- This topic has 1 reply, 15 voices, and was last updated 17 years ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Hmmmm!
US$100 will certainly pay for the book and the shipping to Costa Rica…
Scott Oliver – Founder
WeLoveCostaRica.comWell, It looks like some of you beat me to it and saved me the Google time. I was getting some needed rest after answering Diego, to try and lower my blood pressure.
I pulled out my copy of Anderson’s book and realized Roark was not looking all that deep for information. Aleida March, Che’s widow, was a tremendous contributor to his book. There are over three pages of acknowledgments, and over ten bibliography pages as well. Fontova sites Fidel as being the major contributor. I don’t think the evidence holds. Anderson is not all that complimentary to Fidel. He describes him as being conspicuously absent during most of the field engagements. Not a thing I would do to my “Major contributor.” He also points out Che’s dissatisfaction with some of Fidel’s thoughts about communism, and his dealings with the Soviets. Also, by looking at some of the Google results posted, I think Mr. Fontova indeed has an axe to grind.
Anderson’s book is a scholarly work, receiving the New York times “Notable book of the year” award, Newsday’s “Favorite book of the year” and many others. I think if Roark would read, rather than skim the book, he would find it a fascinating, historical read.
I was thinking about ordering this book tonight, but after seeing what you guys have posted, it can wait.Alfred, Fontova does indeed have an axe to grind. That is why he wrote the book. I think if your home was taken by communist thugs, you would have an axe to grind as well.
Perhaps I would find Anderson’s book fascinating and may find opposite points of view as to Fontova’s. You asked what I thought of Fontova’s book, I told you what I thought of it. Don’t do as Che would do and burn Fontova’s book before you read it.
Because you have read Anderson’s book and I have not is why I would want to know what you thought. I was not bashing Anderson’s book, before I read it, just questioning the source.
Roark, Fair enough. I accept the chastising. I shouldn’t have gotten all over you when I did ask for your opinion on Fontova’s book. Perhaps you are correct in that Che would have burned it before I read it. It is just that I thought you may have been dismissing Anderson’s book out of hand.
I don’t particularly like books by people who have an axe to grind because you know how it will turn out before you flip the first page. He does have a legitimate gripe however, after being forced out of his homeland with his life’s possesions being taken.
Now you have changed my mind and I’ll have to read the book. I’ll let you know what i think.
I have talked to second generation American/Cubans who’s families absolutely despise Fidel and Che. It is a matter of perspective for the reasons of one’s feelings toward the Cuban revolution. Because my family was not personally involved, I feel I can read a book for the historical sense of an era and person.
Now you have changed my mind, and I will read Fontova’s book and let you know what I think.I find it interesting that in this forum many people slam american pop-culture, and rightfully so, but it is american pop-culture that praises the likes of Che Guevara… and so many of you believe in that he is an International man of the people.
Thank you for the response Alfred, this post was not directed at you.
I realize that time is short and you want to be selective in the books you read. What do you think of this interview with Humberto Fontova? I would really like to know.
http://www.ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=268959935407214&kw=Humberto,Fontova
The Real Che Was No T-Shirt Idol, As Cuban-American Author Finds
By INVESTOR’S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Tuesday, July 10, 2007 4:20 PM PT
Cuba’s late Marxist revolutionary, Ernesto “Che” Guevara, is experiencing something of a revival these days. His fiery-eyed visage and rock-star good looks, immortalized in an iconic snapshot by photographer Alfredo Korda in 1961, seem to epitomize the youthful idealism of revolution, rebellion and free-spiritedness.
Listen To Full Interview
Since then, the famous communist’s face has shown up on T-shirts, car decals, wristwatches, baby clothes, CD cases, hubcaps, jewelry, backpacks, and in Manhattan classroom posters, ironically advertising value of his image to capitalist markets.
Hillary Clinton has been spotted at campaign rallies with Che T-shirt wearers. Carlos Santana has paraded his shirt at award shows. Angelina Jolie reportedly sports a Che tattoo. And Hollywood has idealized the Argentine-born revolutionary in glossy movies like “The Motorcycle Diaries.”
The only problem with this romance is there’s not a wisp of truth to it. Guevara was a deadly “killing machine” whose legacy was to enslave and impoverish Cuba.
