Tomorrow, on Sunday October 7th, Costa Rica faces a historic moment. Costa Rica is the only country yet to ratify the controversial free-trade agreement with the United States, called CAFTA. Before my arrival to Costa Rica, I knew I would be entering into a unique political environment during my year abroad, not only because of the controversy in signing the agreement but also precisely because I come from the country which has proposed this agreement and has implemented other such agreements, such as the well-known NAFTA between Canada, the U.S. and Mexico.Many friends, classmates, Rotarians and even those I meet for the first time are interested in my opinion--"what's your vote?," they ask with a smile (or sometimes with a smirk at the irony of the situation). "Would you vote "Si" or "No"? Does your heart say "Yes" or "No"?" The free-trade agreement is complex at best, and has resulted in a fascinating division in Costa Rica.
The media propaganda of the NO/SI campaigns has been quite clever. Most popular of all has been the use of a heart--colored red, blue and white just as is the flag of Costa Rica. First used by the "no" side, the heart is the "o" in "NO" in the slogan: "NO al TLC" (NO to CAFTA). Naturally, the "si" side countered with "Mi corazon dice SI" (My heart says YES) with the word "heart" being replaced with the red, blue and white heart symbol.
Included in the Independence Day parade I attended on September 15th was a clear message from one of the area high schools: "Dos corazones y una sola Costa Rica", which translates as "Two hearts and only one Costa Rica." The division created over the last years, and more intensely during the last months has been made evident in all parts of the country. You can't go more than one city block without seeing propaganda from one side or the other in the form of banners hung on buildings or in windows, bumper stickers and flags waving from cars, graffiti (99% from the "no" side), and buttons on shirts or backpacks. 
As I entered into the scene relatively close to when the vote is to take place, I would like to share a well-written and thorough overview of the pending agreement and how Costa Rica has been affected thus far and what some possible outcomes of a "Si" vote would mean for this small Central American country. This overview was written by my friend, Erica, who has foll0wed the agreement firsthand since 2004, both stateside and here in Costa Rica during her two years working with the ELCA Lutheran Church in the country:
Erica and I, in February, in front of the banner for the ELCA Lutheran Church of Costa Rica
The Dominican Republic-Central American Free Trade Agreement (DR-CAFTA) has been controversial since negotiations began behind closed doors in January of 2003. By August 2005 all participating countries had signed on and were pending ratification of the agreement by their congresses. Despite widespread popular dissent, the agreement was ratified by every country, except Cost Rica; passing in the U.S. House of Representatives on July 27, 2005 by one vote, with two representatives not voting. The movement to fight unfair free trade agreements continues to grow in the United States and around the world. Nowhere, however, is the struggle against free trade agreements more evident than in Costa Rica.
While the rest of the countries have begun to study the effects of DR-CAFTA on their economies, often seeing their imports increase and their exports decrease, Costa Rica has yet to make a decision on the agreement. Many experts predicted that the decision would come immediately following the 2006 Presidential election. Yet, despite the election of pro-CAFTA Presidential candidate Oscar Arias (known for his reception of the 1987 Nobel Peace Prize for efforts to end civil wars ravaging many Central American countries), the race was so close between Arias and anti-CAFTA opponent Otton Solis, taking weeks to hand-count the ballots, that it was obvious that the country was deeply divided over the issue. Costa Ricans have continued to be so evenly split over CAFTA that the Legislative Assembly (Costa Rica’s congress) eventually decided to let CAFTA be determined by popular vote in a national referendum to be held this coming Sunday, October 7.
The streets of San José, the capital city, have been filled the past months with thousands chanting "No al TLC! (No to CAFTA!)" This past Sunday, September 30, an estimated 150,000 to more than 200,000 Costa Ricans joined together to voice their opposition to CAFTA in a peaceful march down San Jose's main street. Costa Rican Lutheran Church Executive Director Pastor Gilberto Quesada Mora offers an explanation for the continued resilience of the David vs. Goliath movement, stating that the “Yes (to CAFTA)” movement is fighting only for an interest, while “No (to CAFTA)” movement is fighting with passion, with much at stake.
These photos are from the anti-CAFTA march, held in February, which was one of the final large-scale organized marches in San Jose.
