Bomb Threat, Polarized Glass and International Trade Disputes

Last week, Assembly president Francisco Pacheco ordered that the glass that separates visitors’ gallery (la barras) from the plenary where the deputies are, to be polarized. From now on, visitors can look inside (although with greater difficulty) but the deputies can no longer see the visitors. Pacheco calls this a palliative measure because deputies have been insulted by posters, gestures and writings on the glass, and proceedings have t times been interrupted by protests in the barras. At the some time, supposedly to make it easier for the visitors to see through the glass, the outside windows of the barras have been covered up, not only not letting in anymore light, but also making it impossible for the people inside the barras to communicate to those outside in front of the building. In the past, protestors inside the barras could communicate with the crowd outside and vice versa. Also, the floor of the barras, previously made of wood, has been tiled, apparently to limit the impact of foot-stomping. The climate inside the assembly had grown increasingly hostile over the previous week, mostly around the issue of PLN deputy Fernando Sanchez, co-author of the infamous memorandum. Protestors insist that he step down. While the deputies complained about the aggression and obscenity of posters and gestures in the barras, PLN deputy Jimenez cracked an ill-fated joke about an 85 year old woman, who comes every day to demand that Sanchez step down. Saying that the old woman had better stay home and say rosaries, he played into the hands of he movement, picked up that remark and proceeds to portray it as iconic for the general attitude the Grupo de los 38 (G38, the 38 deputies who support the CAFTA and the Agenda) takes towards the people.

On Thursday, a bomb threat in the afternoon forced the evacuation of the entire Assembly building, spilling deputies and staff directly into a crowd of protestors who were there as part of the nationwide campaign against the Agenda de Implementación, which kicked off that day. No bomb was found and speculation as to whether the anonymous phone call was placed by a member of the opposition to disrupt work on the Agenda, or a member of the pro-Agenda side to strengthen their arguments that the NO-TLC forces are getting increasingly violent and dangerous, abound. The day before, the security services of the Assembly decided to provide personal bodyguards to the deputies.

Meanwhile, the G38, making up the absolute majority in the Assembly, are working hard on the passage of the 13 Agenda Laws before the March 1 deadline. They are holding three daily sessions, a morning, afternoon, and evening session every day. They voted to apply fast-track legislation to several of the bills, and their staffers are meeting daily to reduce the length of proposals so as to limit their discussion time, by erasing less important aspects altogether and synthesizing remaining points into a smaller number. Since they are required by the constitution to discuss the national budget during the month of November, the budget is being passed in absolute record time, with almost no interference by members of the G38. The first law of the Agenda, the Ley de Protección de Representantes de de Casas Extranjeras, which makes it possible for trade disputes between Costa Rican and foreign businesses to be litigated in non-Costa Rican courts, has already passed. Critics of the law, first and foremost the PAC, have argued that it places small and medium sized producers, which make up 90% of Costa Rican businesses, at great disadvantage because the vast majority of them lack the resources to put up a reasonable legal defense in the American court system, especially if they are up against large corporations.

Adding insult to injury, President Arias has announced a CAFTA signing ceremony for next Wednesday, which will take place at the Teatro Melico Salazar, the same place where the Anti-CAFTA movement kicked off its campaign to defeat the CAFTA two years ago. The movement views this a pure provocation. Protests are expected.

Also last week, the six unions that comprise the workers of the state electricity and telecommunications institute, ICE, made public their intention to go on strike, if necessary to stop the opening of that sector. Fabio Chavez, of the union ASDEICE said in an interview that the union recognizes the results of the referendum but does not see them as binding on their actions because of fraud and deceit.

Opposition rejects referendum results, vows to fight Agenda de Implementación

On October 27, representatives of the different social movements that constitute the Movimiento del NO, gathered for Asamblea Nacional Patriotica. About 2000 delegates from the Patriotic Committees, Student and Labor Unions, and the various others groups that make up this diverse movement, came together to deliberate over the referendum, whether or not to accept the results, take decisions about movement structures and leadership, and devise a plan of action after CAFTA passed the referendum.

The result was a manifesto of ten main points that is now being distributed to base organizations throughout the country. Perhaps the most striking outcome of the assembly are the signs that the movement is becoming increasingly aware of its potential and of its character as a unified movement. Thus, more permanent structures were established in the form of a Coordinación Nacional made up of two representatives from each of the participating movements. Eugenio Trejos was elected to head the Coordinación. Delegates also voted to strengthen the Patriotic Committees and create a national communications network to facilitate the spreading of information. The following is a summary of the most important decisions taken:

1) Reject the result of the referendum because of structural and media fraud

2) Take all the necessary actions to study, educate about, and fight the Agenda de Implementación on the national, regional and local level.

3) Demand the renunciation of deputy Fernando Sanchez, as well as the magistrates of the Supreme Electoral Tribunal, the five judges of the Sala IV (constitutional court) that supported the TLC, and the 73 mayors that fought for the TLC with public money. The movement also demands the expulsion of the US ambassador.

4) Pressure the deputies in favor of the TLC and the Agenda inside and outside of the Congress with the necessary actions.

5) Support the deputies who are against the TLC and the Agenda with all means necessary.

6)Take up the following immediate actions:

Define a resistance strategy with coordinated and simultaneous actions at all levels, beginning with the first on November 7.

Commit to opposition to the plans regarding the opening and concession of semi-public instutions. Defend and back up the social and economic institutions which make up the base of solidaric and inclusive development model, among them the CCSS (social security), the ICE (electricity and telecom), the INS (insurance), and the JAPDEVA (infrastructure and ports of the Caribbean).

Boycott the companies that supported the TLC and/or were involved in the fraud.

Demand an end to the repressive actions against workers who are part of the Movement of the NO.

Demand a reform of the referendum rules to ensure the protection of the constitutional rights to equality of divulgation of information and use of public resources, as well as the right to non-interference from foreign actors.

If you ask yourself as I did, what “coordinated and simultaneous action beginning Nov.7” means, I think that this vagueness demonstrates the decentralized nature of the movement, basically asking the base to do whatever they can and are willing without exposing itself to repression. The Costa Rican government has passed a serious of laws that are intended to criminalize the kind of public resistance displayed in the Combo del ICE conflict in 2000. Perhaps the most prominent is Law 4573, which makes it a punishable crime to hinder the flow of traffic – a very convenient way to arrest demonstrators. The police has been demonstratively recording images of protestors during demonstrations. Police officers in full gear stand on elevated platforms and film everything that goes on. From my conversations with activists, I get the idea that the movement is preparing for active attempts of repression and wants to a) minimize the possible attrition of activists, and b) not play into the hands of the law enforcement and security apparatus. Watch for the next blog entry to read more about this.

Secondly, the regarding the pressure on deputies who support the TLC and the Agenda, the main website of the NO has begun to post images and names of those deputies with humorous and at times pretty mean descriptions of their role in the process causing Independent (recently split from the Movimiento Libertario) Evita Arguedas to express worries for her safety with great media resonance during one of the legislative sessions last week. To see them, click on the No TLC link.

Also, to read the entire Agenda decided on by the Asemblea Nacional Patriotica, go to http://www.notlc.com/27_OCTUBRE_ACUERDOS.html.

Social Movement Assembly motions to fight Agenda and prepare for Strike

About 2000 delegates of the Movimiento de NO (Comites Patrioticos and student and labor organizations, among others), voted on several motions to present to the main assembly of the NO forces on October 27. Among the proposals created on Saturday are the rejection of the results of the referendum and the decision to stop all dialog on the part of the movement with the government. Perhaps most important are the motions to "reject totally and absolutely" the Agenda de Implementacion and fight to stop every single one of its 13 projects. For this purpose, another motion calls for the preparation of a national strike, a so-called brazos caidos.

Additionally, a group of Costa Rican lawyers has filed a complaint and a request that the referendum results be annulled with the Supreme Electoral Tribunal, the Interamerican Human Rights Court, and the United Nations.

This week's Semanario devotes several articles to the analysis of the Movimiento del NO from a social movement perspective. Several analysts agree that this movement goes a lot further than the fight against the TLC, and represents a force with the possibility to democratize Costa Rican politics. They emphasize the decentralized nature of the movement, its autonomous bases and the absence of organizational hierarchy, and the independence from the parties. Some trace the mobilization potential of the movement to the struggle against the privatization attempts of the ICE in 2000 and argue that Costa Ricans have by now a network of experienced organizers, communicational structures, and awareness in the population that make this movement so powerful. Most agree that this movement has consolidated with the fight against the TLC and is here to stay.

Students and Unionists do not accept referendum results

Yesterday, the federations of the students of the University of Costa Rica (FEUCR), the National University (FEUNA), the students in secondary education (FES), as well as the the union Central General de Trabajadores (CGT) have anounced their rejection of the referendum results due to fraud. The most serious incidences according to the FEUCR were the direct intromission of the US government regarding the CBI benefits and its coverage during the media black out, and the coverage of CNN Espanol of the CBI debate, including interviews with Pro-CAFTA representatives for large periods of time on saturday before the referendum. The groups have called for a general assembly at the UCR today to decide the next step.

Report shows negative track record of CAFTA in Central America:

“DR-CAFTA Year Two: Trends and Impacts,” is the English title of a report presented by the Red Regional de Monitoreo de DR-CAFTA in September in San Jose. The Red is a group of more than 15 organizations from the CAFTA countries, including the Confederacion Guatemalteca de Federaciones de Cooperativas (CONFECOOP), the Centro de Estudios en Inversion y Comercio de El Salvador (CEICOM), the Coalicion Hondurena de Accion Ciudadana (CHAAC), the Movimiento Social Nicaraguense, and the Comision Nacional de Enlace de Costa Rica. And it paints a dismal picture of the impacts of CAFTA on the region.

