On Sunday, October 7, voters in Costa Rica will decide whether
to join the United States-Dominican Republic-Central American Free
Trade Agreement (CAFTA). CAFTA would bring tremendous benefits to
Costa Rica, as it has already to Costa Rica's Central American
neighbors. This bright future is being jeopardized, however, by an
alliance of protectionist anti-free traders in the U.S. Congress
and Venezuelan president Hugo Chávez. In order to make an
informed choice about joining CAFTA, voters in Costa Rica need to
learn the truth behind the rhetoric.
Misinformation Campaign
The massive campaign against CAFTA is captured in the lead
sentence of a New York Times story about the upcoming
referendum: "More than 100,000 Costa Ricans, some dressed as
skeletons, protested a United States trade pact on Sunday that they
said would flood their country with cheap farm goods and cause job
losses."[1] The Times article, like many others,
overlooks Hugo Chávez's role in orchestrating and financing
the anti-CAFTA movement. The campaign is a part of his broader
effort to harm the United States and increase his own political
power in the region, via his "ALBA" socialist trade scheme, a
Latin American echo of the Soviet-era Council for Mutual Economic
Assistance (COMECON) that the Soviet Union used to control its
Eastern European satellites.[2]
Fortunately, other journalists have uncovered this story. Mary
Anastasia O'Grady in The Wall Street Journal correctly
linked the anti-CAFTA campaign that "has been marked by violence
and intimidation" to its true intellectual authors: Fidel Castro
and Hugo Chávez. If CAFTA is defeated on Sunday, "it will be
a victory for...Chávez, who is trying to drive a wedge
between Latin America and the U.S. and help Iran put down roots in
America's backyard."[3] Chávez's authoritarian friends,
notably the Chinese, would also love to see the trade agreement
fail in the upcoming referendum.[4]
The opposition of Chavistas is to be expected, but the active
undermining of CAFTA by leading Democrats in the U.S. Congress is
surprising and disturbing. As O'Grady notes, Senator Harry Reid
(D-NV) and Representatives Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Charles Rangel
(D-NY), and Sander Levin (D-MI) have all taken actions in the last
few weeks that undercut CAFTA's chances with Costa Rican voters.[5]Worse,
Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Representative Mike Michaud
(D-ME) traveled to Costa Rica last month to meet with local CAFTA
opponents who are trying to manufacture a scandal out of a leaked
memo written for pro-CAFTA Costa Rican President Oscar Arias that
noted Chávez's support for the anti-CAFTA campaign.[6] The
real scandal, of course, is Chávez's anti-CAFTA
rabble-rousing. Official Venezuelan government Web sites and other
leftist Web sites connected with the Chávez regime brim with
articles opposing the agreement.[7]
Costa Ricans Will Benefit from
CAFTA
Of all the CAFTA signatories, Costa Rica is the only country
that has not yet implemented it.[8] Costa Rica has one of the
more robust economies in the region, which may explain why many
Costa Ricans are complacent and think that freer trade with the
U.S. and other CAFTA partners is not so important to the country's
longer-term economic success. Nothing could be further from the
truth.
Lower tariffs and improved market access for both exports and
imports under CAFTA will promote Costa Rica's competitiveness.
Lower tariffs give exporters a price advantage that will help them
sell more to other CAFTA members and enable importers to buy more
cheaply, lowering the cost of doing business.
CAFTA promotes investment and opens inefficient service-sector
monopolies to the rigors of competition. Greater investment and
competition help promote productivity growth, more efficient
resource use, and long-term economic growth. Other benefits of the
agreement include greater regulatory transparency, the elimination
of excessive red tape, better enforcement of property rights, curbs
on corrupt practices, protection for labor rights, and stronger
environmental protections. Altogether, these will advance economic
prosperity in Costa Rica.[9]
If Costa Ricans opt out of CAFTA, their country will forgo these
benefits and face stiffer competition in global markets for goods,
services, and capital from neighboring countries that have signed
on. Moreover, Costa Rica may eventually lose its current
preferential access to U.S. markets, via the Caribbean Basin
Initiative, if its voters turn down CAFTA.
It is understandable that Costa Rica's powerful public-sector
unions oppose CAFTA; it might force them to work more efficiently.
Anti-CAFTA activists have made misleading arguments that resonate
with another important group in Costa Rica--small-scale rice and
dairy farmers who produce mainly for the domestic market. The
Chavistas have conjured up the spectacle of a tidal wave of
"subsidized U.S. agricultural commodities" that will wipe out small
farmers.[10] CAFTA, they claim, will "expose the poor
countries to competition from the United States but offer them
little in return."[11] A recent study by economists at the
University of California at Davis, however, found just the
opposite:
[I]n most cases, the trade agreement will actually
improve the welfare of the rural poor in developing
countries. The study finds that although rural incomes will likely
decline as protective tariffs are phased out over the next 20
years, food prices in those countries will drop enough to more than
make up the difference. The typical rural household in CAFTA
countries devotes a substantial chunk of its earnings to buying
basic food items, and import tariffs (some as high as 154 percent)
inflate their cost. As a result, the authors find, "lower food
prices would mitigate and, in most cases, reverse the negative
effect that lower incomes would have on rural welfare.[12]
Conclusion
Costa Rica should implement economic policies that promote
long-term growth and economic opportunity. CAFTA would improve
Costa Rica's living standards and bolster the region's stand
against the machinations of Hugo Chávez. Bush Administration
officials can help by stepping up their campaign to educate Costa
Rican voters about the benefits CAFTA will bring to their country,
benefits already enjoyed by their Central American neighbors. In
addition, Members of Congress should rethink their opposition to
job-creating free trade agreements like CAFTA that benefit U.S.
citizens and the citizens of foreign allies alike and provide the
best bulwark against would-be totalitarians and dictators like Hugo
Chávez.
James M. Roberts is
Research Fellow for Economic Freedom and Growth, and Daniella Markheim is
Jay Van Andel Senior Analyst in Trade Policy, in the Center for
International Trade and Economics at The Heritage Foundation.
[2]Ben
Goldby, "The rise and rise of Russian energy giant," Birmingham
Post (UK), May 2, 2006.
[3]Mary
Anastasia O'Grady, "Democrats vs. Central America," The Wall
Street Journal, October 1, 2007.
[4]Forrest Laws, "U.S. Negotiator Says: China
Would Like DR-CAFTA to Fail," Delta Farm Press, June 10,
2005.
[5]Mary
Anastasia O'Grady, "Democrats vs. Central America."
[6]"Costa Rican Memo Prompts Investigation
Into CAFTA Campaign," Inside U.S. Trade,
September 14, 2007.
[7]See,
e.g., Martha Lauer, "CAFTA's October Referendum: A Death Sentence
for Costa Rican Trade & Foreign Investment?" Council on
Hemispheric Affairs, August 14, 2007, at www.coha.org/category/costa-rica/.
[8]The
CAFTA partners include Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, El
Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Nicaragua. The United States
ratified the DR-CAFTA treaty on August 2, 2005; El Salvador on
March 1, 2006; Honduras and Nicaragua on April 1, 2006; Guatemala
on July 1, 2006; and the Dominican Republic on March 1, 2007.
[12]J. Edward Taylor, Antonio Yunez Naude, and
Nancy Jesurun-Clements, "Does Agricultural Liberalization Reduce
Rural Welfare in Less Developed Countries? The Case of CAFTA,"
Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of
California, Davis, January 2007, at www.agecon.ucdavis.edu/ARELibrary/WP/07-001.pdf.