Country got a dividend
on its educational system

Dear A.M. Costa Rica:

I was expecting a victory, because negativity sells, for the NO vote but was pleasantly surprised with the YES vote on Sunday to ratify the free trade treaty agreement with the U.S.A. Costa Rica is known for many things. One is a citizenry that invests in its education. I think the good people of Costa Rica just received a dividend payment.

Mutual trade with the U.S.
should help the poor

Dear A.M. Costa Rica:

I read the letter of Steven A. Roman and thought — how wonderful that the country has spoken and Mr. Roman is less than elated. Without CAFTA, the country would have no opportunity to learn if his opinion is correct or not. If it is correct, which I doubt, the country has the opportunity to say “no more” to CAFTA.

I am and was in favor of CAFTA. This (CAFTA) is not an “Americanization” of Costa Rica by people looking for a cheaper Costa Rica without a regard to its people, culture and history. The vote was by citizens of Costa Rica. This is simply mutual trade with one of the currently largest consumers in the world — nothing more and nothing less. Simply put, it should help the poor in the country with new opportunities.  

And to the surprise of Mr. Roman, I speak Spanish, have a high respect for the customs, culture and people of my adopted country. I am also integrated into the society and am saddened that the “no” sector will not join hands with the rest of the country and positively move forward with the opportunity Costa Rica decided to accept.

How come Canadian dollar
is so strong post-NAFTA?

Dear A.M. Costa Rica:

I am responding to the letter sent by reader Steven A. Roman. In his letter he points out many aspects that may occur due to CAFTA. He takes his examples from what he sees in Mexico and Canada after NAFTA was signed. While I admit that these are all possibilities that could happen, there is a fundamental difference between the countries in NAFTA and CAFTA. Costa Rica and the other countries of CAFTA really do not have a choice.

The ego of Costa Ricans seem to have grown and a lot of the "No" side believe renegotiation is a possibility. Why would the U.S. want to negotiate? First of all, Costa Rica has signed the deal and going back on that would only hurt Costa Rica on the world stage. The EU has stated that if Costa Rica goes back on its word with the U.S., it will reduce the amount it imports from Costa Rica.

Secondly, CAFTA has been accepted by all other countries in Central America. Why should Costa Rica get preferential treatment? There is no particular product or service that Costa Rica has that the U.S. would deem essential. Costa Rica has no economic or political step up on the U.S. to even give the U.S. pause for concern. Costa Rica needs the U.S., not vice versa.

Opponents to CAFTA point out that Mexico's agriculture sector has suffered due to NAFTA. They show high unemployment numbers in the agricultural sector but fail to mention the numbers before NAFTA which were also high. I would like to know where these numbers came from as the numbers shown here show lower unemployment in Mexico since 1980.

Steven also states that the Canada economy has been hurt by NAFTA and purchasing power has decreased. Obviously Steven has not been paying attention to the news as for the first time in 30 years the Canadian dollar is worth more than the U.S. dollar. The Canadian governments have had budget surpluses over the past 12 years due to a strong economy.

Opponents to free trade like Steven have the best interests of Costa Rica in their heart but, unfortunately, Costa Rica has no alternatives to this deal. With the CARICOM trade pact running out next year, Costa Rica would have been left scrambling to negotiate with a lot of countries that don’t have the purchasing the U.S. has. 

Companies that are vital to the Costa Rican economy were ready to leave if the vote was no. Sandimar, and Dole had bought pieces of land outside of Costa Rica, and they had no reservations in leaving. Whether or not you like it, the world revolves around money and without foreign investment and free trade Costa Rica would go from being the leader in Central America to middle of the pack.

On a personal note I find it a few things funny. If you would have asked a Costa Rican five years ago what they would like to see improved in their country, some of the top things would have been the service of the ICE, more jobs, and improved CAJA system. CAFTA provides all of these things. University students have been some of the most vocal opponents of CAFTA, but where would all of these educated people work if businesses start pulling out of Costa Rica? The educated would start leaving because if there are no jobs for them here, I highly doubt they will go pick coffee.

Dealing with the U.S. is never easy or fair, but with CAFTA Costa Rica has a chance to stay ahead of other Central American countries economically. You would think that some people on the “No” side might have questioned whether it is wise to support a side that was funded by Hugo Chavez and cheered on by Manuel Ortega. Look at their countries, Venezuela is blessed with oil but yet the gap between the rich and poor in the country is huge. Nicaragua would only benefit from a “No” victory.

I hope the “No” side doesn’t stall the process too much longer because it will only hurt the economy and society of Costa Rica. You can see in the U.S. how one issue can divide a country and impact the economy. The U.S. has not been stable since the Iraq War began. CAFTA has divided the country, and now a decision was reached by a democratic vote. For the “No” side to say they do not recognize the result is to insult the citizens of Costa Rica by spitting on their vote.

Now we have opportunity
to test trade treaty

Dear A.M. Costa Rica:

In response to the opinion written by Steven Roman, I will agree that there are mixed opinions about the success of NAFTA, but I can't for the life of me see how free trade is a bad thing, especially for Costa Rica. 

If you recall, there was quite a bit of resistance in the United States over CAFTA.  Why? Because the countries of Central America would have such an incredible advantage because we will be able to deliver goods and services at a lower price.  That’s right WE can take advantage of U.S. consumerism.  GREAT!

Had we not ratified CAFTA here, you could be 100 percent certain that many jobs would go to our lower wage neighbors because there relative cost would be even lower still without U.S. imposed import tariffs, at least now we have a chance to compete on price.  I personally know five companies that would have packed up and moved across the border.  I personally would have considered a move to Panamá to be able to stay in business.

How you or anyone else can say that you think competition (telecommunications or otherwise) will create higher prices baffles me.  It begs the question “where did you take your economics 101 class?” The pharmaceutical companies that you speak of have every right to the patents that they own and the products they create.  What incentive would there be for them to spend money on R&D if they just had to give it away at the end?  In addition, I fail to see how new companies coming here in the pharmaceutical sector could raise the price of all medications?

Yes, I agree that certain public sector items may become private little by little.  That is a good thing.  When was the last time a public entity was more efficient than a private one?   The public sector will certainly not be eliminated.  Was it eliminated in Canada or Mexico?  Not last I visited.

But let's step back and look at the most important part of CAFTA:  We have a chance to try to do well by it.  We can try instead of just quitting and not wanting to work at it.

If it doesn’t work, we can simply give six months notice and bow out gracefully.  We are not obligated to stand by it for ever.  But if “no” had won, we never would have had a chance, and we would never know what could have been.