The Central America countries and the Dominican Republics have seen their trade balances wit the US reversed. Export growth from the region to the US since the retification of the treaty were: El Salvador 3.7%, Honduras 5.7%, Nicaragua -.1%, and Dominican Republic –12.7%, while imports from the US grew 11.2% for El Salvador, 26% for Honduras, 27.5 for Nicaragua, and 13,5 for the DR. (numbers reported in Semanario Universidad).

At the same time, foreign direct investment decreased by 42%in the region. That means -$180 million in El Salvador, -$180 million in Honduras, -$23.4 million in the DR. Nicaragua received a total of $56 million during that time.

The report argues that "the parties to the agreement are experiencing an overall worsened trade balance with the US. Imports of US agricultural products to the region have outpaced exports, Central American and Dominican producers fail to compete against subsidized US agricultural goods." Central American farmers cannot compete with subsidized agricultural products from the US, and the vast majority does not posses the resources to even contemplate exporting the US, as the investments necessary to comply with the phytosanitary standards required by the US. As a result of the inability of small and medium sized producers to compete, the region is entering into severy food security problem, as it is losing the ability to feed itself and becomes increasingly dependent on US imports. Partly due to the biofuel trend, however, food, especially corn prices are already rising. The price of white corn in El Salvador, for example, increased by 81.6%. The Consumer Price Index rose by 5.1% in Guatemala between June 2006 and April 2007; the price of corn rose 26%, rice, 9.3%, bread, 9.5%. In the same June 2005 to April 2006 period prior to CAFTA those numbers were, 2.4%, 1.2%, and 2.4%.

The promises regarding employment have also not been fulfilled: According to the report 22 textile companies left the region since CAFTA implementation, causing the loss of some 50.000 jobs. In Nicaragua, alone, seven new maquila factories have opened and created 1,993 new jobs in 2007. But at the some time, other factories have shut down costing the country 4,000 jobs.

http://lasolidarity.org/CAFTA_report/CAFTAYear2_monitoring_eng.pdf

The report also includes a paper by Costa Rican economist and professor at the UCR Marta Trejos analyzing the provisions of CAFTA and its impact on Costa Rica. I pasted an excerpt from the article “Region has Squandered its Balance of Trade under CAFTA, Says Report” from the Latin American Database, summarizing her findings:

“In her paper, CAFTA in Costa Rica Would Cause Deepening Inequality, Trejos notes that the opposition in the country, which is formidable, is based on the advanced development of social services, which far outstrip the rest of the region. The people, she says, know they have a lot to lose, and she riffles through CAFTA's thousands of pages to parse out the most significant potential losses:

On biodiversity, Chapter 15 on intellectual property permits patenting the genes of living organisms, while Chapter 10 prohibits requiring knowledge transfer, so that multinationals "can conduct research into our native species and maintain any knowledge they might acquire in secrecy." The loss of sovereign control accrues to the benefit of cosmetic and pharmaceutical industries.

On water and natural resources, she shows that Chapters 10 on investment, 17 on environment, and 20 on dispute resolution, when taken together, enable multinational corporations to sue the government of Costa Rica should it take measures they might consider equivalent to expropriation or that affect their earnings. "With this," she writes, "businesses' access to the water and natural resources and their 'right' to profits take precedence over any measure (whether human or social) that might be taken by the government or municipalities."

On culture and knowledge, Chapters 15 and 10 allow multinationals to own the seeds of a species and traditional knowledge of plants and animals.

On markets, the early chapters allow subsidized imports from the US to enter while denying Costa Rica a tariff option. The case of Mexico under NAFTA provides an example of how agricultural jobs disappear as food from the US replaces nationally produced food without lowering national food prices. "In fact, the price of essential foodstuffs has risen while ruining the livelihoods of rural workers."

On current public investment, the strictures on water and natural resources also apply to public services including telecommunications and the insurance industries, so that the multinationals can sue the country for affecting their profits or expropriation, or for any restriction or attempt to maintain them under public dominion. In addition to the chapters cited for these rights, there is also Annex II, Non-Conformant Measures, Costa Rica list.

On cheap labor, Chapter 16 limits redress, except in limited instances, to labor violations that harm companies, but not those that harm workers. The country is committed to prevent violations "if commerce is affected."

On national sovereignty, CAFTA provisions prevail over national law, such that no law can be passed or remain in force that conflicts with a CAFTA precept. Transnationals take their demands to arbitration courts whose decisions can "modify both the decisions of internal courts and of state organisms at any level, taking into account only that which is stipulated in the agreement and not in the Costa Rican Constitution." CAFTA leaves the state with the authority to take measures to protect health and life, "as long as they do not affect commerce."

Most of these provisions, save those having to do with Costa Rica's telecom and insurance state monopolies, put the country in the same boat with its neighbor CAFTA countries. But Trejos emphasizes that Costa Rica is the only country that did not make any provisions to protect its small producers, poor women, native peoples, or its poor. She argues that a treaty that does not protect its most vulnerable sectors affects women disproportionately because women already constitute a disadvantaged sector. So, female small farmers who feed their communities "may now encounter obstacles in the continuation of their traditional practices, not only because the intellectual property stipulations in CAFTA enable the multinational companies to patent plants and animal species, but also because the treaty reinforces multinational property rights on their seeds."

PAC continues to steer unclear course

The PAC announced yesterday that they are not committed to stick to the March deadline for the passing of the Agenda de Implementacion. That is the problem of the Group of 38 (the 38 deputies that support the TLC and the Agenda), said Rafael Madrigal, sub-chief of the fraction. Elisabeth Fonseca furthermore said that she did not recall saying the sentence attributed to her in which she promised to respect the deadline on Tuesday.

The PAC is apparently trying to have it both ways, probably due to intense pressure from the grassroots base, especially the Comites Patrioticos. In a meeting with several representatitives of the base committees, Otton Solis is reported to have promised that the PAC will fight the Agenda de Implementacion until the bitter end. He furthermore is supposed to have denied the separation of the PAC from the movement. So what are they doing? Is there are division in the leadership, or do they simply have no plan? To be continued.

La Nacion article:
http://www.nacion.com/ln_ee/2007/octubre/12/pais1275329.html

PAC agrees to Agenda de Implementacion, suggests Agenda de Mitigacion

The Partido de Acción Ciudadana, the PAC, has now officially agreed to cooperate in the passing of the Agenda de la Implementación, stressing that the party still disagrees with the treaty, but that they are not an obstructionist party and will allow the Agenda to be passed by March (the deadline for joining the CAFTA). Elisabeth Fonseca, leader of the parliamentary fraction, apparently announced the separation of the PAC from the movement against the TLC since this alliance has “completed its mission.” (see La Nación, Oct.10) I write “apparently” because some PAC members deny that she said that. At the same time she said that the PAC would of course continue to participate in the meetings of the NO camp, as they represent a “great citizen effort”. The same ambiguity and contradiction is visible in Otton Solís’behavior, who has was quoted on Tuesday as saying that the PAC will agree to the Agenda, but not one step more than what the CAFTA requires. Recall that the Agenda is the package of 13 legal changes that are required to allow the CAFTA to take effect. Among them are the opening of the state-monopoly of the telecom and insurance sector, changes to corporate laws, and changes in intellectual property rights. According to a listserv of the NO camp, Solís then promised not to allow the Agenda to go through in front of various representatives of the Patriotic Comités on Wednesday night. Today, he presented a letter to president Arias in which he outlines an Agenda de Mitigación, which is supposed to protect against some of the worst effects of the CAFTA. Among the 18 projects suggested by Solis are 2% higher education spending, an end of tax breaks for large corporations, the creation of a development bank, subsidies for small and medium agricultural producers, and the de-politicization of the appointment process for the leadership of the semi-public, or state-owned institutions.

Meanwhile, the TSE (Supreme Electoral Tribunal) continues with the hand-count of all the ballots, which has to be finished by October 22. You can watch them counting on the TSE website (see links). This is standard procedure. The movement of the NO is engaged in a heated discussion over whether or not to accept the results, what to make of the PAC position, and what position to take regarding the coming legislative battle over the Agenda de Implementación. José Merino from the Frente Amplio, and Oscar López from the Partido de Accessibilidad Sin Exclusión are the only two legislators who have vowed to fight the Agenda de Implementación.

Press Release about Irregularities during Referendum

Below you can read the official press release of the center that collected complaints over irregularities in the referendum. They are part of the Association for Human Rights in Costa Rica. Among the gravest complaints is, of course, the violation of the media blackout, especially by the Arias-owned TV station Repretel, which broadcast PUSC deputies asking people to vote YES on Friday. Other complaints focus on companies pressuring employees to vote yes. One company which exports plants and flowers to the US supposedly told its employees that they need not come to work on Monday of the NO wins, implying that the company would have to shut down in that case. Companies are claimed to have offered their employees money for a yes vote, collective breakfasts ad rides to the polling stations, est.Most complaints deal with event at the polling places, involving incorrect administration, intimidation, and the distribution of propaganda in spite of the prohibition.

COMUNICADO INTERNACIONAL DE PRENSA
CENTRO CIUDADANO PARA LA RECEPCIÓN DE DENUNCIAS
SOBRE EL REFERENDO DEL TLC

Los principales dirigentes del Movimiento Patriótico contra el TLC, decidieron la noche de ayer (07 de Octubre de 2007) no aceptar la victoria del Sí en el referéndum sobre el TLC, hasta tanto no se reúnan con los distintos comités patrióticos que estuvieron trabajando intensamente durante la campaña.

