Posts
Whew! Here I am! Sorry this has been so long in coming--I'm still getting lots of homework that's due the next day...
The first thing I thought when our land bus (the TransNica line) arrived in Managua was "Wow, it's hot." I loved it. For once, I could actually feel my fingers and toes...
We were picked up by some sort of a school bus from the bus station, and were driven to a seminary-type place called the Centro Nehemias. The Centro was affiliated with several church groups and Intercultural relationship organizations, and we stayed there because they encouraged international travel. Very nice place. Because it was evening, we divied up the rooms and went to bed.
The next day (Tues), we had a charla (a short lecture) and went sight-seeing a little in the bus from the Centro. Nicaragua is very political.
POLITICS:
The Nica government has suffered many uprisings and has been overthrown many times. The general timeline of important events can be seen on the BBC website timeline (we were given this article to read, and I was able to recover it online as well). But, here's a passage you might find interesting:
Independence:
1838 - Nicaragua becomes fully independent.
1860 - British cede control over the country's Caribbean coast to Nicaragua.
1893 - General Jose Santos Zelaya, a Liberal, seizes power and establishes dictatorship.
1909 - US troops help depose Zelaya.
1912-25 - US establishes military bases.
1927-33 - Guerrillas led by Augusto Cesar Sandino campaign against US military presence.
1934 - Sandino assassinated on the orders of the National Guard commander, General Anastasio Somoza Garcia.
Somoza family dictatorship:
1937 - General Somoza elected president, heralding the start of a 44-year-long dictatorship by his family.
1956 - General Somoza assassinated, but is succeeded as president by his son, Luis Somoza Debayle.
1961 - Sandinista National Liberation Front (FSLN) founded.
1967 - Luis Somoza dies and is succeeded as president by his brother, Anastasio Somoza.
1978 - Assassination of the leader of the opposition Democratic Liberation Union, Pedro Joaquin Chamorro, triggers general strike and brings together moderates and the FSLN in a united front to oust Somoza.
Sandinista revolution and US subversion:
1979 - FSLN military offensive ends with the ouster of Somoza.
1980 - Somoza assassinated in Paraguay; FSLN government led by Daniel Ortega nationalises and turns into cooperatives lands held by the Somoza family.
1982 - US-sponsored attacks by Contra rebels based in Honduras begin; state of emergency declared.
1984 - Daniel Ortega elected president; US mines Nicaraguan harbours and is condemned by the World Court for doing so.
1987-88 - Nicaraguan leadership signs peace agreement and subsequently holds talks with Contra; hurricane leaves 180,000 people homeless.
Post-Sandinista era:
1990 - US-backed centre-right National Opposition Union defeats FSLN in elections; Violeta Chamorro becomes president.
1996 - Arnoldo Aleman elected president.
2000 - FSLN win Managua municipal elections.
2001 November - Liberal party candidate Enrique Bolaños beats his Sandinista party counterpart, former president Daniel Ortega, in presidential election.
2002 March - Opposition Sandinista party re-elects Daniel Ortega as its leader despite his three consecutive defeats since 1990.
2002 August - Former president Arnoldo Aleman charged with money laundering, embezzlement during his term in office.
2003 December - Arnoldo Aleman jailed for 20 years for corruption. A year later he is transferred to house arrest.
2006 April - Free trade deal with the US comes into effect. Nicaragua's Congress approved the Central American Free Trade Agreement (Cafta) in October 2005.
2006 October - President Bolaños unveils plans to build a new ship canal linking the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans.
MPs approve a tough new bill that bans abortions, including in cases where the mother's life is at risk.
2006 November - Ex-president Daniel Ortega is returned to power in elections.
Please note that these have been copied and pasted. I've also omitted some facts that were irrelevant to this post. For more information, check the link above.
I am off to eat lunch. I will continue to write afterward.
Thursday, March 19, 2009
Sunday, March 1, 2009
TLC or CAFTA, Part IV
I warned you it was long.
