www.CostaRicaTicas.com

White House warns Costa Rica ahead of trade vote

By Doug Palmer 52 minutes ago (Yahoo News from Reuters)

The United States will not renegotiate a free trade agreement with Costa Rica if voters in that country turn down the pact in a referendum on Sunday, the White House said.

"If the free trade agreement is rejected, the United States will not renegotiate the agreement," White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said in a statement on Saturday that was the latest in a series of conflicting messages from Washington ahead of Costa Rica's vote.

"The United States has never renegotiated a free trade agreement that has been approved by the Congress," she said.

Perino also warned that some trade benefits that Costa Rica now enjoys under the separate Caribbean Basin Initiative could be at risk if voters decide not to join the U.S.-Central America Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) along with four of its neighbors, the United States and the Dominican Republic.

"With respect to trade preferences provided under the Caribbean Basin Initiative which will expire in September 2008, the United States has never before confronted the question of extending unilateral trade preferences to a country that has rejected a reciprocal trade agreement," Perino said.

The referendum has split Costa Rica, with President Oscar Arias and some businesses saying CAFTA will bring investment and jobs. Opponents says it will mean a flood of cheap farm imports and limit the country's sovereignty by taking investment disputes to international arbitration.

The U.S. House of Representatives narrowly approved the agreement in 2005, with most Democrats voting no. Many Senate Democrats were also opposed.

DEMOCRATS REASSURE VOTERS

The free trade deal locks in Costa Rica's duty-free access to the U.S. market under the Caribbean Basin Initiative and phases out many trade barriers facing U.S. manufacturers, farmers and service industry companies in Costa Rica.

Although many of the trade benefits Costa Rica currently receives are permanent, others benefiting Costa Rica's textile and tuna industries expire next year.

Democrats in Congress -- including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid -- have sought to reassure Costa Rican voters that their country would not lose trade benefits if the pact is defeated.

"Congress is constitutionally responsible for regulating international commerce. As such, we reiterate our long-standing position that preference programs should not be conditioned on a country entering into a free trade agreement (FTA) with the United States," House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles Rangel said in a statement on Friday with Rep. Sander Levin, who chairs a House trade subcommittee.

Meanwhile, the Bush administration and congressional Republicans have warned there is no guarantee the Democratic-led Congress will renew the benefits that expire next year if the agreement goes down.

"Having worked to pass this deal two years ago, I know that any so-called guarantee that suggests the House will continue granting special trade status to Costa Rica indefinitely and without limits does not exist," House Republican Whip Roy Blunt said in a statement on Tuesday.

President George W. Bush's chief trade negotiator, U.S. Trade Representative Susan Schwab, also warned Costa Rican voters this week to think twice about rejecting the pact, and the White House continued that line.

"Voters in Costa Rica should be aware that many of those assuring Costa Rica of continued access to the U.S. market have consistently opposed measures that would open the U.S. market to goods from Costa Rica and other countries," Perino said.

_________________
Pura Vida
Only Irish coffee provides in a single glass all four
essential food groups:
alcohol, caffeine, sugar and fat.
Alex Levine

These bullying tactics always backfire. expect lots more no votes as a result of these threats.

Whats next a carrier task force off the coast or threats of some surgical bombing strikes.

Or Arias is a dictator, a madman who cannot be reasoned with. Or we must liberate CR from socialism, bring freedom and democracy to CR.

Or.....you get the idea.

Actually I think it is to little to late. The earliest it will hit the CR TV is tonight and the CR newspapers tomorrow morning. I think by that time those Ticos who are going to vote will already have made up their mind. And as Zman points out those undecided will be offended at the interference and vote against.

Just an example of the meddling of Uncle Sam in the affairs of another country.

_________________
Pura Vida
Only Irish coffee provides in a single glass all four
essential food groups:
alcohol, caffeine, sugar and fat.
Alex Levine

Hmmmm, meddling? Seems like typical political trade agreement negotiations to me. One side trying to sell to the other. The media used "warn" which makes it seem " pass this or else," but I don't see it like that. Also, how can you say meddling when some in CR want the agreement to pass?

Just wondering, because I don't see it as meddling.

I see it as meddling because the vote is occuring in Costa Rica. Only Costa Ricans can vote. Any attempt to influence that vote by someone else who has no vote, regardless if that vote will effect them, qualifies as meddling in my understanding of the definition of the term

If you have a diffrent understanding of meddling I would be glad to hear it.

_________________
Pura Vida
Only Irish coffee provides in a single glass all four
essential food groups:
alcohol, caffeine, sugar and fat.
Alex Levine

I see meddling as sticking your nose into something that has nothing to do with you, but this has something to do with the USA.

If Costa Rica were in the same situation with another country and then the USA butted in.... that would be meddling to me. I'm not saying that I'm right, but I really can't see it any other way.

I'm gonna have to go with ID on this one. See, ID, we can agree on some things.

Prolijo... meddling!

Huh How was what I said meddling? I thought this was just a friendly open discussion, not a private debate between you and ID. Otherwise it would have been through PM's. Besides none of us have any real and direct personal interest in the outcome of this vote, nor are we trying to sway it. We're just talking here.

But if you really want to understand the distinction between meddling in someone else's business and selling something on its merits, consider this:

Sure, the treaty has something to do with the USA. But what the treaty has to do with the US is altogether different than what it has to do with CR. The Bush admin's pushing of this treaty so strongly is not so much because it serves CR's interests as it is because it serves the interest of its corporate backers. Sure the US can try to sell the treaty, but the tactics they're using are not even worthy of a snake oil salesmen. They can't make the case that the treaty is in the Tico's interests any other way, or at least they don't have the faith they've made that case strongly enough that they think it will pass, so they have to resort to using strong arm tactics such as fear mongering, threads and intimidation. Simply informing ticos how the treaty is in their interest on its own merits and then letting them decide on their own might not be meddling. but desperation tactics like this steps over the line.

Look at it another way. Who becomes president of the US, effects everyone in the world, ie it has something to do with every country, so using D2864's logic that would mean that all those countries have the right to try and sway our elections. But think how we reacted when Chinese lobbying groups were making contributions to the political parties during the past decade. Or when PR firms for Dubai were trying to convince us that allowing them to take over our ports would be a goood thing (it would have been... but for them, not us)? We don't like foreigners meddling into our INTERNAL politics even if it effects them.

I was just joking. All that other stuff... I argue, you argue back, I argue, you argue back... result... a waste of time.

Hmmm, I used to know a guy named D2864 in grade school. Is that you ?

Agreed! But sometimes we just can't help ourselves.

Ican'tstaywaay, that is a very common name But are you sure your grade school friend was not 2666 or 2964? Those guys are all very similar in many ways.