El objetivo de dicha reunión, será decidir las acciones a tomar frente a los resultados arrojados hasta el momento por el Tribunal Supremo de Elecciones (TSE), los cuales dan a los partidarios del TLC una escasa ventaja de tres puntos porcentuales sobre los opositores.

Lo anterior, a raíz de la gravedad y cantidad de denuncias sobre irregularidades en el proceso de referéndum, que durante los dos últimos días fueron presentadas al Movimiento Patriótico.

Es sobre este último punto, sobre el que queremos aportar algunos elementos.

Quienes participamos de este Centro Ciudadano de Denuncias, somos testigos de la gran cantidad de quejas presentadas contra los partidarios del TLC, a raíz de sus evidentes violaciones de la legislación electoral vigente. Muchas de estas denuncias, consideradas sumamente graves en tanto atentan directamente contra la institucionalidad democrática y la pureza y transparencia del proceso.

Entre los hechos denunciados de mayor gravedad, se encuentra el de que los partidarios del TLC continuaron distribuyendo propaganda, organizando concentraciones planificadas y pautando gran cantidad de anuncios en las televisoras nacionales a dos días del referéndum, pese a que el Código Electoral, en su artículo 85, inciso g), establece claramente que "Durante los días inmediatos anteriores y el día de referéndum no podrá difundirse propaganda de ninguna especie relativa al proyecto objeto de consulta", disposición que los opositores al TLC si acataron estrictamente.

Incluso, el propio TSE en su Sesión Extraordinaria Nº 94-2007, ya había hecho la advertencia de que "durante los dos días inmediatos anteriores y el día del referéndum, NO PODRÁ DIFUNDIRSE PROPAGANDA DE NINGUNA ESPECIE, relativa al proyecto objeto de consulta, lo que incluye la repartición de volantes, panfletos, utilización de altoparlantes o de cualquier medio tendiente a influir en la decisión de voto."

Como ejemplo concreto de esta violación podemos mencionar que gran cantidad de personas denunciaron que el día 05 de Octubre de 2007, la empresa REPRETEL canal 4, pautó publicidad en donde aparecían Diputados del Partido Unidad Social Cristina (PUSC) invitando a la población a votar por el Sí.

Claramente, los medios nacionales de comunicación se convirtieron en canales abiertos para que el gobierno de Oscar Arias y los promotores del tratado, distribuyeran unilateralmente su propaganda; tal como sucedió con la amplia cobertura que los medios noticiosos nacionales dieron a las declaraciones de Susan Schwab, Representante de Comercio Exterior de Estados Unidos, en donde afirmaba categóricamente la imposibilidad de renegociar el tratado, así como la posibilidad de perder los beneficios de la Iniciativa para la Cuenca del Caribe, si los costarricenses votaban negativamente en el referéndum.

Todo lo anterior sin que el TSE, órgano encargado de la vigilancia y organización del referéndum, se dignara realizar acciones para evitar la continuación de estas violaciones. Actitud que ha generado gran indignación entre los costarricenses, quienes señalan a dicho tribunal como corresponsable de los abusos mencionados.

Presentamos a continuación un resumen de las denuncias recibidas, aclarando que estas constituyen solo una muestra de la totalidad, ya que en el país fueron instalados gran cantidad de centros para la recepción de denuncias que trabajaron de manera independiente.

1. En la Escuela de Cañas Dulces de Liberia, partidarios del Sí distribuyeron y pegaron propaganda favorable al TLC dentro del Centro de Votación. Dos niñas que se acercaron a solicitarles a estos partidarios del Sí que no siguieran repartiendo propaganda dentro del centro de votación, fueron amenazadas de palabra por dichas personas. También informan que la directora de la Escuela, que es delegada del TSE, amenazo con golpear a una señora que le solicito intervenir en el asunto.

2. En la Escuela de Esquipulas de Palmares, dos dirigentes del Sí, con una actitud sumamente agresiva, que no quisieron identificarse, se dedicaron a agredir verbalmente a cualquier partidario del No que ingrese a votar al centro de votación. También denunciron que a los menores de edad con camisetas del No, no los están dejando ingresar para cumplir con su trabajo como guías, al centro de votación, aduciendo que los menores de edad tienen restringido el acceso a dicho lugar. Sin embargo los menores de edad guías del Sí están ingresando libremente al centro de votación.

3. En Cariari de Pococí, se tramitaron 76 acreditaciones para fiscales del NO pero el TSE solo se entregó 14 credenciales del total solicitado.

4. Miles de personas denuncian que el día 05 de Octubre de 2007, la empresa REPRETEL canal 4, se encuentra pautó publicidad favorable al Sí al TLC

5. Denuncian el envío masivo de mensajes de vos a su celular promoviendo el Sí al TLC, así como de mensajes de texto que dicen: "Yo creía que el TLC no me afectaba. Pero Ana se va a quedar sin trabajo. Ayudemos. Vota
Sí".

6. Varias personas denuncian coacción por parte de distintas empresas sobre sus empleadas y empleados. Estas personas prefirieron permanecer en el anonimato por temor a posibles represalias de parte de sus patronos. Entre las empresas denunciadas están la empresa Del Oro, productora de concentrado de jugo de naranja en la zona de Guanacaste y diversas empresas del Parque Industrial de Cartago, Desamparados y empresa piñeras de Pocorá de Guápiles, las cuales han "invitado" a sus empleados a un almuerzo familiar el domingo 07 de octubre, con transporte incluido y luego de acudir a las urnas a votar por el Sí.

7. También, nos informan que varias empresas de la zona de Poasito de Alajuela dedicadas a la exportación de flores y follaje, advirtieron a sus empleadas y empleados, que en caso de que ganará el NO en el referendo del domingo, ya no era necesario que llegaran el lunes a laborar.

8. Desde Turrialba nos llaman denunciando que los partidarios del Sí están llamando a la gente a "participar" a cambio de 30.000 colones.

9. Desde Los Guidos denuncian que en la escuela de la localidad el Movimiento Libertario aparentemente permitió la alteración de uno de sus fiscales, siendo este sustituido por una persona de nacionalidad
nicaragüense.

10. Desde Bribri de Talamanca nos informan que en el acto de apertura del centro de votación, efectivos del Ministerio de Seguridad, equipados con armas de grueso calibre, registraron completamente los recintos electorales. Posteriormente y más grave aún, estos mismos policías se apostaron en la entrada de cada recinto electoral portando aún sus armas de grueso calibre. A las 9:30 de la mañana los uniformados se mantenían a la entrada de cada recinto electoral. Dichas actuaciones son interpretadas por la población partidaria del NO como un acto de intimidación.

11. Desde el Liceo de Paraíso de Cartago, denuncia que una señorita guía del No fue agredida por un
partidario del Sí, el cual argumentó que ella portaba una camiseta del No al TLC sobre el pecho, lo cual constituía una grave ofensa para él.


12. En la Escuela de Concepción Abajo de Alajuelita, un partidario del No fue agredido por partidarios del Sí, los cuales le causaron una herida profunda en la ceja. Delegados del TSE fueron testigos de los hechos.
13. En la Escuela Carmen Lyra, de Concepción Arriba de Alajuelita, niñas y niños que se encuentran
trabajando como guías del No están siendo acosados por los partidarios del Sí. Se ha solicitado la intervención de la Fuerza Pública, pero esta se ha negado a intervenir en el asunto.


14. Gran cantidad de denuncias relacionadas con el uso en forma indistinta de lapiceros negros y rojos para votar y llenar el material electoral, esto a pesar de que el mismo TSE había dispuesto que sólo se iban a permitir los votos emitidos en tinta negra, mientras que en las mesas en donde los funcionarios del TSE tramitarían la papelería solamente se permitiría la utilización de tinta roja. Esta normativa, la cual tenía por objetivo evitar la posibilidad de fraude, nunca se respetó, y a pesar de la gran cantidad de denuncias recibidas al respecto, el TSE nunca aclaró públicamente si los votos emitidos en rojo se tomarían como válidos, o que pasaba con las mesas en los que los miembros del tribunal utilizaron ambos colores indistintamente.

15. En Tejar del Guarco una de las juntas de votación cerró 5 minutos antes de las 6:00 pm.

16. En la junta electoral 2171 de Palmares, cerró cinco minutos después de las 6:00 pm. con el objeto de permitir la votación de dos fiscales del Sí. Esto, a pesar de que las demás juntas electorales ya habían cerrado y además, dejando fuera del recinto a dos fiscales favorables al No que estaban monitoreando la junta.

17. El Partido Acción Ciudadana denuncia que el Alcalde de Guápiles, acompañado de partidarios del Sí, ingresaron al puesto de guías del bando del No en Guápiles, golpeando a las personas presentes y destruyendo inclusive una computadora del lugar.

Todas estas denuncias son del conocimiento del Tribunal Supremo de Elecciones.

