Public Citizen: Close CAFTA Vote (Costa Rica) Shows Failure of NAFTA model

[antigop]

http://citizen.typepad.com/eyesontrade/2007/10/close-cafta-vot.html

>>
WASHINGTON, D.C. – The depth of public opposition to North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)-style pacts was demonstrated Sunday by Costa Rica’s massive “no” vote to CAFTA despite a intensive campaign led by the country’s president, months of deceptive radio and television advertising in favor of the pact, and a threatening statement issued Saturday by the White House, Public Citizen said today.

The strong vote against CAFTA likely will fuel growing opposition to another Bush proposal now before Congress to expand NAFTA to Peru. The Peru Free Trade Agreement (FTA) contains the same foreign investor privileges, service sector privatization, agriculture and other provisions that fueled Costa Rican public opposition.

“That nearly half the public in Latin America’s richest free-market democracy opposed CAFTA despite the intensive campaign in favor of it should end the repeated claims that pushing more NAFTA-style free trade deals is critical to U.S. foreign policy interests in the region or helps the U.S. image,” said Lori Wallach, director of Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch division. “This vote also debunks the claim that these pacts are motivated out of U.S. altruism to help poor people in trade partner countries, given that many of the people in question just announced that they themselves don’t want this kind of trade policy. This policy, supported by the elite, will help foreign investors seize control of their natural resources, undermine access to essential services, displace peasant farmers and jack up medicines prices.”
>>

[rurallib]

1. Gotta wonder if the vote was 'honest'?

Bushco usually covers all the bases including stealing the vote.
Damn I was hoping it would fail.

[antigop]

2. I was wondering the same thing..... n/t

[LakeSamish706]

3. This is awesome... Should piss Bush off big time! n/t

[antigop]

4. No-- read the rest of the article -- It will just embolden them for Peru.

They got what they wanted -- now on to the next conquest.

[fasttense]

5. Here are some of the accusations of criminal activity by the "yes" campaign.

Among the most serious violations: the "yes" campaign continued to distribute propaganda, organize rallies and placed a great number of TV ads within two days before the referendum, in violation of the Electoral Code (Art. 85(g)), which clearly establishes that "During the two days immediately before and the day of the referendum, it is prohibited to distribute propaganda of any kind related to the issue at hand," a requirement strictly adhered to by the "no" campaign...

Clearly, the national media became channels for the Arias administration and treaty promoters, openly distributing their propaganda; just one instance is the wide broadcast coverage given to U.S. Trade Representative Susan Schwab's statement, where she categorically denied the possibility of renegotiating the agreement, and also suggested that the country's Caribbean Basin Initiative benefits would be lost, if the Costa Ricans voted 'no' on the referendum.

There are also accusations of other irregularities, including:

The massive utilization of "robo-calls" sent via cellphone voice and text message near the time of the vote, with messages like, "I thought the FTA didn't affect me. But Ana is going to lose her job. Let's help her. Vote yes."

"Yes" campaign material inside some polling stations.

The "yes" campaign offering $52.89 for a "yes" vote (This is about 2-3 days' wages for the average Costa Rican, earned on one day when all the business are supposed to be closed.)

Flower exporting firms told their workers not to show up to work on Monday if the "no" won, the implication being they would have to shut down.

Some polling stations only had red pens, even though only ballots marked with black ink were considered valid by the electoral authorities."

http://citizen.typepad.com/eyesontrade/2007/10/no-campaign-acc.html

Can the bushes get involved in an election that doesn't result in criminal activity? I don't think so.