With dear Mr. Solís, I felt that some of his points were similar, and that he was, in effect, repeating himself. Whether this was for emphasis, or completely inadvertent, I still felt as though I was being talked down to. Granted, most of the students in my class (myself included) had little knowledge of the workings of TLC when he spoke to us, but I felt he should have given us more credit. I also thought it was unfair to blame solely the president of the United States for the "failures" of U.S. foreign policy. I know enough about my government to comment that even if the president himself were sensitive to cultural issues, or "culturally conscious" in my own words, any plans he has still have to go through the Senate and the House. As I also know, having watched the previous battles on television from the confines of the den in my house in Indiana, the Senate and the House may not want to work with each other, much less the president. This is our democracy now, and it's a shame. It seems, most unfortunately, that the party wants only its party agenda pushed. There is little cooperation, and even less listening. Also, who ever heard of a democracy that only has two voices? Why are only the Republicans and the Democrats in positions of power? I congratulate Ottón Solís for the first recorded break of a bipartisan election in 2002, but I took into account that it should not be solely the president's "fault", if you will, for the entire government's inability to function within itself.
Whew. I hope I haven't just been targeted by the CIA.
With the U.S. Embassy, once again, here are my initial impressions: big, shiny, imposing, impressive, far away, a show, and big, again.
Question 1) why is the Embassy so big? I've seen the Nicaraguan embassy, and the Mexican embassy, and the Peruvian embassy, and know what? They're about the size of any office building.
Question 2) Why is the U.S. Embassy so far away from downtown Central??? I pass the other three I mentioned twice a day. All three. The U.S. Embassy was an hour and a half bus ride out of the Central. It takes me 20 minutes to get to the Central. 20 minutes.
With the actual lecture itself, I just have to mention the type of people that came to speak to us. David Hensen was, ironically, a white, elderly, male. Could we underline stereotype any more? Nothing against him, it just struck me, I guess. Also, Ms. Martinez was from New Mexico (she told us) and she dressed like the Costa Ricans, in a nice skirt. She had the blending thing down, but it was most likely her background that had this influence. /Jill/ struck me as a woman who had probably been in some sort of armed forces because she held a strong stance, with her legs apart, her hair was pulled back in a bun, and she was wearing a very practical white shirt with a vest and dress slacks that were stretchy. With the way the trio kept emphasizing the protection of U.S. interests overseas, and their obvious dislike of Solís, I wondered about how many groups they had come in who were anti-U.S. I felt like everything they said was in defense to accusations never accused. The entire lecture held the undercurrent of "we get the bad rap, but we're nice people" and "everyone blames us because there are many anti-U.S. feelings right now because the Costa Ricans wanted CAFTA to pass"... Honest, I tried to be objective. I really did. But this is what I heard. I talked to other students afterward, and got similar feelings, so it wasn't just me.
Here's why I went on my rant about democracy: "Consensus means everyone has a voice, but sometimes nobody gets heard." --David Hensen
I couldn't believe he said that. To me, it sounds not like democracy (as it should be) but the same "rights-endangering" oppressive governments the U.S. denounces.
I would like to post the First Amendment to the Bill of Rights here.
"Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free excercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or of the right of people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for a redress of grievances."
This Right only guarantees that Congress cannot tell us we are wrong to practice a certain religion, or speak out against the government, or even print things that are happening. We have the Right to ask our government to listen to us. Listen to us. What about each other? This Amendment says nothing about listening to each other.
If CAFTA is the best thing for the countries of Central America and the Dominican Republic, why was it formed in Washington? That's where the countries all met--in Washington D.C. Also, why does the U.S. want to trade more with these countries? If anybody is to blame in the U.S. for the unemployment rate, it's the corporal companies and not the president. They're the ones that outsource to get more hired hands at a cheaper price so that the people of the United States who have so much money to spend can continue to save that money to spend it. The U.S. economy isn't working right now, and we're seeing that. People are also blaming this downfall on greed. The quote from Ottón Solís, "We want telecommunication to be a social tool, not a profit-making industry. Why can't you respect that?" I agree with him on this point. If the sole purpose of capitalism in the United States is to make a profit, it switches the emphasis from success to gain. Who is truly successful, and who is truly a failure? Are success and gain so intertwined they cannot be separated? I don't think so. We need to separate them again. I have listened to others' opinions and researched this. Now I have made my own opinion. All you can do is listen, or not.