Centro Ciudadano para la Recepción de Denuncias sobre el Referendo del TLC
Colectivo Comunidades
Asociación Costarricense de Derechos Humanos
Lunes 08 de Octubre de 2007.-

SI wins the Referendum

The official results of the referendum are 51.6 for and 48.4 against the CAFTA. The breakdown by provinces are the following:

San Jose: SI 51.7 NO 48.3

Heredia: SI 52.4 NO 47.6

Alajuela: SI 48.9 NO 51

Guanacaste: SI 47.3 NO 52.7

Puntarenas: SI 49.4 NO 50.6

Cartago: SI 56.5 NO 43.5

Limon: SI 54.9 No 45.1

The most surprising of these is no doubt San Jose, having voted overwhelmingly against president Arias and the PLN in last year’s elections and having repeatedly and decidedly appeared opposed to the CAFTA in various polls, the fact that it now voted in favor if the treaty is very strange and surprising. Guanacaste and Puntarenas were expected to come out srongly in favor of the TLC and did not. Even though the CAFTA was the most important issue in the national elections last year, votes in this referendum do not seem to have much to do with votes last year. Attempt to explain this vary widely. Some claim that there was fraud and that the organizers of the fraud, after having manipulated the rural provinces last time, decided to focus solely on San Jose this time, implying that the victory in the provinces is exemplary for what would have happened in San Jose without the fraud. Others, including some researchers of the UCR have found an interesting trend of vote reversal among the voters in Costa Rica. According to this observation, there is this strange trend of switching back and forth of the vote. So if the provinces voted for the Conservatives in one election and the central valley for the social democrats, then in the next elections it will be the central valley that votes conservative and the provinces that vote social democratic. So this could have something to do with the strange inconsistencies in votes. Others argue that the leaders of the NO spent too mauch time at their desks running the national campaign and did not do enough street work in the inner city. As more results come out, I will pick up this issue again…You can find more detailed results on the webpage of the Electoral Tribunal.

While on Sunday night, the leaders of the NO refused to concede, by Monday midday, Ottón Solís of the PAC, José Merino of the Frente Amplio, and Oscar López of the PASE accepted the results. The only grouping that is still holding out is the Movimiento Patriotico del NO al TLC under the leadership of Eugenio Trejos. Recall that this movement is based on hundreds of so-called Patriotic Committees in communities that have been organizing the local No campaigns. In an emergency meeting Monday afternoon, the Movimiento decided to have the local committees review the results their observers recorded and make a decision whether or not to accept the official results. An assembly of nation delegates will take an official vote later in the week instructing Trejos on what to do next. Some Comités have reported inconsistencies between the voted recorded by them and those reported by the TSE. More on this as it develops…

But with every single opposition politicians in the legislative assembly having accepted the victory of the CAFTA, it is hard to imagine what the movement could do now to stop the CAFTA.

Whether or not fraud was committed with the ballots, one thing is undeniable: the YES side violated the media blackout. Costa Rican law states that there is to be no campaigning and reporting on the campaigns during the last three days before an election. Several TV channels and the main newspapers did not follow the blackout order when they reported on the ongoing debate over the CBI benefits and possible expiration between US and Costa Rican officials, and comments by Bush administration officials regarding possible retaliation in case of a rejection of the CAFTA. (see La Nación of Friday, and Saturday for example). A blatant example was the coverage of the channel Repretel, owned by President Arias, of the dangers of loosing CBI benefits in case of a rejection of the TLC on Sunday morning as the the voting booths opened. Repretel interviewed representatives of the pineapple, banana, tuna, and textile industries stating variously that they will have to close down, relocate, cut back jobs, etc of the CAFTA does not go into effect.

Controversy over US Retaliation Act II

Representative Linda Sanchez published a clarification regarding her interview with La Nacion yesterday. An excerpt:

“I understand that some in Costa Rica have reported that I believe the President of the United States can unilaterally withdraw Caribbean Basin Initiative (CBI) benefits that Costa Rica currently enjoys if the people of Costa Rica vote to reject the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA). This report is obviously the result of some confusion concerning my remarks.

"The fact is that under the laws of the United States, the President of the United States does not have the power to cancel CBI benefits to Costa Rica if Costa Rica rejects CAFTA. Eliminating basic CBI benefits with Costa Rica would require an act of Congress. The leaders of both the United States Senate and the United States House of Representatives have stated in a recent letter that they would not do that.

"Further, that September 28, 2007, letter from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi made clear that they oppose any linkage between CBI benefits and approval or disapproval of CAFTA.

"Finally, I note that the United States Trade Representative has been opining in the media about what may or may not take place following the referendum on Sunday in Costa Rica. It is important to note that she is an appointee of President Bush, who will leave office at the beginning of 2009 and is likely to be replaced by a successor who does not share his political perspective. One thing is certain. Regardless of the outcome of the referendum, Costa Rica's basic CBI benefits cannot be unilaterally taken away by the Bush Administration."

Today, three Democratic Senators (Dorgan, Bown and Sanders) sent a letter to President Bush, expressig their concern over Secratary of Commerce Susan Schwab's statements in yesterday's interview with La Nacion:

"We are particularly disturbed by her comment that "Costa Rica could lose valuable access to the US market if the country rejects a free trade agreement with the United States when its voters go to the polls on Sunday."

"As you know, this is nonsense. Barriers to access of Costa Rican goods will not change if Costa Rican voters reject CAFTA. [...] For an official of the United States to warn the people of Costa Rica of possible retaliation of any kind for exercising their rights in an election is unworthy of the democratic traditions our countries share. This is particularly disheartening since CAFTA is just as controversial in the US as it is in Costa Rica."

For now, the last chapter in this controversy for now, was written by the Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, Charles B. Rangel in a press release:

"“Congress is constitutionally responsible for regulating international commerce. As such, we reiterate our longstanding position that preference programs should not be conditioned on a country entering into a free trade agreement (FTA) with the United States . No U.S. preference program currently includes such conditionality. Furthermore, there is no provision in the current preference program statute that would permit the President to withdraw benefits if a beneficiary country failed to implement an FTA.”

Controversy over US Retaliation - Pelosi, the Ambassador, and the Secretary of Commerce:

The day after Congressmen Sanders and Michaud gave their press conference here, the Costa Rican ambassador to the United States, Tomás Dueñas gave an interview in La Nación, in which he accused Sanders and Michaud of not supporting development and growth in the Central American region. He then admitted that while in principle, a renegotiation of the treaty may be possible, it is very unlikely that this could take place right now with the election process and the loss of trade promotion authority by president Bush. With this he contradicted what has been the official position of the Arias government, namely that renegotiation was simply never a possibility and that it is merely a myth created by Ottón Solís. He went on to argue that Sanders and Michaud do not represent the majority in Congress and the the CBI (Caribbean Base Initiative) benefits are not secured for CR in case of NO vote on Sunday.

On Saturday, Democratic leaders Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid wrote an open letter to ambassador Dueñas, strongly rejecting his claim that there could be CBI repercussions.

"We understand thatit has been asserted by some that there is a link between the referendum vote and Costa Rica's continued participation in the CBI. We are not aware of any connection between the two. Participation in the CBI is not conditioned on a country's decision to approve or reject a free trade agreement with the United States, and we do not support such a linkage."

But this did not seem enough to stop the controversy. The following day, La Nación quoted Republican Congressman Jim McCrery as saying that no member country of the ICC can be assured that its benefits are eternal. Undersecrataty of Commerce, John Verenau is quoted as saying that the consequences of a NO vote are uncertain. And Dueñas called the letter “vague.”

On Tuesday, La Nación again portrayed the CBI benefit as threatened. In a phone interview with democratic Congress woman Linda Sanchez, they got her to admit that the executive had in principle the power to exclude any country from the CBI. She said: “I don’t have this section in front of me right now, but the thing is that this power is based in the executive branch and I cannot guarantee that the President will not use it in whatever form he likes,” according to La Nación. She emphasized, however,that the CBI benefits do not depend on CAFTA ratification. Finally, Republican leader Roy Blunt stated in a written declaration that there is nothing that commits the US to maintaining the benefits of the ICC for any country eternally and accuses the Democrats of trying to dissuade the Costa Rican people from voting for the CAFTA.

Finally, Susan Schwab, Secretary of Commerce, gave an interview to La Nacion today, in which she repeated that certain CBI benefits (textiles and tuna) are possibly threatened, since the CBI does indeed expire next year, and the US has never confronted a situation in which an CBI partner has refused to sign a trade deal. She called a possible renegotiation unlikely. So the question arises, who is right, Sanders and Michaud, or Schwab? Both, in some way, actually.

The way I understand it, is this: The CBI itself does not expire next year. But, in 2000 the US voluntarily added tuna and textiles to the CBI benefits and gave it a preliminary validity of eight years. In response, a spokessperson for the tuna industry threatened with relocation to El Salvador in case of a rejection of CAFTA, while a spokesperson for the textile industry said he di not see a way for the industry to continue to exists after the its CBI benefits expire.

NO 12% in the lead!

La Nacion just posted the results of the most recent Unimer poll regarding the referendum: The NO has 55% and the YES 43%. 1202 were interviewed between Sept. 27 and Oct.2. To read the article and view the results, go to:

http://www.nacion.com/ln_ee/2007/octubre/03/pais1263817.html

Minister of the Presidency Rodrigo Arias blamed the memorandum scandal in an interview with La Nacion this morning in a apparent change of strategy. From downplaying the scandal, the administration seems to have decided to start using it as a scapegoat.

http://www.nacion.com/ln_ee/2007/octubre/03/pais1264016.html

Over 100.000 march to close NO campaign

Last Sunday, exactly seven days before the referendum, the NO campaign held its last big demonstration in downtown San Jose. Filling the Paseo Colon and the Avenida Segunda from the Park La Sabana to the Metropolitan Cathedral. Estimates of the size of the crowd range from over 100.000 people (Reuters, La Nacion) to 150.000 (AFP), to 300.000 (Union of the ICE). With three stages, street theater, patriotic hyms and songs, food stands, porta toilets, thousands of flowers handed out to the protesters, and many children and dogs, the well-organized and absolutely peaceful event had a flair of a street festival. But that is not to underestimate the political caliber of the event.