Cuban-American author Humberto Fontova researched the man behind the image, exploring why pop culture seems so enamored of Che Guevara. Speaking to dozens of Cubans who knew and fought with Guevara (1928-1967), Fontova pieced together a very different picture of Guevara for his book, “Exposing The Real Che Guevara and the Useful Idiots Who Idolize Him.”
We spoke with Fontova about the real Che, one of history’s most undeservedly idolized mass murderers.
IBD: You spent some of your childhood in the first years of the Cuban revolution before your family managed to escape in 1961. How did your family manage to get out?
Fontova: Filmmaker Michael Moore said that the reason Cubans live so well in the U.S. is that they brought all their loot from Havana. But almost all Cubans came to the U.S. with only the clothes on their backs.
We managed to get out by plane, not raft, or inner tube in 1961. The totalitarian bureaucracy allowed some people to get out legally, but it took a year to get the paperwork done, and as we got to the airport, Cuban troops yanked my mother’s earrings off her ears and my sister’s crucifix off her neck, letting them take only one suitcase.
They said the items belongs to “la revolution,” or “the people” and what they meant by “the people” was the Stalinist functionaries’ family. My father drilled holes in (the) soles of his shoes and hid his wedding rings.
But at the last stage before the flight, when were leaving from the airport, security forces came and grabbed my father and said he’s not going anywhere. Just before they dragged him through the door, my mom said we aren’t leaving. My dad told her she had to leave, and we figured he was going to the firing squads. He told my mom “Whatever happens to me, I don’t want my children growing up in communist country.” We were just ages 8, 5 and 7 years old but we knew something was wrong.
IBD: Why did your dad want to flee?
Fontova: My dad doesn’t like to take orders. There’s this myth that anyone leaving Fidel Castro’s revolution had to be a millionaire, a gangster or a crook. All he wanted was to not be a slave.
We got to Miami, and my mom called Havana. She learns my father is in G2 security headquarters where people were taken for questioning. A lot of people didn’t emerge from that questioning and you can imagine my mom’s terror, in a strange country, not a penny to her name, three kids and probably a widow. My family moved to New Orleans to stay with relatives.
New Orleans had a fair number of Cubans, and we lived in a small apartment. A few months went by and my mom picks up the receiver again. This time, her reaction was markedly different, this was a screech of joy. My father was calling from the airport, and I remember my dad emerging from the door of the plane and she was running and that embrace I’ll never forget. Our story had a happy ending.
What I am trying to do is remind and inform people that thousands of Cuban families did not have a happy ending.
IBD: You mention that the regime imprisoned people. What kinds of figures are you talking about?
Fontova: Cuba in 1961 had 6.3 million people. According to Freedom House, 500,000 Cubans have passed through Cuba’s prison systems, proportionately more than went through Stalin’s Gulag. At one time in 1961, 350,000 Cubans (were) jailed for political crimes and 1 out of 18 Cubans was a political prisoner. These were people who were overheard talking badly against regime. It’s very difficult for people to visualize what a totalitarian regime is — after all, doesn’t Latin America always have dictatorship?. Yeah, but Latin America does not have totalitarian Stalinist dictatorships, except in Cuba.
IBD: How did Che create this?
Fontova: It wasn’t two weeks after Castro entered Havana that Soviet agents entered. Che was the main conduit with Soviet intelligence agencies.
The Cuban regime executed more people proportionately in its first three years in power than Hitler did in six. Think about that execution rate and then think about that slogan associated with Che — “resist oppression.” The ironies are so rich, comparing what Cuban-Americans read and what they experienced.
IBD: Guevara bragged from the podium of the United Nations that “we do executions.”
Fontova: And he said “we will continue to do executions” in 1964. According to the Black Book of Communism, published in Paris, 14,000 men and boys were executed in Cuba by that stage, that would be the equivalent of 3 million executions in the U.S., and yet that man who carried them out was hailed by Jesse Jackson, who wrote a book condemning capital punishment.
IBD: Speaking of communist chic, Cameron Diaz got into trouble for toting a Mao bag in Peru, where people knew Maoist terror.
