[fse-esf] FW: [WTO-INTL] Costa Rica Vote on CAFTA Questioned!

[Alexandra Strickner]

fyi

 

Alexandra Strickner

Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP)

Berggasse 7

1090 Vienna

Austria

Tel: +43 1 317 40 14

Fax: + 43 1 317 40 15

www.iatp.org <http://www.iatp.org> 

www.tradeobservatory.org <http://www.tradeobservatory.org> 

 

From: WTO-INTL [mailto:WTO-INTL at LISTSERVER.CITIZEN.ORG] On Behalf Of
Nicola Bullard
Sent: mercredi, 10. octobre 2007 15:54
To: WTO-INTL at LISTSERVER.CITIZEN.ORG
Subject: [WTO-INTL] Costa Rica Vote on CAFTA Questioned!

 

Costa Rica Vote on CAFTA Questioned! 

 

For immediate release October 8, 2007 

Contacts: Tom Loudon, Alliance for Responsible Trade 

011 (506) 864-3449 through 10/9 and (301) 204- 9549 

Tara Carr-Lemke, Stop CAFTA Coalition (202) 319- 5542 

 

Costa Rica Referendum on CAFTA Questioned 

U.S. Intervention, Corruption, and an Internationally Financed Fear
Campaign Provoke Questions about Referendum Process 

 

United States intervention, corruption, and the realities of an
internationally financed campaign led to the passage of the
U.S.-Dominican Republic-Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) in
yesterday's popular referendum in Costa Rica. A delegation from the
U.S.-based Alliance for Responsible Trade and the Stop CAFTA Coalition,
who represent U.S. faith-based, solidarity, union, and student
organizations and served as international observers, point to the
process as an example of dirty campaigning designed to pressure
countries to accept the existing trade model and the economic program it
promotes. 

 

"In Costa Rica, voting 'No' was about stopping CAFTA, but it was also
about a twenty-year struggle to preserve publicly run electrical, phone
and health care systems," says Tom Loudon from the Alliance for
Responsible Trade. "The Costa Rican and U.S. governments and the
multinationals they represent simply had too much to lose to allow the
'No' campaign to win." 

 

Many characterized the "Yes" and "No" campaigns as a struggle between
David and Goliath. Although the locally-funded grassroots door-to-door
strategy facilitated unprecedented broad-based mobilization around the
trade agreement, it was up against an internationally-backed fear
campaign administered by the Costa Rican and U.S. governments,
multinational companies, and multilateral institutions. 

 

"It is clear that pro-'free trade' forces identified Costa Rica as a
pivotal battleground for their model," said Phil Jocelyn from the New
York People's Referendum of Free Trade. "The amount of funds that the
'Yes' side had at its disposal was practically limitless, and as a
result, Costa Ricans were submitted to a nine- month long advertisement
for CAFTA." 

 

In spite of the funds available to them, CAFTA advocates witnessed a
swelling movement, which they feared would triumph at the polls-a fear
which led to manipulation and corruption. Vice President Kevin Casas
resigned last month over a leaked memorandum mapping out their strategy
for an iron- fist approach to ensuring CAFTA's passage. Just two days
before the referendum, another scandal broke uncovering illegal campaign
financing to President Arias from powerful Carlos Slim, the Mexican
telephone baron, and Central American families with interests in the
Costa Rican telecommunications market. 

 

"We are not accepting the results of the referendum because of the way
in which the Costa Rican and U.S. governments behaved during the final
three days of the referendum," said Jorge Arguedas Mora, President of
ANTTEC union electrical and telephone workers and coordinator of the No
CAFTA campaign. "Both violated laws regulating the referendum, the
constitution, and even existing international agreements," he said. "The
media colluded in the government manipulation and unfortunately the
Supreme Electoral Tribunal looked the other way," Jorge clarified. The
Tribunal, which oversees elections, permitted pro-CAFTA messages to be
broadcast and failed to act when allegations that the government was
delivering housing vouchers to influence votes in marginalized
communities in the three days leading up to the referendum surfaced-
campaign activities that are illegal. CAFTA opponents pledged to
investigate allegations of fraud in the voting centers. 

 

The U.S., on behalf of the multinational companies in whose interests it
acts, played an aggressive role to secure a favorable vote. "Observing
the campaign waged in the Costa Rican media over the last few days, I am
outraged by the U.S. role in presenting misinformation as fact and
pressuring Costa Rica with threats," said Emily Gaggia from CISPES. As
recently as just three days prior to the referendum, U.S. Trade
Representative Susan Schwab made a declaration stating that Costa Rica
risked losing trade preferences with the U.S. if it did not vote for
CAFTA-a power given only to Congress. The Bush Administration,
represented by U.S. Ambassador Mark Langdale, backed up those threats
in-country and went as far as visiting export-dependent companies with
the same message. 

 

In spite of the manipulation and fear campaigns, Costa Ricans came out
to the polls with faith in the process. The energy of the people moved
me to tears as I entered my first center as an international observer,"
said Jessica Walker Beaumont of the Alliance for Responsible Trade. "Not
only were people empowered by the opportunity to have a voice in the
process, but it was also clear that for Costa Ricans, CAFTA and global
trade have become household issues." 

 

The Costa Rican movement against CAFTA joins the struggles of its
neighbors and of the trade justice movement in the U.S. and challenges
people's movements around the world to continue building on its lessons.
"We have only been here for a short time, but we've received an
intensive course in Costa Rican history, politics, and grassroots
mobilization," said Tara Carr-Lemke, of the Stop CAFTA Coalition. "It is
clear that we in the U.S. have much to learn." 

 

"There is consensus that we will not allow the implementation agenda and
will continue to fight against the deliverance of our fundamental
institutions to multinational corporations," said Jorge of ANNTEC.
"Tomorrow begins the fight against the 13 laws that will facilitate the
implementation of the agreement." 

 

"We have learned that there are two United States, just like in many
countries there are various ways of thought and not all support the
executive decisions," Says Mr. Arguedas. "This knowledge will strengthen
us across borders as we continue this struggle in different countries,"
he stated. 

 

 

Nicola Bullard 

Focus on the Global South 

CUSRI, Chulalongkorn University 

Bangkok, Thailand, 10330 

n.bullard at focusweb.org 

www.focusweb.org 

+662 2187363 (Thailand) 

+336 70454404 (France) 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.fse-esf.org/pipermail/fse-esf/attachments/20071010/438be287/attachment.htm