Perhaps the most impacting speech was given by Monsiňor Ignacio Trejos, one of the three bishops that have decided to come out publicly against the TLC, against the position of their church. Refering to the words of the pope, he argued that this fight is between evil and good, the devil against god, the people of the YES against the NO, the Selfish against Solidarity, and the rich against the poor. He argued that god is always on the side of the poor, and this is why the TLC must be defeated. The three bishops had caused a big stir when they published their letter in response to the letter of the priests last week, and having Trejos, who also played a leading role in the fight against the Combo del ICE, speak at the rally made a huge impact.

The last speaker was Eugenio Trejos, the leader of the NO campaign. The theme of his speech was the execution of Juan Mora, president of the CR in 1856 and 57, who defeated the troops of William Walker the Filibuster, and who was executed after a military-oligarchy coup. The day of the march was the 147^th anniversary of the day Juanito Mora, as he is called here, died. The CAFTA proponents have commonly been portrayed as the new filibusters. After a minute of silence to remember Mora, in which the entire city center seemed to stop breathing, Trejos began firing up the crowd, eventually culminating in the singing of the folksong Ha Llegado La Hora de Juanito Mora by thousands surrounding the main stage. Then Trejos began to make a series of demands for the scenario of a victory of the NO, like education and tax reform, agricultural reform, and the creation of a development bank, in reference to a statement made by president Arias the day before. The president had answered a question about a plan B in case the No wins, by saying that he did not have one, that the interviewer should go and ask the NO. Trejos did not seem to want to let that chance pass. I'll post the transcripts as soon as they are available.

Agence France Press article: http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5gOYugkTdPCViwF4b64e8pFNisoBA

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/01/world/americas/01costarica.html

Reuters: http://lta.today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2007-09-30T203044Z_01_N30247906_RTRIDST_0_INTERNACIONAL-COSTARICA-PROTESTAS-EEUU-SOL.XML

Inter Press Service: http://www.ipsnoticias.net/nota.asp?idnews=86085

La Nacion: http://www.nacion.com/ln_ee/2007/octubre/01/pais1259895.html

Diario Extra: http://www.diarioextra.com/2007/octubre/01/nacionales01.php

92 Priests Come out Against the TLC

92 Catholic priests used the Episcopal conference last Wednesday to announce the publication of a 42 page letter written and signed by them criticizing the CAFTA and confirming their opposotion to the treaty. In the document entitled Valoración Ética del Tratado de Libre Comercio they argue the treaty implies a radical reform of the state leading to the imposition of a neoliberal economic model and the concomitant growth of social injustice. They criticize the secretism with which the treaty was negotiated, the lack of preparation and experience of the the negotiators, as well as their lack of professional integrity, the climate of fear and anxiety, the promises not kept, the absence of a Central American common position, and the campaign of disinformation. They then give a succinct summary of the negative consequences the treaty (it is a treaty, not and agreement - a very important legal difference) will have in their opinion in the areas of national sovereignty, intellectual property rights, agriculture, environment, social equality, respect for human life, and access to natural resources. After describing the imbalance between the winners and the losers of this treaty, they denounce the pressure that some companies are putting on their employees to vote in favor. This document avoids confronting the official Church position, according to which church officials are not to take position on the CAFTA, directly, by presenting itself as merely an ethical guideline. Archbishop Barrantes has reaffirmed the official neutrality of the Church but added that no sanctions would be applied to the priests, a request made by the minister of the presidency, Rodrigo Arias.

To read the document, go to:
http://donatien.wordpress.com/category/iglesia-catolica/

US Congress members Sanders and Michaud urge CR to say NO and clean up with some myths:

Senator Bernie Sanders and representative Michel Michaud visited CR last week at the invitation of PAC leader Ottón Solís. In a press conference on Thursday they corrected some of the “myths,” in Sander’s words, surrounding the TLC. One such myth, for example is that the US congress will cancel Costa Rica’s Caribbean Base Initiative (ICC) benefits in retaliation for a possible rejection of CAFTA. The ICC allows the Caribbean Base countries to export most goods tariff free to the US markets. “It is false that the Caribbean Basin Initiative - means by which part of the exports of Costa Rica enter USA, without paying taxes is going to end. It does not end.[…] It is dishonest to distort reality about an attitude that the United States could assume if NO wins. The United States is a democratic country that will respect what other country like Costa Rica decide democratically. If the no wins the referendum (in Costa Rica) there will be no punishment."

Sanders and Michaud argued that if Costa Ricans wanted to be poor then they should vote yes on October 7, because “these free trade agreements have benefited only the transnationals and never the citizens.” Sanders and Michaud also urged Costa Ricans to study the example of Mexico under NAFTA because of the similarity of the two agreements, and told of how the NAFTA was supposed to reduce illegal immigration to the US by creating jobs and improving the economy. “That was the promise made to the Mexican people. Is there anybody who believes that this has happened? One of the reasons why illegal immigration to the United States has increased instead is because poverty rose.” (Interview in Semanario Universidad #1731, see link on sidebar). The congressmen further argued that these trade agreements are written under the pressure and influence of large, transnational corporations, and only serve to increase the gap between rich and poor on the international and the domestic level of each of the countries.

They also spoke of a new generation of trade agreements that would respect human-, labor- and environmental rights and left open the possibility of negotiating a better treaty in case Costa Rica rejected the TLC. This is important because one of the strategies of the YES campaign has been to portray the decision as an all-or-nothing, now-or-never kind of deal, saying that a rejection of the CAFTA would amount to complete loss of access to the US market for Costa Rican export goods.

Representative Michaud used some strong words to castigate those who propagate these lies: “As soon as I return, I will inform my colleagues in the Congress about this campaign of falsehoods I have heard about the ICC, and they will be offended. This is a lack of respect towards the United States and those people will lose our respect. […] I am very annoyed with the ambassador [to the US] and the president of this country for saying that there will be reprisals from the US. We will not pull them out of the ICC, and we, the Democrats, control the Congress.”

It was very interesting to see the spin that various media put on this visit. If you read only the La Nación (leading daily) article, you would be left with the impression that Sanders and Michaud are evil people who do not want Costa Rica to get the jobs that would move from the US to this country. Coincidentally, the article sounds almost exactly like the press release of the YES campaign…

La Nacion article:

<www.nacion.com/ln_ee/2007/septiembre/27/pais1255523.html>

Diario Extra article: http://www.diarioextra.com/2007/setiembre/24/nacionales06.php

InformaTica article: http://www.informa-tico.com/php/expat.php?id=24-09-07012665&esPrimerArticulo=1&ed=167&fecha=24-09-07&foro=

Press release of the Movimiento Patriotico No al TLC: www.movimientos.org/noalca/show_text.php3?key=10860

English Version at: www.thewolfwefeed.com/wwf-PressReleaseUSCongressmenSanJose.html

Press release of the Citizen Alliance for the YES:http://www.movimientos.org/noalca/show_text.php3?key=10860

La Nacion Response Poll confirms technical tie but has YES in the lead

La Nación published the results of an Unimer poll today, which has the YES in the lead with 49.1% and the NO trailing with 46.3. Nevertheless, these numbers are also within the margin of error, meaning a technical tie, here too. According to Unimer, the support for CAFTA has decreased by 7% since August (from 56%) while the opposition has grown by 10% (36% in August). Slightly more than 64% of the respondents are decided and plan to vote on October 7, far surpassing the required 40% for the referendum to be binding. Unimer interviewed 1238 people face to face (UCR uses phone calls and has a much smaller sample). Both polls were undertaken after the memorandum scandal.

To read the article and see the results, go to:

http://www.nacion.com/ln_ee/2007/septiembre/24/pais1249280.html

technical tie between YES and NO !!!!

The Political Science Department of the University of Costa Rica published the results of a public opinion survey about the referendum on Thursday in which 35.7 % of the respondents said they would vote no on the day of the referendum, and 34,5% yes. Due to the margin of error this is technically a tie, but the important thing here is the trend. The yes camp has been gradually and continuously loosing support (from 46,8 in 2005, to 39% in MArch 2007, to now), while the NO camp has been growing (from 21% in 2005, to 33% MArch 2007). At the same time, the number of the undecided has grown by about five percent 32.5%. Since the majority of those who have not yet decided said they planned to vote, it will probably be those people that decide the referendum. The national sample included 807 respondents. For some reason I can't link to the press release, so I pasted the URL in above in case you want to read it.

Link to the press release: http://www.ucr.ac.cr/documentos/Informe_Encuesta_sobre_TLC_19-09-07.pdf

Too late now...