Fontova: But you will notice that Cameron Diaz apologized, so I attribute 80% of the Che paraphernalia seen on people to ignorance. Especially when I am in a generous mood. I hate to think people are that dumb. With ignorance, it’s different, they just don’t know. After all, if you were to see Korda’s picture of Che from a distance, you might say that’s a pretty cool picture because it looks like Jim Morrison of The Doors. They have big notions, especially the young kids who see Che as a hero — that he is a revolutionary, that he fought “The Man.” No, sir, I say, he was “The Man” that rebellious people fought against. You got it completely backwards.
IBD: You wrote about how Che loathed rock ‘n’ rollers, gays, artists, black people, and anybody who was part of the establishment.
Fontova: I do this in (the) book by simply quoting Ernesto “Che” Guevara. There is a misperception that he was a free spirit. He had cold Stalinist personality. He used to sign his early correspondence “Stalin II.” He said early on that he saw the solution to all the world’s problems behind (the) Iron Curtain. But this was not some hippie dippie Marxist, Guevara said in speech in 1962 that he regarded the very spirit of rebellion as anti-revolutionary. Figure that out, he said individualism must disappear in Cuba. If you tried to do your own thing under his regime you wound up in a prison camp.
IBD: What about his personality?
Fontova: He had an arrogant nature. I interviewed people who visited him and tried to save their sons from firing squad executions without trial. He liked to toy with them. He liked to pick up the phone in front of weeping mothers and bark out, “Execute the Fernandez boy right now!”
He was clinically a sadist. Fidel, you could call a psychopath. Murders didn’t affect him one way or another. For him, it was a utilitarian slaughter to consolidate his one-man rule.
Che, from all the people I talked to, relished the slaughter. He had a section of a wall knocked out of his second story office so he could watch his beloved firing squads at work.
IBD: Did he kill minors?
Fontova: Lots of boys that went to the firing squads were 15, 16, 17 years old. They were poor boys who joined the military for benefits, much as is done in this country sometimes. They were the ones who got stuck holding the bag. They were killed for the Stalinist regime to say, “We are running the show now” and “This is what is going to happen to you if you question what we are doing here.”
They did not make secret of these executions. They wanted make them public as an example similar to what the Stalin forces did to the Polish officer corps in the Katyn Forest Massacre. One reason was to behead the officer corps of the former Cuban army — because they knew that when the time came for a counterrevolution, they’d be the leaders to defeat. But they also wanted to cow the population.
IBD: Was Che an idealist?
Fontova: The book could have been titled that everything you read about Che is not just wrong but upside down. When Che moved to Havana in 1959, it was to the most luxurious mansion inside Cuba. It had waterfalls, it had what would be considered a plasma TV, it had a yacht harbor, a sauna. Its completely documented.
IBD: Yet Che is considered the brains of Cuban revolution.
Fontova: Ariel Dorfman wrote huge economium for Time magazine naming him among the heroes and icons of the 20th century, alongside Mother Teresa. Parisian intellectual Jean Paul Sartre called him “the most complete human of the 20th century.” Che was often called the brains of the revolution, but Castro was pulling strings behind him. Guevara seemed like an intellectual because he consorted with French intellectuals as some Argentines did, but in fact he was Castro’s puppet and chief executioner.
IBD: The media missed all this. Will it ever change?
Fontova: The mainstream media monopoly is being broken. Alan Colmes of “Hannity and Colmes” once asked me, “Why are these stories coming out now as opposed to 20 years ago? All of a sudden, you discover all this horrible information on Che.”
I said, “No, Alan, people have been talking about this since 1959, but it never made it past the mainstream media filter.” That monopoly is over, so our side can tell its story to middle America. I like to think this book is an example of that.davidcmurray
You have hit the proverbial nail on the head, there are many countries out there willing to deal with Costa Rica, CAFTA or no CAFTA. Besides the USA is kissing China’s butt when it comes to all the bad stuff in China’s products and CHINA HAS NO FREE TRADE AGREEMENT WITH THE USA, do you think that the US is going to stop dealing with China because they have no trade agreement???? NO WAY, Nuff said?
ArtRoark, I read this and thought many of the point here are brought up in Anderson’s writings as well. He did not gloss over the fact that Che was as ruthless as can be when it came to executions. In fact he was very detailed, from Che’s first killing of a man, all the way to the courtyard executions. It was one of the things it is hard to reconcile with the man. Intelligence, being trained as a doctor, treating the indigenous in his travels as a youth, a prolific writer, and then killing without remorse. It does seem like a paradox.