With dear Mr. Solís, I felt that some of his points were similar, and that he was, in effect, repeating himself. Whether this was for emphasis, or completely inadvertent, I still felt as though I was being talked down to. Granted, most of the students in my class (myself included) had little knowledge of the workings of TLC when he spoke to us, but I felt he should have given us more credit. I also thought it was unfair to blame solely the president of the United States for the "failures" of U.S. foreign policy. I know enough about my government to comment that even if the president himself were sensitive to cultural issues, or "culturally conscious" in my own words, any plans he has still have to go through the Senate and the House. As I also know, having watched the previous battles on television from the confines of the den in my house in Indiana, the Senate and the House may not want to work with each other, much less the president. This is our democracy now, and it's a shame. It seems, most unfortunately, that the party wants only its party agenda pushed. There is little cooperation, and even less listening. Also, who ever heard of a democracy that only has two voices? Why are only the Republicans and the Democrats in positions of power? I congratulate Ottón Solís for the first recorded break of a bipartisan election in 2002, but I took into account that it should not be solely the president's "fault", if you will, for the entire government's inability to function within itself.
Whew. I hope I haven't just been targeted by the CIA.
With the U.S. Embassy, once again, here are my initial impressions: big, shiny, imposing, impressive, far away, a show, and big, again.
Question 1) why is the Embassy so big? I've seen the Nicaraguan embassy, and the Mexican embassy, and the Peruvian embassy, and know what? They're about the size of any office building.
Question 2) Why is the U.S. Embassy so far away from downtown Central??? I pass the other three I mentioned twice a day. All three. The U.S. Embassy was an hour and a half bus ride out of the Central. It takes me 20 minutes to get to the Central. 20 minutes.
With the actual lecture itself, I just have to mention the type of people that came to speak to us. David Hensen was, ironically, a white, elderly, male. Could we underline stereotype any more? Nothing against him, it just struck me, I guess. Also, Ms. Martinez was from New Mexico (she told us) and she dressed like the Costa Ricans, in a nice skirt. She had the blending thing down, but it was most likely her background that had this influence. /Jill/ struck me as a woman who had probably been in some sort of armed forces because she held a strong stance, with her legs apart, her hair was pulled back in a bun, and she was wearing a very practical white shirt with a vest and dress slacks that were stretchy. With the way the trio kept emphasizing the protection of U.S. interests overseas, and their obvious dislike of Solís, I wondered about how many groups they had come in who were anti-U.S. I felt like everything they said was in defense to accusations never accused. The entire lecture held the undercurrent of "we get the bad rap, but we're nice people" and "everyone blames us because there are many anti-U.S. feelings right now because the Costa Ricans wanted CAFTA to pass"... Honest, I tried to be objective. I really did. But this is what I heard. I talked to other students afterward, and got similar feelings, so it wasn't just me.
Here's why I went on my rant about democracy: "Consensus means everyone has a voice, but sometimes nobody gets heard." --David Hensen
I couldn't believe he said that. To me, it sounds not like democracy (as it should be) but the same "rights-endangering" oppressive governments the U.S. denounces.
I would like to post the First Amendment to the Bill of Rights here.
"Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free excercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or of the right of people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for a redress of grievances."
This Right only guarantees that Congress cannot tell us we are wrong to practice a certain religion, or speak out against the government, or even print things that are happening. We have the Right to ask our government to listen to us. Listen to us. What about each other? This Amendment says nothing about listening to each other.
If CAFTA is the best thing for the countries of Central America and the Dominican Republic, why was it formed in Washington? That's where the countries all met--in Washington D.C. Also, why does the U.S. want to trade more with these countries? If anybody is to blame in the U.S. for the unemployment rate, it's the corporal companies and not the president. They're the ones that outsource to get more hired hands at a cheaper price so that the people of the United States who have so much money to spend can continue to save that money to spend it. The U.S. economy isn't working right now, and we're seeing that. People are also blaming this downfall on greed. The quote from Ottón Solís, "We want telecommunication to be a social tool, not a profit-making industry. Why can't you respect that?" I agree with him on this point. If the sole purpose of capitalism in the United States is to make a profit, it switches the emphasis from success to gain. Who is truly successful, and who is truly a failure? Are success and gain so intertwined they cannot be separated? I don't think so. We need to separate them again. I have listened to others' opinions and researched this. Now I have made my own opinion. All you can do is listen, or not.