In May, the PAC offered the government a gutsy deal: If the CAFTA is approved in the referendum, the PAC will not obstruct the passage of the so-called Agenda de Implementación, but if the CAFTA is rejected, the ruling party and its allies have to stop pushing the agenda for their part. The controversial Agenda encompasses 13 laws that need to be modified or passed in order to allow the provisions of the CAFTA to take effect without violating the laws of the country. Among these 13 provisions are the breaking of the monopolies of the public, or state-owned, institutions such as the Instituto Costarricense de Electricidad (ICE, provides electricity and telecommunications services) and the Instituto Nacional de Seguros (INS, insurance and health care for work-related injuries). The agenda also includes changes in the areas of intellectual property rights and patents. There has been a lot of controversy and confusion over how to make the TLC congruent with the law here. For example, should lawmakers pass the implementation agenda before they can vote on the CAFTA, or after? Does the opposition have the right to obstruct the passage of such legislation if the CAFTA has been approved? It is important to point out that the implementation agenda deals with the most controversial aspects of the CAFTA. Issues of trade, quotas and market access are not causing the polarization the country is suffering at the moment; it is precisely those changes to the legal structure that have caused the current crisis. So the deal the PAC offered was the equivalent of putting all your eggs in one basket – all or nothing.
The government and the ruling party never officially responded. And this may have been a grave mistake, given that the PAC and its allies in congress have been torpedoing any attempt by the PLN to begin passing the Agenda and has been refusing to outrule the possibility that they will continue to do that in case of a YES win. The window of time for Costa Rica to ratify the CAFTA and pass the necessary legislation closes in March 2008, however, and it looks like the government is getting nervous. This could have something to do with the memorandum scandal. The embarrassing reference to the extortionary practices of the Movimiento Libertario in return for their support for CAFTA and implementation agenda, caused the ML to move away from the PLN and demonstrate its independence. It looks like now the ruling party really doesn’t have the necessary number of votes it needs for the qualified majority anymore.
So on Thursday, the minister of the presidency, Rodrigo Arias, announced that the government will refrain from trying to pass the 13 laws in case of a NO victory, arguing that there was still time to reach an agreement with the PAC before the referendum. He also stated that the PLN has always “agreed to apply the results of the referendum on the TLC to its projects, but the PAC asked for additional compromises that seemed to lead to a trap.” (La Nación, 20.Sept) A few hours later, President Arias affirmed the announcement: “He who wins, wins everything, and he who loses, loses everything.” Unfortunately, Mayi Antillón, head of the PLN faction in congress seemed not to have gotten the memo, since she gave a short interview to La Nación stating that there are no changes to the PLN strategy, that in case of a NO win, the 13 laws would be sent back into commission to study them under the light what the people said. She obviously wanted to prevent the impression that the PLN was caving in to opposition pressure, but may have served to make the PLN look more confused.
And the PAC? They responded by saying that this proposal had its moment, but that this moment has passed. In fact, it looks like Ottón Solís seems to have gone on the offensive. On Monday both, La Nación and Extra, published an interview with him in which he not only argued that now the TLC and the agenda a separate issues – because the government wanted it so- but he also calls Rodrigo Arias (brother of the president and minister of the presidency) and the presidential spokesperson Michelle Mitchell liars, argues that the president himself cannot defend the TLC and hence refuses to debate him, and argues that Casas and Sánchez, the authors of the famous memo, have not been removed from their position because the government fears that they would come out publicly saying that they had only done what they were asked to do. There are rumors that the memo was actually written in response to a presidential request for help in the CAFTA campaign. He also criticizes the TSE for not having enforced tighter control of CAFTA campaign financial contributions by the private sector. The TSE decided at the beginning of he campaign that individual contributions cannot exceed 4.200.000 colones ($8100). Whether Solís' accusation are true or not, they represent very strong words for the traditionally more subdued leader of the PAC.

The Fall-out

Casas and Sánchez began to apologize immediately. La Nación published an editorial on Monday in which they ask for forgiveness and explain that the memo was written in a moment of anger and hot blood, because they had just returned from a debate which ended in an exchange of insults between the yes and the no representatives: Casas and Eugenio Trejos. In an interview on Tuesday, Casas said he learned a great lesson: never write anything when you are annoyed. He apologized especially for the comment about the TSE (what the campaign should do to “cover our backs with respect to the TSE”) and affirmed his respect and support for this institution.
The first thing that happened was that vice-president Casas officially retired from his work in the Yes campaign and (was(?))stepped down from his position as Planning Minister. The TSE (Supreme Electoral Tribunal) condemned the memorandum as unacceptable, disrespectful, and contradictory to the TSE’s repeated calls for prudence and respect in the national debate over the CAFTA. And then it odered an audit of the Planning Ministry to verify whether public moneys had been used to support theYes campaign. Although this does not require Casas to step down, it was probably deemed inappropriate for him to stay on during this audit. The TSE would not commit to finishing the audit before the Referendum, however, as some sectors had demanded. (see “Contenido del memorandum sacude ambiente politico” in Semanario Universidad, 13 Sept.)
At the same time, deputy Sánchez was relieved of all his seats on legislative committees based on requests made by the PUSC and the ML (Movimiento Libertario). Deputies of the opposition Partido de Acción Ciudadana (PAC) remained standing throughout the discussion of the memo and its implications on Monday afternoon to show their protest. The session had begun with an apologetic speech by Sánchez. But when deputies from the PAC, Frente Amplio (FA) and Partido de Accesso Sin Exclusión (PASE) were getting ready to respond, PUSC faction leader Lorena Vazques requested a 30 min break, which PLN assembly president Pacheco granted. Opposition law makers neverteless remained standing behind their seats until the session reopened. Extra time had to be added later to accommodate all speakers, many of which expressed great indignation. PAC, PASE, and FA deputies all demanded that Casas and Sanchez step down. (se La Nacion, Sept.11 “Vicepresidente Casas se aparta de campaňa del Sí”)
Especially embarrassing for the PLN was the arrival of Movimiento Libertario leader Otto Guevara, who then joined in the calls for a relief from duty for Casas and Sánchez. The Libertarians who now have five deputies in the legislative assembly have up to now been in close cooperation with the government party, supporting the CAFTA and most other legislative projects of the PLN. But the memo scandal should have some interesting results for this alliance. Casas and Sánchez make reference to the extortionary practices of the ML regarding their support for the CAFTA, deeply embarrassing the ML faction in congress and forcing them to assert their independence in order to save face. When Guevara showed up in the assembly, he informed the government that it had only two options: remove Casas and Sánchez now, or suffer through a campaign of obstruction by the ML until the government does so. It will be interesting to see how this break will affect voting on legislative projects relating to the CAFTA.
Representatives of various social movements, among them the ANEP (Public Employees Union), ASDEICE (Union of the ICE workers), and CNE (Comission Nacional de Enlace) gave a press conference in the TSE building demanding more drastic actions against Casas and Sánchez. When they emerged from the building, which had been closed off with the help of yellow rope and police officers, they claimed to have been purposefully given wrong information by TSE guards regarding the location of the press conference, so that some showed up late. A handful of representatives also got stuck in an elevator on their way to the press conference. Although none of them explicitly blamed the TSE with obstr\hood of exactly their elevator getting stuck at exactly that time, for just enough time to make them late.

Memo text

Memorandum del sí



MEMORÁNDUM



Para: Pr:esidente de la República, Ministro de la Presidencia
De: Kevin Casas, Fernando Sánchez


Fecha: 29 de Julio de 2007

Asunto: Algunas acciones urgentes para activar la campaña del SÍ al TLC


Estimados don Oscar y don Rodrigo:
Luego de la larga conversación el día viernes 27, tras participar en un debate sobre el TLC en San Isidro de Heredia, una actividad que resultó muy reveladora, hemos decidido hacerles llegar este memorándum, que puntualiza algunas acciones que estimamos convenientes para activar CUANTO ANTES la campaña en favor del TLC. Evidentemente, no son las únicas que habría que hacer, pero pensamos que son importantes.


1. Establecer un comité de estrategia de la campaña del SÍ
Esto es quizá lo más urgente de todo. En este momento NO hay una orientación clara de qué es lo que hay que hacer para ganar, cómo hacerlo y con quién. Pero, peor aún, no hay un mecanismo establecido para tomar esas decisiones.


Lo que hay, a medias, es pura estructura operativa y pura respuesta táctica, mas no estrategia. Ese VACIO ha sido llenado con las decisiones (o la ausencia de ellas) tomadas por el grupo de comunicación, lo que claramente es insuficiente.


Es esencial que el Presidente de la República y el Ministro de la Presidencia FORMEN parte de ese comité.


2. Construir una coalición social a favor del TLC. Aquí transcribimos lo que uno de nosotros escribió hace ya casi 3 años en un memorándun dirigido a Marco Vinicio Ruiz: «El debate no lo va a ganar el gobierno ni lo van a ganar los empresarios solos, pero lo puede ganar una coalición. Uno de los GRAVES ERRORES que han cometido los sectores favorables al TLC ha sido delegar su defensa en los negociadores del acuerdo y, en general, en el gobierno.



Aún antes de los recientes escándalos, que han minado la confianza en el estamento político, los niveles de credibilidad del gobierno eran ya muy bajos y probablemente insuficientes para conferir legitimidad a un PROYECTO TAN CONTROVERSIAL. En este momento nadie le cree UNA PALABRA al gobierno ni a los políticos y por ello sería una locura delegarles la función de defender el tratado.


Formar .una coalición y hacer que la defensa del TLC sea una obra colectiva es
crucial no solo para superar esta falta de legitimidad, sino para evitar que la discusión acuse el injusto desbalance que fue ampliamente visible durante el conflicto del "combo" en el año 2000, cuando la organización de los opositores no tuvo más contrapeso que la voz solitaria del gobierno.


Es vital demostrar que en la discusión sobre el TLC hay dos bloques amplios de interés, y eso supone que los sectores favorables -que tienen INTERESES NADA DIFUSOS y tan intensos como los de los opositores--deben ser organizados y articulados. Esto es esencial para que la discusión sobre el TLC no corra con la misma suerte del "combo". La importancia de este punto no puede soslayarse.