The part about his living in a mansion I did find suspect. He moved out of his first home because he thought it too grand, and moved to simple surroundings. He would not pay to have his parents visit because on his salary, which he only drew military pay and not any public officials pay was very small. His wife was extremely annoyed that he would not use government funds to bring his own parents over. He said he would not use his position to take the peoples money. He also worked in the fields on weekends. He had communist principles and felt every person had to have an equal share and one was not better or more privileged than the other. Strange contrast to the violent side.
Castro was the architect behind the revolution. Che started out by just going along because he wanted change in Latin America. Towards the end he became a bit more distant from Castro and left Cuba and renounced his citizenship. He wanted to export revolution all over the world. He most assuredly hated the USA.
The actor Andy Garcia left Cuba in the same way as Fontova described. Bracelets were cut from his mothers wrists at the airport. He longs to return to Cuba, his homeland. I can understand the feelings towards Che and Castro.
Che’s iconic status was increased by martyring him. Had he lived, as the American government wanted him to do, his memory would have been quite different from what it is today? History always treats martyrs, whether deserved or not, better than their lives would have been had they lived to old age. There is something of a victim mentality in that.
The pop culture always looks for that bit of revolutionary, against the grain personality, to latch onto. Che, was that image for a culture so radically changed during the 1960’s. His timing was perfect for what was going on in the USA at that time.
I guess many of us need heroes. When we look at the world around us and feel powerless, the hero we seek, though flawed, can take many forms.Fontova’s points here are understandable, and when I read the entire story I might gain a new insight.
Thanks for posting this up here.
All we can do now is pray and hope that the Ticos will vote CAFTA down. If CAFTA is enacted the price of everything will go up (utilities, telecommunications, insurance, medicines ect). Workers rights will not be able to be protected as they have in CR and environmental pollution will go up. This is the most frightening thing for me right now and will make the difference on whether I can live in CR or not. As far as the duty on cars what I have heard is it will have nothing to do with that and that the duties will remain on vehicles. As many have stated above this is a deal for big business and corporations, not for the people. Presidential hopeful Ron Paul put it quite wisely when he said that CAFTA was not free trade at all and if the US really wanted free trade then all they had to do is remove tariffs. Now they give us this damn 2400 page document that needs to be analyzed. The people who have researched it have found that this is a very bad agreement (University of Costa Rica and others). Even the Catholic church disagrees with it. Just a look at over 10 years after NAFTA was enacted is enough to convince most people that this is not a good deal. I am holding my breath to see what happens in October. If it passes, I suspect many baby boomers and other expats may be looking to other affordable places to retire. As a gringo I tell every Tico I know or meet about CAFTA and urge them to learn more about it. Our only hope is that people will at least know how this will effect their lives and then hope that they get out and vote this out.
Ripple…could not agree more…no big surprise BUT everyone should read the current issue of ¨Tico Times¨and how the Government here is trying to pull a U.S. government trick by attempting to discuss the CAFTA issues on the floor before the People have spoken as to if the EVEN want it discussed….Scott you are far more intelligent than me will you plese read this Page 3 Tico Times Ausgus 10 and report back…
From the article…Antii-CAFTA activists have long insisted that legislative discussion of the bills should be posponed in cse voters reject CAFTA on Oct 7th. ¨There could be a CAFTA without CAFTA¨ Eugenio Trejos, a spkesman for the anti-Cafta movement told Tico Times …¨That is to say and implementation agenda that is, in essence, the execution of the free trade agreemnent.
God does that sound Like something the U.S would try to pull or What?The U.S. can’t stop dealing with China. China holds the paper on so much U.S. debt, if they ever called in the loans China would own the U.S.
As I’ve said before, there are plenty of good reasons to dislike CAFTA. IMHO these are NOT among them:
artedwards: “There is only one reason CAFTA is written so it’s confusing, it is so they (the States legal system) can interpret it anyway they want to.”
1. Has anyone ever read economic legislation (tax codes, anti-trust laws…) that isn’t confusing? It’s a hard argument to make that, while all these other laws are confusing due to the complexity of the issue, CAFTA is confusing so “they (the U.S.) can interpret it any way they want to.”
2. Breaches of bi-national or multi-national economic treaties can be aired at the World Trade Organization (http://www.wto.org/). Rulings from this organization have often gone against the U.S. (including a complaint Costa Rica brought regarding bananas, if my memory serves me).
artedwards: “Costa Rica has done well for itself up to now, why would Costa Rica need CAFTA?”
