News of interest from Latin America by David Morris
Vol. 1, No. 4. Monday, September 24, 2007

Imperial chutzpah

History gives Latin Americans plenty of reason to fear for their sovereignty when dealing with the United States and the U.S. State Department’s objections to the recent election of Pedro Miguel González-Pinzón as president of the Panamanian National Assembly gives them one more reason.

The State Department said in a press release on September 1 it was “deeply disappointed” by the election.

After surrendering to authorities in 1995, González was exonerated by a Panamanian jury of the 1992 murder of U.S. Army Sergeant Zak Hernández, one of the U.S. soldiers still occupying the country after the invasion of 1989. U.S. authorities, who had the opportunity to present their argument in the Panamanian legal proceedings, have refused to recognize the legitimacy of the ruling and a warrant for González’s arrest is still outstanding.

Free-trade agreements with Panama, Colombia and Peru are currently being considered for ratification by the U.S. House of Reprsentatives. During a visit to discuss the pending treaty, U.S. Secretary of Commerce Carlos Gutiérrez told Panamanian President Martín Torrijos that the election of González was “a problem that should be solved.”

In Washington, Max Baucus, head of the U.S. Senate Finance Committee, said he supports Panamanian democracy but that González’s election “is a serious impediment to ratification of the free-trade treaty.” And in Panama, Mireya Moscoso, who was largely responsible for initiating discussion of the treaty while she was president of Panama, said the election could bring serious consequences for the nation’s economy. “The mistake they made is going to be very expensive for the country,” she said.

In a speech at his installation, González told the members of the National Assembly, “The era in which the U.S. had last word in determining who governed our nation and how they did so is over.”

(Sources: Prensa Latina, La Prensa, Financial Times)

Letting the people decide

Faced with widespread popular oppostion to the Dominican Republic-Central America Free Trade Agreement (DR-CAFTA), the Costa Rican Government has resorted to a binding referendum, to be held on October 7, to decide on ratification of the treaty. The decision to hold the referendum, which is unprecedented in the country’s history, came after legislators failed to reach a settlement on the question despite strong support for DR-CAFTA from President Óscar Arias and from his party, the Partido de Liberación Nacional (PLN), which holds a majority of seats in the legislature.

The legislatures of the other Latin American signatories, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua and the Dominican Republic, have already ratified DR-CAFTA. The remaining Central American countries, Panama and Belize, are not parties to DR-CAFTA but Panama has signed a separate trade agreement with this country, the ratification of which is currently being considered by the U.S. House of Representatives.

If Costa Rica is an exception to the rule in its process for dealing with the the treaty, it is also an exception in the effect the treaty would have. With a poverty rate of about 20%, with illiteracy at 7.4% and an unemployment rate of about 6.0%, it is the most prosperous country in the region. It has a tradition of strong social welfare laws and constitutional guarantees. Eighty-two percent of the people have government health insurance, 98.3% have electricity and 75.7% have access to a public water supply. DR-CAFTA would require changes in the laws to allow privatization and to reduce spending on social welfare programs.

Even before DR-CAFTA appeared on the scene, an immense demonstration in San José in 2000 convinced the government to abandon plans to open the government electric power and telecommunications operations to private companies.

Ottón Solís Fallas, who heads the strongest opposition party, the Partido de Acción Ciudadana (PAC), and who lost the 2006 presidential election to Arias by the narrowest of margins, says Costa Rica doesn’t need the treaty because it is already benefitting from high-tech investments and can compete with other countries because of its high level of education and its well developed infrastructure.

Soon after negotiations with the U.S. over the terms of DR-CAFTA ended in 2003, it was revealed that several members of the Costa Rican negotiating team were in the pay of the Costa Rica-United States Foundation, an organization the United States Agency for International Development had financed with some $900,000. There are charges that U.S. corporate and government funds pay for much of the pro-treaty campaign.

Another scandal erupted more recently when it was revealed that Vice-President Kevin Casas and a PLN legislator had written a letter to President Arias last July suggesting that instilling fear in the electorate over the results of rejecting the treaty would be a good campaign tactic for proponents and that opponents should be portrayed as allies of Fidel Castro, Hugo Chávez and Daniel Ortega. In December, as a legislative commission was releasing the treaty for consideration by the full body, Rodrigo Arias, brother and chief of staff to the president, said at a press conference that the government was concerned over alliances PAC had formed with “extremists.” He said PAC was now openly allied with “radical unions,” like the public employee’s union, and with the “extreme left” of the country. He criticized the violence he said was erupting and claimed “violent hooded youths” were now being seen at demonstrations.

Meanwhile, Solís counters proponents’ arguments by pointing out that Mexico’s unemployment rate has increased steadily during the 12 years since NAFTA was enacted and that the rate of migration has doubled. He said Mexico’s rate of growth under NAFTA was 2.8% while Costa Rica’s rate, with no such treaty, was 4.8%. “If NAFTA has been such a success,” he asked, “then why is the U.S. building a wall along the border with Mexico?”

(Sources: La Nación, New York Times, Prensa Latina, Aporrea, IRC Americas Program)

Entanglements in the movement to socialism

In a series of meetings in Cochabamba ending early Saturday morning, representatives of civic organizations have failed to resolve differences over whether to move the executive and legislative branches of the Bolivian government and what role the Constituent Assembly should play in deciding the question.

A decision by the Constituent Assembly in mid-August not to consider the question of moving the two branches of government from La Paz to the historical capital of Sucre, site of the judicial branch and of the Assembly itself, sparked violent demonstrations and intimidation of Assembly members and supporters of the government. Sucre is a center of rightist opposition to the government of Evo Morales and the Movimiento al Socialismo (MAS), the party he represents. Supporters of the government charge the issue of moving the capital is in reality an attack on the Constituent Assembly and on the process of transforming Bolivian society.

A district court in late August ruled the Assembly decision on the question of moving the capital was invalid. The government plans to challenge the court ruling, but deliberations on the challenge could take as long as three months. In addition, the president of the Assembly has filed her own legal challenge to the district court ruling, arguing it resulted from pressure from anti-government civic groups. The issue may thus still be in the courts when the Assembly’s term expires on December 14.

The Assembly went into recess when its meeting place in Sucre was stormed by rightist opponents and will not meet again until October 8.

In the meantime, support for the government and for the Constituent Assembly is strong in the indigenous majority of the population. At a demonstration and summit meeting in Sucre on September 10 called by indigenous, campesino and labor groups, the 12,000 participants vowed to give their lives, if necessary, in defense of the Assembly and the profound changes the new constitution represents. They agreed the district court ruling should be ignored.

(Sources: Agencia Boliviana de Información, La Jornada, El Diario, La Razón, Prensa Latina)


Return to Latin America News Notes home.