La campaña sobre el TLC se está convirtiendo en lo que nunca debimos haber dejado que se convirtiera: una lucha entre RICOS Y POBRES, y entre PUEBLO y GOBIERNO. La coalición que tenemos en contra es FORMIDABLE: universidades, Iglesia, sindicatos, grupos ambientalistas, etc. Y del otro lado, a favor del TLC, sólo están, el gobierno y, a medias, los GRANDES EMPRESARIOS. AsÍ no hay forma de ganar.


Es urgentísimo meter en la campaña, por lo menos, a los pequeños empresarios, a los SOLIDARISTAS y a lo que se pueda del cooperativismo. Y cuando decimos meter en la campaña es, simplemente, que "aparezcan" por todo lado las caras de algunos de sus líderes. Obviamente, si esos líderes además pueden efectivamente controlar parte de esos movimientos sociales, pues tanto mejor. Cierto es que en el solidarismo, en particular, no hay liderazgos nacionales fuertes. Si es así habrá que crearlos ya. Hay que darle presencia en medios a algunas caras del solidarismo y ello mismo los irá convirtiendo en líderes. ¿Quién era EUGENIO TREJOS en el país hace 6 meses?


Es la exposición en medios la que lo ha convertido en UN LIDER NACIONAL.


3. Gestionar un receso en la Asamblea Legislativa
. La campaña necesita, con urgencia, presencia en todas las comunidades del país. Dictar un receso en la Asamblea es clave para sacar a nuestros diputados -que son más que los de oposición y que no encuentran ninguna limitación para hacer campaña -a las comunidades, para organizar la campaña "de a pie". Es evidente que esto puede tener algún costo para el avance de la agenda legislativa, pero en este momento ese es un problema de tercer orden. Lo primero es, evidentemente, ganar el referéndum. En todo caso, en este momento la agenda legislativa no está caminando por falta de quórum. Eso nos deja en el peor de los mundos: la prensa hace al PLN responsable de la falla de quórum, mientras la oposición (y aun muchos de nuestros "aliados") no es vista como responsable y anda haciendo campaña. Además, la continuación de las negociaciones en sede legislativa nos expone a constantes CHANTAJES de nuestros "ALIADOS" legislativos, que terminan reflejándose en la campaña del si.


4. Formalizar una alianza formal con los ALCALDES municipales, particularmente los del PLN
Esto es decisivo y por similares razones que lo anterior: necesitamos presencia en todo el país. Existe una carta firmada por 72 alcaldes que no es, en absoluto, desdeñable. En ella, ofrecen su apoyo al TLC, pidiendo, como es enteramente esperable, algunas cosas a cambio. El contenido de la carta tiene elementos descartables, otros enteramente negociables y otros francamente positivos para el gobierno (por ejemplo, el apoyo explícito que ofrecen para la reforma tributaria). Es vital responder adecuadamente a esa carta, responder pronto y responder en un gran acto público.



Pero hay que hacer algo ya, particularmente con los 59 alcaldes del PLN. Hay que hacerlos responsables de la campaña en cada cantón y transmitirles, con toda crudeza, una idea muy simple: el alcalde que no gana su cantón el 7 de octubre NO VA A RECIBIR UN CINCO del gobierno en los próximos 3 años. El mismo razonamiento puede aplicarse a los regidores, a quienes se puede hacer responsables de distritos específicos. En este último caso hay que recordarles SUS ASPIRACIONES personales: de ganar el referéndum depende que tengan posibilidades reales de seguir siendo regidores o de llegar a ser alcaldes o diputados. Eso no solo porque el desempeño del PLN en la próxima elección se verá muy afectado por el resultado del referéndum, sino porque esta elección va a servir para que las autoridades superiores del PLN calibren quién tiene madera de dirigente y quién no.


Muchos dirigentes locales no se están metiendo 'en la campaña para "no quemarse" antes de la próxima elección. El razonamiento tiene que ser exactamente el contrario: el que no se mete de lleno, se "quema".


Lo que está en la base de esto es un asunto más profundo e importante: es urgente extender el círculo de la gente que se está "jugando el pellejo" en este referéndum. En este momento existe entre nuestras aliadas -dentro y fuera del PLN-una actitud generalizada de INDOLENCIA, como si pensaran que el único afectado por una derrota sería el Presidente. Es vital que entiendan que ellos van a salir directa y gravemente perjudicados.


5. Oficializar el apoyo del PLN
Para construir la coalición social antes referida nos queda, desafortunadamente, MUY POCO TIEMPO. Lo que tenemos en la mano es algo bastante menos potable, pero útil: una coalición política no implica meter de lleno al PLN, que es, por mucho, el actor más importante de esa coalición. Con excepción de la fracción legislativa, hasta ahora el papel de los órganos del PLN en el TLC ha sido excesivamente comedido. No hay un solo pronunciamiento oficial del PLN en favor del TLC, ni una directriz clara hacia la
estructura del partido. Eso ha creado una GRAN CONFUSION en la dirigencia, que sabe bien, además, que hay una parte del partido que está CONTRA el TLC. La estructura oficial del PLN (Directorio, Comité Ejecutivo) tiene que salir hablando inequívocamente en defensa del TLC, en el entendido de que uno de los principales ganadores o perdedores del referéndum va a ser el PLN.


6. Estructurar y lanzar una CAMPAÑA MASIVA en medios de comunicación
Más allá de lo que se pueda hacer en las comunidades y en las empresas, es tan poco el tiempo que queda, que NO HAY QUE TENER PUDOR alguno en saturar los medios de comunicación con publicidad. Y precisamente por el corto tiempo, es imperioso dirigir la campaña en dos direcciones:


1) Desbancar la idea de que esta es una lucha de ricos contra pobres. Eso requiere escoger muy bien los rostros de la comunicación masiva del sí y utilizar casi exclusivamente trabajadores y pequeños empresarios.
Asimismo, debemos subirle muchísimo los decibeles y la presencia mediática y discursiva a la agenda social del gobierno.


2) ESTIMULAR EL MIEDO. Ese miedo es de cuatro tipos:


I. Miedo a la pérdida del EMPLEO. Aquí pareciera MUY recomendable utilizar intensivamente testimoniales de gente MUY sencilla y en situación precaria, que puede perder el empleo o ya lo perdió como consecuencia de la no aprobación del TLC. Esto además es vital para reforzar la idea de que esta no es una lucha de ricos contra pobres. Del mismo modo, es posible que en regiones específicas tenga un gran impacto visibilizar los casos concretos de
empresas que han postergado inversiones, que han recortado turnos o que están considerando irse del país por la no aprobación del TLC.


II. Miedo al ataque a las instituciones democráticas. Es crucial convertir al SÍ en equivalente con la democracia y la institucionalidad (es lo que decía Eduardo Ulibarri: hay que ir llenando al SÍ de un contenido de valores) y al NO EN EQUIVALENTE DE LA VIOLENCIA Y LA DESLEALTAD CON LA DEMOCRACIA.


Aquí hay algo muy importante: esta campaña ya dejó de ser racional y, en consecuencia, sobre el contenido del TLC. Así, el argumento de la defensa de la democracia es el UNICO RECURSO QUE NOS QUEDA para movilizar la emoción de la gente que está a favor del TLC.


En este momento la gente que está A FAVOR no sólo NO TIENE MOTIVACION alguna, sino que se siente intimidada por la motivación que muestra la gente del NO. Hay que entender una cosa: nadie está dispuesto a "morir" por el libre comercio, pero tal vez sí por la democracia. Hay que darle una motivación ética y no sólo instrumental al sí.


III. Miedo a la ingerencia extranjera en el NO. Hay que RESTREGAR por todas partes la conexión del NO con Fidel, Chávez y Ortega, en términos bastante ESTRIDENTES. Es posible que este tipo de campaña pueda incomodar a alguna gente, pero es casi seguro de que puede tener un impacto considerable entre LA GENTE MAS SENCILLA, que es donde tenemos los problemas más serios.


IV. Miedo al efecto de un triunfo del NO sobre el Gobierno. Todas las encuestas detectan grado importante de satisfacción con el Presidente y el Gobierno. Mucha gente simplemente no ha hecho la conexión de que un triunfo del NO en el referéndum, dejaría al Gobierno en una posición precaria, con su efectividad totalmente reducida, y al país en una situación de ingobernabilidad. Esa conexión hay que inducirla. Este es un argumento que puede que solo funcione para ciertos sectores, pero puede ser muy efectivo sembrando la duda. Hay tres preguntas que debemos sembrar en la mente de la gente, que pueden hacer LES TIEMBLE EL DEDO si están pensando votar por el NO:


l. ¿Están dispuestos a poner en riesgo la estabilidad económica, que casi todo mundo reconoce como un logro del gobierno?
2. ¿Están dispuestos a volver a la época de Abel, cuando no gobernaba nadie, no había ningún sentido de rumbo y no pasaba nada en el país?
3. ¿Han pensado quién va a mandar en el país si gana el NO?
(Respuesta inducida para la pregunta: van a mandar Albino, Merino, Carazo, etc.) .


Asimismo, es muy importante fortalecer la presencia en LA RADIO (tanto nacional como local) y en los medios rurales escritos, donde tenemos grandes problemas. Hay que poner a funcionar BATERIAS EN TODOS LOS PROGRAMAS de opinión y mejorar la PAUTA PUBLICITARIA DEL GOBIERNO en una serie de programas de radio conducidos por gente que tiene toda la disposición de ayudar al gobierno ( p.e) Javier Rojas, Jaime Peña, etc.). Si la presencia del sí en radio no mejora drásticamente, esto seguirá manifestándose en nuestra debilidad en las zonas rurales. Es muy posible que los problemas que tenemos en zona rural tengan menos que ver con el fondo de la campaña (temas mal atendidos o desatendidos por ésta) y más con la forma en que la gente se informa en zona rural, donde la radio es un medio de información muy poderoso.



