[Ip-health] [g-h] Costa Rica Referendum on CAFTA Outcome Questioned

[Ellen Shaffer]

--
[ Picked text/plain from multipart/alternative ]

>From: Ellen Shaffer <ershaffer@cpath.org>
>Subject: [g-h] Costa Rica Referendum on CAFTA Outcome Questioned
>
>fyi: - Ellen Shaffer
>
>>From: "Jessica Walker Beaumont" <JWalkerBeaumont@afsc.org>
>>
>>For immediate
>>release                   Contacts:       Tom
>>Loudon, Alliance for Responsible Trade
>>
>>October 8,
>>2007
>>   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 Outcome Questioned
>>
>>U.S. Intervention, Corruption, and an Internationally Financed Fear Campa=
ign
>>
>>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=92s 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.
>>
>>
>>
>>=93In Costa Rica, voting =91No=92 was about stopping
>>CAFTA, but it was also about a twenty-year
>>struggle to preserve publicly run electrical,
>>phone and health care systems,=94 says Tom Loudon
>>from the Alliance for Responsible Trade.  =93The
>>Costa Rican and U.S. governments and the
>>multinationals they represent simply had too
>>much to lose to allow the =91No=92 campaign to win.=94
>>
>>
>>
>>Many characterized the =93Yes=94 and =93No=94 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.
>>
>>
>>
>>=93It is clear that pro-=91free trade=92 forces
>>identified Costa Rica as a pivotal battleground
>>for their model,=94 said Phil Jocelyn from the
>>New York People=92s Referendum of Free
>>Trade.  =93The amount of funds that the =91Yes=92
>>side had at its disposal was practically
>>limitless, and as a result, Costa Ricans were
>>submitted to a nine-month long advertisement for CAFTA.=94
>>
>>
>>
>>In spite of the funds available to them, CAFTA
>>advocates witnessed a swelling movement, which
>>they feared would triumph at the polls=ADa 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=92s
>>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.
>>
>>
>>
>>=93We 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,=94 said
>>Jorge Arguedas Mora, President of ANTTEC union
>>electrical and telephone workers and
>>coordinator of the No CAFTA campaign.  =93Both
>>violated laws regulating the referendum, the
>>constitution, and even existing international
>>agreements,=94 he said.  =93The media colluded in
>>the government manipulation and unfortunately
>>the Supreme Electoral Tribunal looked the other
>>way,=94 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=AD 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.
>>=93Observing 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,=94 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=AD 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,=94 said
>>Jessica Walker Beaumont of the Alliance for
>>Responsible Trade. =93Not 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.=94
>>
>>
>>
>>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=92s movements around the world to continue
>>building on its lessons.  =93We have only been
>>here for a short time, but we=92ve received an
>>intensive course in Costa Rican history,
>>politics, and grassroots mobilization,=94 said
>>Tara Carr-Lemke, of the Stop CAFTA
>>Coalition.  =93It is clear that we in the U.S. have much to learn.=94
>>
>>
>>=93There 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,=94 said Jorge of ANNTEC. =93Tomorrow
>>begins the fight against the 13 laws that will
>>facilitate the implementation of the agreement.=94
>>
>>=93We 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,=94 Says Mr. Arguedas.  =93This
>>knowledge will strengthen us across borders as
>>we continue this struggle in different countries,=94 he shared.
>>
>>###
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>Trade-Matters mailing list
>>Trade-Matters@list.afsc.org
>>http://list.afsc.org/mailman/listinfo/trade-matters
>
>
>PUBLIC CITIZEN PRESS RELEASE
>
>Close Tally on CAFTA by Costa Rica in First-Ever Public Vote on a NAFTA
>Expansion Shows That Bush Administration's Continual Push for These
>Deals Hurts U.S. Foreign Policy in Latin America
>
>Even After U.S. Threats Aimed at Stimulating Public Fear of Reprisal
>and Big-Dollar Campaign Pushing 'S=ED' Vote, Result Is Marked by
>Razor-Thin Margin
>
>WASHINGTON, D.C. -
>.... Preliminary results showed that those opposing CAFTA garnered just ov=
er
>48 percent of the vote and those for it garnered under 52 percent. The
>anti-CAFTA vote received the majority in most rural regions, where fears
>about campesino displacement drove opposition to the pact. The pro-CAFTA
>vote won narrow majorities in most urban, populous regions, where Bush
>administration's threats made Thursday and Saturday were widely
>covered by the media despite a legally mandated black-out on advocacy
>for or against CAFTA in the press. As of Monday morning, the "no"
>campaign had not conceded and was awaiting a partial recount on Tuesday
>and an investigation into polling station irregularities.
>
>Citizens of El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua, Guatemala and the
>Dominican Republic had no opportunity to voice their own views of CAFTA.
>Despite massive, long-running public demonstrations against CAFTA in
>those countries - which resulted in protestors being killed by the
>police in Guatemala and a legislature fleeing its own building to hold
>the vote in a downtown hotel in Honduras - legislatures in those
>countries ultimately ratified and implemented CAFTA by mid-2006.
>
>In Costa Rica, the CAFTA debate coincided with that nation's
>presidential election. With fair trade presidential candidate Ott=F3n
>Sol=EDs running against CAFTA-supporter and Nobel-Prize winner Oscar
>=C1rias on a campaign focusing on the widely unpopular NAFTA expansion,
>CAFTA never came to a vote in Costa Rica. Early in 2007, after =C1rias
>narrowly won, Costa Rica's legislature passed a measure establishing a
>national referendum on whether Costa Rica should enter CAFTA.
>
>....House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid in
>late September sent a letter to Costa Rica's ambassador to the United
>States correcting Langdale's false threats that Costa Rica would lose
>its CBI trade preferences if the public rejected CAFTA. "Participation
>in 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," Pelosi and Reid wrote. Despite this, Bush's U.S.
>Trade Representative renewed the threats on Thursday, and the White
>House issued a statement repeating the threats on Saturday - just hours
>before the vote.
>
>
>Ellen R. Shaffer, PhD MPH, Co-Director
>Center for Policy Analysis on Trade and Health (CPATH)
>Thoreau Center for Sustainability
>P.O. Box 29586
>San Francisco, CA 94129-0586
>
>phone: 415-922-6204
>email: ershaffer@cpath.org
>mobile: 415-680-4603
>www.cpath.org
>fax: 415-885-4091 ---
>The Globalization and Health list is a
>discussion group, an information source, and an
>organizing tool for people concerned about the
>impact of economic globalization on health. The
>list is managed by CPATH, the Center for Policy
>Analysis on Trade and Health, an independent
>research and advocacy group. www.cpath.org
>
>You are currently subscribed to g-h as: ershaffer@cpath.org
>
>To post a message, send an email to G-H@list.cpath.org
>
>To unsubscribe via email, send a blank email to
>leave-g-h-1061823P@list.cpath.org
>
>To subscribe via email send a blank email to join-G-H@list.cpath.org
>
>To subscribe, unsubscribe or view archived
>messages, visit the list web site at
><http://list.cpath.org/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=3Dg-h>
--