TLC or CAFTA, Part III
First things first: Happy March!!! Also, happy birthday to my dad. I won't be near a computer for your birthday either.
DEMOCRACY:
What is it?
My Webster's dictionary more or less defines democracy as a government ruled by the people, giving them equal rights.
In Costa Rica, there is a socialist democracy.
I would like to make a distinction: there are only two main forms of government on the earth right now. However, there are at least 6 different types of those two main forms.
The two main forms are democracy (a government ruled and supported by the people) and an authoritarian government (one ruler; also called a "reign" or a "dictatorship"). With these main forms, once again, there are three main types: communist, socialist, or capitalist. In case some of you have not taken an Economy class, a capitalist economy (in theory) is where the market is not necessarily owned by the government, but driven by the "invisible" forces of supply and demand. There is also a private ownership of the means of production, an open free market, and unlimited earnings.
A socialist economy is the opposite: public control of the market, market is government regulated, and earnings are limited.
Communism is the "ideal" result of socialism worked out, where there is no state, there are no classes, and there is abundance for all.
Why is it that so often, democracy is only associated with one type of economy? In today's world, what is democracy, and where does the definition come from? From what I've seen from interviews, most people seem to think that the United States defines democracy. Now the clincher: are the United States a democracy? That's the question, isn't it. Are the United States even a capitalist economy?
Please understand, I'm not trying to ruin anyone's view of the United States. I am merely attempting to point out that if there is one specific definition of democracy, it should not be necessarily defined by only one country as the model for all others to follow. Also worth asking: does a democracy truly allow other views, or only those that allow it to stay a democracy?
I've heard many students slam rules. Correction: many young people my age slam rules. The truth of it is, we need these rules. Without them, how do we define our boundaries? This is why the form of democracy practiced in the United States is not democracy in its truest form because if everybody's ideas were allowed to hold, there would be chaos. Also, the capitalism practiced in the United States should be defined as more of a "mixed" economy, because there is obvious government intervention and a limit on gain.
One of the young lawyers I got to interview for my final paper (and by the way, this was actually my subject for my paper) said that democracy isn't necessarily about getting one's views heard, it's about listening to everyone else's. Democracy should be about listening, he said. If I, as a citizen of the United States think that my First Amendment Right gives me license to say anything and everything I want to, I am sadly mistaken. Rights are a privilege, even if I've been born with them.
I'm putting my reactions in the next post because this one's long enough.
DEMOCRACY:
What is it?
My Webster's dictionary more or less defines democracy as a government ruled by the people, giving them equal rights.
In Costa Rica, there is a socialist democracy.
I would like to make a distinction: there are only two main forms of government on the earth right now. However, there are at least 6 different types of those two main forms.
The two main forms are democracy (a government ruled and supported by the people) and an authoritarian government (one ruler; also called a "reign" or a "dictatorship"). With these main forms, once again, there are three main types: communist, socialist, or capitalist. In case some of you have not taken an Economy class, a capitalist economy (in theory) is where the market is not necessarily owned by the government, but driven by the "invisible" forces of supply and demand. There is also a private ownership of the means of production, an open free market, and unlimited earnings.
A socialist economy is the opposite: public control of the market, market is government regulated, and earnings are limited.
Communism is the "ideal" result of socialism worked out, where there is no state, there are no classes, and there is abundance for all.
Why is it that so often, democracy is only associated with one type of economy? In today's world, what is democracy, and where does the definition come from? From what I've seen from interviews, most people seem to think that the United States defines democracy. Now the clincher: are the United States a democracy? That's the question, isn't it. Are the United States even a capitalist economy?
Please understand, I'm not trying to ruin anyone's view of the United States. I am merely attempting to point out that if there is one specific definition of democracy, it should not be necessarily defined by only one country as the model for all others to follow. Also worth asking: does a democracy truly allow other views, or only those that allow it to stay a democracy?
I've heard many students slam rules. Correction: many young people my age slam rules. The truth of it is, we need these rules. Without them, how do we define our boundaries? This is why the form of democracy practiced in the United States is not democracy in its truest form because if everybody's ideas were allowed to hold, there would be chaos. Also, the capitalism practiced in the United States should be defined as more of a "mixed" economy, because there is obvious government intervention and a limit on gain.