7. Generar gran cantidad de documentación impresa sobre el TLC y sobre la
oposición, apta para ser repartida. Un problema serio que tenemos quienes estamos haciendo proselitismo a favor del TLC es la ausencia total de documentación de fácil digestión, que pueda circular masivamente. Como ya es sabido, ese es un punto que el NO ha desarrollado particularmente bien. En
este momento tienen empapelado el país con volantes. La documentación que hay que hacer es de tres tipos:



1) La que aclare, en lenguaje muy simple, algunos de los argumentos más insidiosos contra el TLC (medicinas, AGUA, celulares, etc.). Como parte de esto, es muy importante que algunas instituciones clave ( p.e. ICE, CCSS, AyA, MTSS) generen oficialmente volantes que contesten en términos muy contundentes los volantes que están siendo repartidos en .sus propias instalaciones por los sindicatos de las instituciones. Se trata de volantes de información, que no pueden, en forma alguna, pedir el apoyo para el TLC (eso debido) a la resolución del TSE).
2) La que exponga los efectos de un rechazo al TLC sobre sectores o aspectos específicos (p.e. las láminas de la presentación que usa Jorge Woodbridge);


3) La que siembre CIZAÑA SOBRE LOS LIDERES, motivos, métodos, financiamiento y vínculos internacionales del NO.


8. Organizar un programa sistemático de visitas a las empresas por parte de
los funcionarios del gobierno. En este momento, el espacio de proselitismo más fácil de aprovechar y el que nos ofrece las mejores oportunidades es, por mucho, el de las empresas. Ahí hay más de un millón de trabajadores. Debemos organizar un esfuerzo sistemático de visitas a las empresas más grandes del país, con charlas a favor del SÍ impartidas por personas de alto nivel y con documentación en la mano. Ningún esfuerzo de proselitismo es potencialmente tan efectivo como este. Idealmente, eso supone cinco pasos:

1) Disponer de la información de cuáles son y dónde están las empresas más
grandes;
2) Que la campaña contacte a los empresarios para que concedan un espacio
para la charla;


3) Que la empresa envíe de inmediato UNA CARTA al Ministerio de Planificación pidiendo que el gobierno le envíe un representante PARA HABLAR del Plan Nacional de Desarrollo o de la visión futura del país o algo por el estilo (eso PARA CUBRIRNOS las espaldas de cara al TSE);


4) Armar un programa de visitas a empresas para, al menos, 30 jerarcas de
gobierno;

5) El jerarca visita la empresa (en algunos casos acompañados por el diputado de la zona) y deja documentación. . Si 30 funcionarios visitan 10 empresas por semana, será posible cubrir casi 2500 empresas en las próximas 8 semanas. Hay que dar énfasis a las más "grandes y las "dirigidas a la exportación.° Lo que es importante, en todo caso, es asegurar que los jerarcas de gobierno y los diputados no anden de paseo con el Presidente. Eso es una injustificable pérdida de tiempo y esfuerzo.


9. Organizar un acto multitudinario de fuerza para darle motivación a la campaña. Existe GRAN DESMOTIVACION entre quienes están a favor del TLC, desorientación por la ausencia de una campana y, en muchos casos, miedo de expresar las opiniones. Hay que motivar a los partidarios del SÍ, HACERLES SENTIR que la campaña la está haciendo cosa'), que no están solos, QUE SOMOS MUCHOS. Es recomendable organizar un acto público o un festival multitudinario (podría ser una marcha, pero ahí casi siempre tenemos problemas). Pero la gente tiene que sentirse acompañada y motivada.

Notes of a Scandal – The Memo from Hell (or Heaven – depends on who you ask)

The Memorandum Scandal broke in the afternoon of Sept.6 with the publication of that week’s university newspaper, Semanario Universidad. The Semanario had received an anonymously delivered letter, written by Kevin Casas, one of the vice presidents, and Fernando Sánchez, PLN congressman and nephew of the president. The document, addressed to president Arias and dated July 29th is entitled “Algunas acciones urgentes para activar la campaňa del SÍ al TLC” (Some urgent actions to activate the campaign for the Yes to the TLC). In it, Casas and Sanchez give a surprisingly blunt analysis of the status of the debate over the CAFTA. “The campaign regarding the TLC is turning into something we never should have allowed: a fight between the rich and the poor, the people and the government.”[1] They also argue that it was a mistake to have let the executive branch and the CAFTA negotiators from the foreign trade ministry COMEX, handle the campaign for ratification: “ At this point nobody believes a word the government or the politicians are saying.”
But it is the suggestions they make to ensure a victory of the Yes-Campaign that are providing the fuel for the scandal. Among them, (there are a few more harmless ones, like creating a social coalition for the TLC) a strategy of creating fear in the population that will cause people to vote yes on the 7th. But they don’t leave it at that; they detail four distinct fears to be mongered in the extensive media campaign suggested.
1) Stimulate fear of loss of employment. This is clear, the employment argument has been used ad nauseum. It depends on who you believe, the government (who argues that CAFTA will create between 150 000 and 500 000 new jobs, or so – they keep downgrading the numbers lately), or everybody else, including national and international academic and IGO sources, or the facts of the cases of Mexico, and the countries that have already ratified the CAFTA. (CEPAL recently removed a document created in conjunction with the Costa Rican foreign ministry regarding the estimated economic effects of ratification of the CAFTA were not supportable with any reasonable research methods.)
2) Stimulate fear of an attack on democratic institutions of the country. They suggest turning “the no-campaign into the equivalent of violence and disloyalty to democracy,” ostensibly to activate emotion in the supporters of the TLC, who, according to the authors, are not sufficiently emotional about the TLC to compete with the motivation of the supporters of the “no”. “ Let’s be clear about this,” they say, “nobody is prepared to die for free trade, but maybe for democracy.”
3) Stimulate fear of foreign involvement in the No-Campaign. “Rub in wherever possible the connection between Fidel, [Hugo] Chavez, and [Daniel] Ortega and the NO-campaign in the most resounding manner.” This is presumed by the authors to resonate especially with the simple folk and anyone who has spent some time in this country knows how completely communism and communists are vilified here. It has its special irony, but that’s why they call it “national myth building”, right? Anyway, in spite of trying hard, they have not been able to come up with any evidence of this what so ever.
4) Stimulate fear of the consequences of a NO victory. Casas and Sánchez point out here that most people simply have not made the connection that a NO victory would leave the government in a precarious and ineffective condition. The connection between a NO victory and ingovernability has to be “induced”. They also refer to “sowing the doubt” as sufficient to sway potential NO voters.

A few comments here: the opposition to the TLC has been accusing the YES campaign of fear mongering for some time now and this document appears to be a god-sent to prove their point. The propaganda coming out of the NO camp in the last few days has been almost exclusively focusing on this aspect. One particularly favored flyer features a cartoon of president Arias reading bedtimes stories out of book entitled SI to a completely horrified looking family hiding under their covers, while a ghost entitled unemployment looms in the corner.
Secondly, the cynicism of the document has to be pointed out. If there is a campaign that is foreign-influenced, or, to be more exact, foreign-funded it is the YES campaign. Eugenio Trejos, university director and one of the leaders of the NO campaign has been challenging the YES camp in vain to open their accounts and show where the money for the media campaign originates. (While the NO finances are publicly available at the Supreme Electoral Tribunal to anyone interested, it is the YES campaign that shrouds itself in secrecy. For a good reason, but that is another blog entry altogether. In my personal experience, the people of the No are extremely wary of foreign influence and flat out reject it because they are aware of how deeply suspicious Costa Rican society is of the Latin American left. The ghosts of the “communists” command a lot of power here and the NO campaign knows better than to fall into that trap. Shortly after the memo, by the way, whole page advertisements with pictures of Castro, Ortega and Chavez and the question of whether the viewer would want to have the “communists” run the country in case the NO wins appeared in the major newspapers. The Semanario has published a study by Media Guru, which shows that the YES campaign has spent the equivalent of about $560.000 on advertisements in TV, radio, and newspapers between January and July of 2007, while the NO campaign has spent about $60.000.
But there is more: Casas and Sánchez then suggest presenting the local mayors, especially the 59 belonging to the PLN , with a very direct threat: “One has to make them responsible of the campaign in each canton and inform them, with all the crudeness necessary, of a very simple idea: The mayor that does not win his canton on October 7 [for the ratification of the CAFTA] will not receive one cent from the government in the next three years. The same reasoning can be applied to local city counselors, which can be made responsible of specific districts. In this last case, they need to be reminded of their personal aspirations: on the victory of the CAFTA depends whether or not they have realistic possibilities to continue as councilors, obtain mayorships, or become deputies [members of congress].” This is not only a blatant admission of corrupt practices at their best, it also sounds to me like a recipe for fraud at the ballot box as the ultimate resort of a major or councilor who is determined to keep his (in some cases her) job.
Sánchez for his part admitted that the document was his when presented with it unexpectedly in a phony interview by the Semanario. Upon realizing the possible consequences of this admission, the congressman who is (was?) handled as a possible presidential aspirant in the next elections tried to suppress this information by arguing that he had a legal entitlement to his property, namely the memo, but the Semanario published it arguing public domain. I am not sure if the opposition to the TLC could have asked for a better scandal to exploit three and a half weeks before the referendum.


[1] Author’s translation, see document below for exact phrase…