Thread: Costa Ricans fear trade deal threatens sovereignty

Costa Ricans fear trade deal threatens sovereignty
Referendum on proposal scheduled Oct. 7

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: October 4, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern


By Michael Howe
© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com
Costan Ricans fear a trade deal similar to the North American Free Trade Agreement could threaten their nation's sovereignty and the issue has been put up for a referendum on Oct. 7.

The outcome will have an impact on how the United States does business in that Latin American country, where an estimated 30,000-50,000 U.S. citizens live and another 700,000 visit annually, and perhaps other nearby nations as well.

The Dominican Republic-Central American Free Trade Agreement has been approved by all involved countries, including the United States, with the exception of Costa Rica, where opponents say they fear an influx of cheap imports and an affront to the nation's sovereignty.

Opposition has been so strong – an estimated 100,000 Costa Ricans protested the DR-CAFTA in an event on Sept. 30 – that the issue has been put to a national referendum.

Costa Rican President Oscar Arias Sanchez has been campaigning for the passage of the referendum and the ultimate ratification of DR-CAFTA.

"October 7th is a key date for our small country," he said during a recent address, according to government documents.

He suggested that the citizens have an opportunity to decide if Costa Rica will remain as is, hoping for a better day that may never come, or to endorse the plan and make that better day come.

Ambassador John Veroneau, a deputy U.S. trade representative, said, "We respect the right of the people of Costa Rica to decide what is in their best interest. Obviously, the United States reached this trade agreement out of a strong belief that it serves the interests of both countries."

If citizens of Costa Rica do not approve the agreement, Verneau said, "The truth is that no one can say for sure what the impact would be since Congress has never been asked to extend preferential benefits to a country that has rejected a bilateral trade agreement.

"Hopefully, the referendum will be decided on the merits of the agreement itself," he said.

U.S. Rep. Duncan Hunter, a candidate for the GOP nomination for president, continues to have concerns about DR-CAFTA though. Spokesman Joe Kasper said Hunter's concerns are both general about free trade agreements as well as this specific proposal.

"Aside from the situation in Costa Rica, Congressman Hunter would welcome the opportunity to reconsider DR-CAFTA, as well as other free trade deals, primarily based on the impact these agreements are having on the productivity and competitiveness of American manufacturers," Kasper said.

According to a September poll by Unimer published in "La Nacion," 56 percent of respondents would vote "Yes" in the referendum to ratify the DR-CAFTA. These numbers are similar to a Demoscopia poll for the newspaper "Al Dia" in August showing 54.5 percent of people would vote to ratify the agreement.

DR-CAFTA, like other free trade agreements such as NAFTA, technically is not a treaty, therefore it only required a simple majority in the House and Senate for approval.

U.S. State Department documents show the U.S. is Costa Rica's most important trading partner, accounting for almost half of the nation's exports, imports and tourism, and more than two-thirds of its foreign investment.

When CAFTA reached Congress two years ago, the Senate approved the plan 54-45, but critics maintained that it would draw American manufacturing jobs south of the border.

Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, said at the time that he was in opposition.

"I oppose CAFTA for a very simple reason: It is unconstitutional. The Constitution clearly grants Congress alone the authority to regulate international trade. The plain text of Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 is incontrovertible. Neither Congress nor the president can give this authority away by treaty, any more than they can repeal the First Amendment by treaty," he said.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/artic ... E_ID=57977

At least the Costa Rocans get a vote. The US didn't feel that it was in our best interest. King George did.

thats because we do not live in a democracy and they do

A suggestion to the Costa Ricans ... Don't Trust America ... this government is one of the most corrupt on the Big Blue Planet Earth

Yes it would have been nice to vote on NAFTA instead of having Bill Clinton and the Dems and Repubs in congress ram it down our throats. Remember one of their claims was that NAFTA was going to stop illegal aliens because they would all have jobs back home? That worked well, huh?

However, politicians would never let anything important come to a vote like that. Look at amnesty and illegal aliens. The majority of the country is against it and have spoken out and while we have stopped certain bills there are politicians that keep bringing it up.