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