One of the young lawyers I got to interview for my final paper (and by the way, this was actually my subject for my paper) said that democracy isn't necessarily about getting one's views heard, it's about listening to everyone else's. Democracy should be about listening, he said. If I, as a citizen of the United States think that my First Amendment Right gives me license to say anything and everything I want to, I am sadly mistaken. Rights are a privilege, even if I've been born with them.
I'm putting my reactions in the next post because this one's long enough.
Saturday, February 28, 2009
Random again
Sorry, I spent my computer time catching up on Facebook. Like I said earlier, only high school to college-age students would dream of posting their personal thoughts on a wall. Seriously.
I just thought I'd shout out to my Grandma--Happy Birthday Grandma! I won't be near a computer on your birthday, so I'll say it now!!
Also, people go to bed way early here. That's probably because the sun sets at (no kidding) 6 p.m. on the dot. I timed it. We've also had some trouble on the street perpendicular to ours--a few neighbors have been jumped. I wouldn't mention anything, but I feel it's fair: if you don't read any new posts after about two weeks, you'll know I was kidnapped. That should help you sleep soundly.
Sorry, it's a terrible joke. However, tomorrow, I will write on Democracy, and my personal thoughts of both Solís' lecture and the Embassy field trip.
Have a nice evening, and don't worry, I can run really fast...
I just thought I'd shout out to my Grandma--Happy Birthday Grandma! I won't be near a computer on your birthday, so I'll say it now!!
Also, people go to bed way early here. That's probably because the sun sets at (no kidding) 6 p.m. on the dot. I timed it. We've also had some trouble on the street perpendicular to ours--a few neighbors have been jumped. I wouldn't mention anything, but I feel it's fair: if you don't read any new posts after about two weeks, you'll know I was kidnapped. That should help you sleep soundly.
Sorry, it's a terrible joke. However, tomorrow, I will write on Democracy, and my personal thoughts of both Solís' lecture and the Embassy field trip.
Have a nice evening, and don't worry, I can run really fast...
Friday, February 27, 2009
TLC or CAFTA, Part II
At the U.S. Embassy in San José, Costa Rica, we were lectured by three different personnel; David Hensen, a Ms. Martinez, and a third lady whose name I was unable to write down quickly.
Martinez started the group off by asking us to give our definitions of an Embassy, and what we think the U.S. Embassy's main job is. We gave several answers, but Martinez clarified that the U.S. Embassy seeks to "protect the U.S. interests overseas by being U.S. representatives." She admitted that many anti-United States feelings make her job harder. Also, because this Embassy is overseas, it is their unique job not to make the U.S. Foreign policy, but to implement it. She continued with a list/ratio of workers hired at that specific embassy who are U.S. citizens versus the number who are natives. She urged us to check the government website on this matter.
David was next, and he outlined the four pillars of the embassy: Security, Democracy, Opportunity, and Prosperity. He said the embassy was helping the Costa Rican government, but there were nuances in how to approach the ideals of the country. He said that the workers at the Embassy wanted deeper engagements with the region, but that they had very high expectations for Costa Rica and thought the country would stay cooperative with them.
He told us that Costa Rica wanted CAFTA, as was shown by the 51% vote positive. However, Costa Rica "does things differently", and even though they were under a deadline, Costa Rica almost didn't make it to passing CAFTA. However, "the voice of the people was heard" and Costa Rica accepted the trade agreement. He also felt that the economy was becoming more open with CAFTA, and that this trade agreement would really help Costa Rica in the long run. David felt that Costa Rica's infrastructure was not as good, and cited that only 30% of Costa Rican roads are in good condition, which explains why the leading cause of death in the country is auto accidents. He also said that the ports on the coasts are very underdeveloped and need to be run by privatized companies. Also, at the ports, there is only 3% of water treated, which makes the beaches bad and spreads sickness--a negative effect on tourism.
David described the way that CAFTA was ratified in Costa Rica. It went through a 4 step process:
1) Negotiations--all the reps of the countries involved met in Aug 2004 to discuss "free trade" and the terms of such an agreement.
2) Ratification--all the reps returned to their countries with the skeleton of the agreement, and it was decided by a public vote. All citizens of age were shown both the pros and the cons and asked to vote on the agreement. CAFTA passed in Costa Rica 51% yes to 49% no.