University students from the National University, where I am a graduate student, representing the university's officially declared "NO al TLC" position, which it declared in 2003. Adding to the scene are allegations of corruption and manipulation by politicians, company owners, and even U.S. government officials for the “Yes” campaign, most notably with the leak of a memo sent by Second Vice-President Kevin Casas and legislator Fernando Sanchez to President Oscar Arias and Presidency Minister Rodrigo Arias. The memo details underhanded political tactics such as “stimulating fear” in four different areas and threatening that “the Mayor that doesn’t win his canton [for CAFTA] will not get a penny from the government in the next 3 years.”
As with other free trade agreements, the “Yes” side is mainly comprised of the political and economic elite, while the “No” side has supporters including government workers, university professors, religious leaders, students, union leaders, small business owners, and more. The concerns about labor, environment, and agriculture are vibrant in the debate. What makes the stakes unique in Costa Rica is that it stands to lose the many qualities that have made Costa Rica a kind of peaceful anomaly in Central America. Here are just a few of the "Costa Rica-specific" reasons to vote no to CAFTA:
“Estado solidario:” Costa Rica is able to provide high rates of coverage at low cost for many basic services through state-run enterprises, which operate under a commitment to provide basic services to every corner of the country. Following the Costa Rican mindset of solidarity, those who can pay more help to subsidize the cost for those who cannot afford it. Under CAFTA, these areas would be opened up for competition to private providers. While privatization may or may not offer improved quality, it will definitely replace the commitment of service to all with a commitment solely to profit margins.
---Telecommuncations: Costa Rican telephone rates are less than half the cost of the rates in other Central American countries, while simultaneously offering the highest area of coverage in the region. It is estimated that, under CAFTA, one out of four families will no longer be able to pay for telephone service.
---Healthcare: Costa Rica’s healthcare system is currently ranked 36 in the world by the World Health Organization, just ABOVE the United States, which is ranked 37. CAFTA facilitates healthcare for the rich and will destroy the ability to provide healthcare to all.
Arms manufacturing: Costa Rica, heavily dependent on tourism and therefore on its international image, is a country known for its pledge to peace and non-violence. CAFTA puts this tradition into jeopardy by allowing for the buying, selling and even manufacturing of arms on Costa Rican soil.
The strong opposition to CAFTA in Costa Rica is even drawing attention in the U.S. Congress. On October 1, US Senator Sherrod Brown from Ohio gave an excellent Senate floor speech detailing the shortcomings of NAFTA/CAFTA style agreements and hi-lighting CAFTA resistance efforts in Costa Rica. **Watch it on YouTube in the blog entry below**
Senator Brown also commented on CAFTA at an interfaith prayer breakfast in 2005, stating “I am offended by what DR-CAFTA will do to the poor. I’m a Lutheran, and this trade agreement goes against my faith values and those of my church. Trade agreements are written for and by the economic elites of both our country and the other countries of the world. They serve their interests, not those of common, every day people and certainly not those of the poor.”
Follow the outcome of the Costa Rican referendum (immediately binding as long as 40% of the population participates in the vote) on Costa Rica’s English language newspaper at http://www.ticotimes.net/ or, for Spanish speakers, at http://www.nacion.com/.
I will be sure to share the outcome with you, as well, with a blog entry.
Adding a bit of excitement to the mix for Meghan and I, it just so happens that we live directly above an office space used by one of headquarters for the "Yes" campaign. Displayed in the office windows are banners reading "Mi corazon (heart symbol) dice SI." Beginning several weeks ago, it is now a frequent happening to hear the repetitive sound of honking horns as cars drive by our building--most often the honking comes from those cars with "NO al TLC" flags waving from their car windows; however, as I type this blog entry a caravan of cars, adorned with "SI al TLC" bumper stickers, banners and flags waving from their windows, has congregated on the street below, in front of the office, getting ready to drive around town honking honking honking on this historic eve of the SI or NO vote. 
Several weeks ago, in the early morning of Independence Day (Sept. 15), I was awakened to the terribly loud sound of breaking glass and male voices. The next morning I discovered that the windows of the "SI" headquarters, located directly beneath our apartment, had been broken and the walls of our building had been spraypainted "NO TLC." It is unfortunate that the "No" side has become characterized as the more destructive and violent side, as they are responsible for exactly that: destruction and violence in the name of voicing their opinion. Of course this only discredits their opinion. 
