about what was good for Costa Rica. This
flagrant interference in Costa Rica’s electoral process is specifically
prohibited by its electoral code. Sadly, the TSE ignored all of these
violations.
Popular sectors mobilize
Anti-CAFTA groups, which consisted of public sector workers, unions, farmers,
indigenous peoples, artists, university students and professors, and working
class Costa Ricans, started organizing in community groups called
“Comités Patrióticos” (CPs—Patriotic Committees).
These CPs were grassroots organizations made up of neighbors who started
campaigning door to door, organizing seminars, making appearances in community
radio stations and leafleting in an attempt to overcome their almost complete
lack of funds compared to the YES groups. The CPs existed in virtually every
town, from the remote highlands to the urban neighborhoods.
As the referendum approached, the YES groups’ comfortable lead became
smaller and smaller. A month before the vote, public opinion surveys showed the
difference was within the margin of error.
Costa Rican Vice President Kevin Casas and Legislator Fernando
Sánchez—Arias’s cousin—wrote a memorandum to Arias and
his brother, Rodrigo Arias, who is minister of the presidency. This remarkable
memo unveiled the strategies behind the YES campaign. Its writers expressed
their dismay over the NO campaign’s growth, warned of a defeat, and
recommended several actions to prevent this.
These actions included threatening all mayors, particularly those who belonged
to the ruling party (PLN). “Transmit to them, in the harshest terms, a
very simple idea: the mayor who loses his county on Oct. 7 will not receive a
penny from the government,” the memo read.
They also recommended to “saturate the media with propaganda” and
“stimulate fear,” with fear subdivided into: fear of loss of
employment, fear of foreign interference (referring to Hugo Chávez and
Fidel Castro constantly, and associating the NO campaign with these foreign
leaders). An analysis of this six-page memo has shown that all of its
recommendations were implemented.
When an alternative university weekly published the leaked memo, public outcry
forced Casas to resign. Arias’ cousin remains in office. Oscar Arias
argued he did not pay attention to the memo, but he failed to discipline Casas
in any way, and in fact, did not take any action following its
receipt—which he acknowledged. Many have accused Arias of being complicit
with Casas, since he did not immediately fire his vice president for making
statements that are criminal under Costa Rican law.
Mass protest supports NO; maneuvers steal vote
The enormous effort of the NO campaign culminated in a demonstration on Oct.
30, when 150,000 people—the largest protest in Costa Rican
history—out of a population of 4.5 million came from every corner of the
country. The last poll released three days prior to the voting showed, for the
first time, a comfortable 12-percent lead for the NO.
That day the TSE declared a complete ban on all forms of propaganda, to
allegedly allow voters to reflect on their vote. The NO campaign observed this
ban. The mainstream media, however, continued to divulge all kinds of
“news” favorable to CAFTA, including appearances by public
officials, a 90-minute appeal by Arias to vote favorably, and constant
repetition of a CNN interview warning against rejection of CAFTA.
U.S. intervention was even more blatant the weekend of the vote. On Thursday, a
letter from U.S. Trade Representative Susan C. Schwab was released commenting
on the unlikelihood of renegotiating the current agreement or negotiating a new
one, and also about a set of preferences from which Costa Rica currently
benefits. This letter was prominently featured in most newspapers and news
programs.
Ambassador Langdale later publicly admitted having called Schwab, requesting
this letter. On the eve of the referendum, the White House reiterated the
threats in Schwab’s comments. The same day, Intel, which produces Costa
Rica’s number one “export,” also declared its support for
CAFTA on all major media.
The YES campaign’s funding was estimated to be about 10 times that of the
NO in the year of the referendum. In the years preceding, the YES spent
hundreds of thousands, including taxpayers’dollars, while the NO did not
campaign. That this was allowed by the TSE is not surprising, since its
president has publicly stated that economic power is a legitimate actor in an
electoral process. He has refused to limit the media’s influence,
alleging “freedom of expression,” even though most people cannot
express themselves in these media.
Because of the unfair campaign leading to the actual voting day, a large
segment of the population now views this referendum as fraudulent. The vote
failed to resolve the tensions that have been increasing for the past two
decades, since Oscar Arias in his first term introduced the neoliberal model to
the country.
The NO movement is regrouping to resist the implementation of CAFTA, which is
now law. However, for it to take effect, 13 additional laws and
treaties—some of which Costa Rica twice rejected in the past—must
be approved by March 1, 2008. These will be discussed at the Congress.
Also, the community groups have decided to reject the referendum’s
results and to continue the struggle against CAFTA, using public protest,
educating the public, and even, if necessary, by calling a general strike.
The NO campaign has achieved an incredible feat: with barely any resources, and
opposed by all elected officials, business chambers, U.S. government,
mainstream media and transnational corporations, who openly campaigned for
CAFTA and violated electoral law, it still obtained almost half of the votes.
Its even greater achievement was to unite Costa Ricans who were apathetic
regarding the political process in their country after decades of corruption
and so-called “free market” economics.
These organizations united people of all political currents to challenge the
system, the so-called “democratic institutions” and “rule of
law,” something that had rarely occurred in this country, and certainly
not at this level. The process has produced tens of thousands of activists who
are using grassroots methods to change the political system in Costa Rica,
which has been dominated by a small elite since the founding of the
country.
The Costa Rican social movement has grown since the 1970s when it defeated a
project promoted by ALCOA, the aluminum monopoly. In the dawn of the 21st
century it defeated attempts to privatize ICE telecommunications. And now it
has forced the government to hold a referendum on an unpopular treaty that,
according to Washington’s plans, was supposed to have been approved three
years ago.
Articles copyright 1995-2012 Workers World.
Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is permitted in any medium without royalty provided this notice is preserved.
Workers World, 55 W. 17 St., NY, NY 10011
Email:
[email protected]
Subscribe
[email protected]
Support independent news
DONATE