3) Implementation--once it was passed by the public, the government of each country put it to a vote to pass legislation to allow it to proceed or not. All of the countries passed it.
4) Entry into Force--the agreement is now a law, and it is allowed to start in the countries that passed it.
According to David, the advantages of Costa Rica is that the country now has almost tariff-free access to U.S. exports. The U.S. is also able to help monitor and prepare the other countries to trade with each other, and it can improve labor standards. David told us that many blamed the U.S. for interfering before the public vote because one of the U.S. ambassadors went around giving his side of CAFTA. David felt that the U.S. was not using any illegal practices, but using the same methods as Costa Rica with Canada and Panama with their ambassador. He blamed Ottón Solís for the bad press, saying that when the U.S. ambassador came to do a press conference, the date was canceled. Instead the ambassador took his opinions to the people. When Solís wanted to reschedule, the ambassador was unable to make it at that time, but Solís insisted on that time anyway. When the ambassador didn't show, but was replaced by another, Solís said that the first ambassador had hidden because he didn't want the bad press. The "bad press" came anyway, according to David.
The third lady (and here, we shall name her Jill) reiterated the idea that the U.S. policy is designed to protect democratic space. She felt that Costa Rica could improve and learn how to opperate better in terms of democracy. She defined the difference between free trade and fair trade: free trade limits tarifs on imports and exports, while fair trade supports the equality of workers, responsible use of the environment, and responsible disposal of waste. Of course, she mentioned, you can always find stats that favor different ways. /Jill/ was unable to explain the difference between CAFTA and NAFTA (you'll recall that Solís said they were exactly the same), but said that CAFTA would help Costa Rica with its exports. The two greatest exports at this time are not bananas and pineapples, they are microchips and medical equipment.
All three encouraged us that if we liked being abroad to go to work for the government as ambassadors who protect U.S. interests overseas. More information about jobs here.
Tomorrow, I will write about Democracy, since it seems to be a common theme here. Also, my group did our presentation with my political cartoons! I was honored. Hopefully after my rant about democracy, I will write a post about my reaction to the CAFTA/TLC thing.
Have a wonderful day!
P.S. Here is a link to my pictures from the Limón trip to present!!
Martinez started the group off by asking us to give our definitions of an Embassy, and what we think the U.S. Embassy's main job is. We gave several answers, but Martinez clarified that the U.S. Embassy seeks to "protect the U.S. interests overseas by being U.S. representatives." She admitted that many anti-United States feelings make her job harder. Also, because this Embassy is overseas, it is their unique job not to make the U.S. Foreign policy, but to implement it. She continued with a list/ratio of workers hired at that specific embassy who are U.S. citizens versus the number who are natives. She urged us to check the government website on this matter.
David was next, and he outlined the four pillars of the embassy: Security, Democracy, Opportunity, and Prosperity. He said the embassy was helping the Costa Rican government, but there were nuances in how to approach the ideals of the country. He said that the workers at the Embassy wanted deeper engagements with the region, but that they had very high expectations for Costa Rica and thought the country would stay cooperative with them.
He told us that Costa Rica wanted CAFTA, as was shown by the 51% vote positive. However, Costa Rica "does things differently", and even though they were under a deadline, Costa Rica almost didn't make it to passing CAFTA. However, "the voice of the people was heard" and Costa Rica accepted the trade agreement. He also felt that the economy was becoming more open with CAFTA, and that this trade agreement would really help Costa Rica in the long run. David felt that Costa Rica's infrastructure was not as good, and cited that only 30% of Costa Rican roads are in good condition, which explains why the leading cause of death in the country is auto accidents. He also said that the ports on the coasts are very underdeveloped and need to be run by privatized companies. Also, at the ports, there is only 3% of water treated, which makes the beaches bad and spreads sickness--a negative effect on tourism.
David described the way that CAFTA was ratified in Costa Rica. It went through a 4 step process:
1) Negotiations--all the reps of the countries involved met in Aug 2004 to discuss "free trade" and the terms of such an agreement.
2) Ratification--all the reps returned to their countries with the skeleton of the agreement, and it was decided by a public vote. All citizens of age were shown both the pros and the cons and asked to vote on the agreement. CAFTA passed in Costa Rica 51% yes to 49% no.
3) Implementation--once it was passed by the public, the government of each country put it to a vote to pass legislation to allow it to proceed or not. All of the countries passed it.
4) Entry into Force--the agreement is now a law, and it is allowed to start in the countries that passed it.
According to David, the advantages of Costa Rica is that the country now has almost tariff-free access to U.S. exports. The U.S. is also able to help monitor and prepare the other countries to trade with each other, and it can improve labor standards. David told us that many blamed the U.S. for interfering before the public vote because one of the U.S. ambassadors went around giving his side of CAFTA. David felt that the U.S. was not using any illegal practices, but using the same methods as Costa Rica with Canada and Panama with their ambassador. He blamed Ottón Solís for the bad press, saying that when the U.S. ambassador came to do a press conference, the date was canceled. Instead the ambassador took his opinions to the people. When Solís wanted to reschedule, the ambassador was unable to make it at that time, but Solís insisted on that time anyway. When the ambassador didn't show, but was replaced by another, Solís said that the first ambassador had hidden because he didn't want the bad press. The "bad press" came anyway, according to David.
The third lady (and here, we shall name her Jill) reiterated the idea that the U.S. policy is designed to protect democratic space. She felt that Costa Rica could improve and learn how to opperate better in terms of democracy. She defined the difference between free trade and fair trade: free trade limits tarifs on imports and exports, while fair trade supports the equality of workers, responsible use of the environment, and responsible disposal of waste. Of course, she mentioned, you can always find stats that favor different ways. /Jill/ was unable to explain the difference between CAFTA and NAFTA (you'll recall that Solís said they were exactly the same), but said that CAFTA would help Costa Rica with its exports. The two greatest exports at this time are not bananas and pineapples, they are microchips and medical equipment.
All three encouraged us that if we liked being abroad to go to work for the government as ambassadors who protect U.S. interests overseas. More information about jobs here.
Tomorrow, I will write about Democracy, since it seems to be a common theme here. Also, my group did our presentation with my political cartoons! I was honored. Hopefully after my rant about democracy, I will write a post about my reaction to the CAFTA/TLC thing.
Have a wonderful day!
P.S. Here is a link to my pictures from the Limón trip to present!!
Monday, February 23, 2009
TLC or CAFTA, Part I
Hi! I have returned! I'm actually working on a 7-page paper right now that's due tomorrow at 8 a.m. so I have decided to take a break (I'm on pg 4). Also, our entire group will be going to Nicaragua this weekend and staying for two weeks. Please do not be alarmed if I write nothing. I will most likely have no access to the internet. I am bringing my camera, and golly gee I will visit the volcanoes!!!!
TLC, or CAFTA:
Central American Free Trade Agreement, in Spanish, Tratado de Libre Comercio, was instituted by the offices of Washington D.C. to better trade with the 5 Central American countries (Honduras, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, and Panama) and the Dominican Republic. In CR, there are only a few companies that supply electricity, gas, internet, and communication for the entire country. But they have low prices.
The biggest issue it seems is the cell phone price. Right now, in this moment, at department stores, people can buy a cell phone for the equivalent of USD 2, and pay about USD 7 a month for service. Even less for only text messages. Many worry, however, that with the "penetration" of the TLC, big companies looking to make a profit will take the money. Not that it's that much, but if the big companies start selling their cell phones at a lower price, it is natural (given the laws of supply and demand) that the people will buy phones from foreign countries who can raise their prices as soon as other companies are out of business. This is what Rockefeller did with the oil in the 1900s.
Also, why should Ticos pay other companies? They have a good product at a good price with a system that works, right now.
We had the honor of being lectured by the leader of Costa Rica's Partido de Acción Ciudadano (PAC) political party. He ran for president of the country in 2002 and got third place, the first time in history that the bipartisan election has been broken. Ottón Solís feels that, especially with TLC, US foreign policy methods are outdated. He gave 8 reasons for this, but I was only able to write down 7 (I think this was one of the many days one of my pens died). Here they are:
1) US foreign policy reacts to current events already in motion, instead of anticipating them
2) US foreign policy documents tend to describe, thus, the situations and not the causes. This is not an analysis.
3) US foreign policy diagnostics tend to ignore economic model issues
4) US foreign policy tends to have a "black/white", "enemy/friend" approach to the acceptance of its policy
5) Policies tend to ignore tensions and political views
6) Policies are pushed as though whatever suffices in the US will suffice for everyone else
7) Policies tend to take into account only the short-run view, and not the immediate consequences.
In my own eloquent style, Solís is more or less saying that the US is trying to cross the culture gap without a bridge. He also feels that a) CAFTA is exactly the same as NAFTA--read one, you've read them all, and b) the previous points are a clear demonstration that US foreign policies are not tailored to fit the individual country, but formed in Washington D.C. and enforced abroad.
Here are some random quotes from his lecture:
"Soldiers fight for freedom of democracy, but at the same time, this takes away the freedom for a country to build its own economic model."
(On TLC) "We want telecommunication to be a social tool, not a profit-making industry. Why can't you respect that?"
(On Latin America's "inability" to maintain non-corrupt leaders) "Corruption is not an issue of Latin American politics; we live in a culture of corruption."
"I get myself to believe that the problems [of US foreign policy] were a product of the Bush administration because it is easier to believe it will change [with the next administration]. If I were to say, 'This is a running problem of the US,' then I am blaming an entire country, which is bad for all negotiations. We need to have diplomacy when we assign problems."
Okay, back to work for me. But I will counter this opinion above with what we heard when we visited the US Embassy.
TLC, or CAFTA:
Central American Free Trade Agreement, in Spanish, Tratado de Libre Comercio, was instituted by the offices of Washington D.C. to better trade with the 5 Central American countries (Honduras, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, and Panama) and the Dominican Republic. In CR, there are only a few companies that supply electricity, gas, internet, and communication for the entire country. But they have low prices.
The biggest issue it seems is the cell phone price. Right now, in this moment, at department stores, people can buy a cell phone for the equivalent of USD 2, and pay about USD 7 a month for service. Even less for only text messages. Many worry, however, that with the "penetration" of the TLC, big companies looking to make a profit will take the money. Not that it's that much, but if the big companies start selling their cell phones at a lower price, it is natural (given the laws of supply and demand) that the people will buy phones from foreign countries who can raise their prices as soon as other companies are out of business. This is what Rockefeller did with the oil in the 1900s.
Also, why should Ticos pay other companies? They have a good product at a good price with a system that works, right now.
We had the honor of being lectured by the leader of Costa Rica's Partido de Acción Ciudadano (PAC) political party. He ran for president of the country in 2002 and got third place, the first time in history that the bipartisan election has been broken. Ottón Solís feels that, especially with TLC, US foreign policy methods are outdated. He gave 8 reasons for this, but I was only able to write down 7 (I think this was one of the many days one of my pens died). Here they are:
1) US foreign policy reacts to current events already in motion, instead of anticipating them
2) US foreign policy documents tend to describe, thus, the situations and not the causes. This is not an analysis.
3) US foreign policy diagnostics tend to ignore economic model issues
4) US foreign policy tends to have a "black/white", "enemy/friend" approach to the acceptance of its policy
5) Policies tend to ignore tensions and political views
6) Policies are pushed as though whatever suffices in the US will suffice for everyone else
7) Policies tend to take into account only the short-run view, and not the immediate consequences.
In my own eloquent style, Solís is more or less saying that the US is trying to cross the culture gap without a bridge. He also feels that a) CAFTA is exactly the same as NAFTA--read one, you've read them all, and b) the previous points are a clear demonstration that US foreign policies are not tailored to fit the individual country, but formed in Washington D.C. and enforced abroad.
Here are some random quotes from his lecture:
"Soldiers fight for freedom of democracy, but at the same time, this takes away the freedom for a country to build its own economic model."
(On TLC) "We want telecommunication to be a social tool, not a profit-making industry. Why can't you respect that?"
(On Latin America's "inability" to maintain non-corrupt leaders) "Corruption is not an issue of Latin American politics; we live in a culture of corruption."
"I get myself to believe that the problems [of US foreign policy] were a product of the Bush administration because it is easier to believe it will change [with the next administration]. If I were to say, 'This is a running problem of the US,' then I am blaming an entire country, which is bad for all negotiations. We need to have diplomacy when we assign problems."
Okay, back to work for me. But I will counter this opinion above with what we heard when we visited the US Embassy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)