Because the world has changed around us, and it’s not logical to think that what has worked up until now will continue working in the future.
artedwards: “Costa Rica will be controlled by outside money which controls the States government which will control the Costa Rican government.”
Guess what…we’re all controlled by outside money – including the U.S. as Peg points out. The emergence of a world-wide economic market has led to an inevitable loss of sovereignty, even without signing on to free trade agreements. These agreements are simply attempts to make it easier and cheaper to trade goods, since such international trade has become so important in a shrinking, economically co-dependant world. I think it would be difficult to find someone in the CR government that would argue that the increase in exports over the last decade has hurt the CR economy.
artedwards: “I don’t necessarily care for legalized prostitution but look what is causing the people of Costa Rica to consider changing that, “outside tourist money” and it ain’t the men that is doing it.”
Prostitution is already legal in CR, and has been for quite some time. Pimping is illegal.
davidcmurray: “The salvation may lie in Costa Rica’s future trade relations with the rest of the world. Certainly China looms as a dominant figure on the world economic stage, but so do the economies of India, Indonesia, Japan, Australia, Russia and others. Maybe for a country this small having a few trading partners other than the U.S. and Europe will suffice.”
Certainly, broadening its trading partners is a positive thing for any country to pursue (and it should be obvious that one way to accomplish this is to lower trade barriers…). According to COMEX (the CR gov’t department which handles external trade), in 2006 the U.S. accounted for 41.5% of exports, the EU 15.6%, Asia 17.5% (13.2% from just Hong Kong and mainland China), Central America 13.8%, Other 11.6%.
1. If not being a signatory to CAFTA will dampen CR trade with the U.S. and the EU, it will also dampen it with other existing and forming trading blocks.
2. The smaller the country, the more important it is to be part of a trading bloc or two. Costa Rica, by itself, has VERY little economic power of negotiation.
3. Signing on to CAFTA does not prevent Costa Rica from continuing to develop trade relations with countries outside of CAFTA.
davidcmurray: “CHINA HAS NO FREE TRADE AGREEMENT WITH THE USA, do you think that the US is going to stop dealing with China because they have no trade agreement???? NO WAY”
1. China has enjoyed “Most Favorite Nation” (MFN) trading status with the U.S. since 1980. This is essentially a type of unilateral free trade.
2. China is not comparable to CR when it comes to trade with the U.S. If the U.S. loses CR as a trading partner, there’s not much skin off the U.S.’s back. This cannot be said for China.
Ripple33: “If CAFTA is enacted the price of everything will go up (utilities, telecommunications, insurance, medicines ect).”
1. Freer trade results in lower prices. Importation taxes are reduced or eliminated making foreign product cheaper. Local manufacturers then are forced to compete, thus producing higher quality products at lower prices as well. “Free trade” agreements have resulting in way lower prices for all sorts of products and services here in the U.S. and abroad.
2. You can’t really use government monopolies (ICE, RECOPE, AyA, INS, CAJA) as benchmarks for whether prices will go up or down, as the current “price” in no way reflects the actual costs. These government monopolies are essentially part of the CR mechanism of collecting taxes. In other words, the “cost” include both the price paid for the services, as well as the tax dollars used to prop up these entities, AND the tax dollars lost by keeping the industry closed to competitors. Furthermore, just as the U.S. government plunders our social security funds, the CR government taps income from these enterprises as well for other purposes.
Ripple33 “Workers rights will not be able to be protected as they have in CR and environmental pollution will go up.”
1. As is clearly seen by the anti-immigration sentiment in the U.S. our ideological version of “Free Trade” evidently does not extend to labor. Similarly, CAFTA has nothing whatsoever to do with worker’s rights in CR. This is purely an internal policy issue. In many ways labor in the U.S. is more protected than in CR (EOE, OSHA, the Bill of Rights). In other ways, the reverse is true (aguinaldo, CAJA). This is not likely to change with the passage of CAFTA.
2. As far as pollution is concerned, this is also a purely internal matter. However, there are plenty of people who are keen to place environmental safeguards in free trade agreements, which could actually decrease pollution (not that I think this is the way to go about it).
Ripple33: “if the US really wanted free trade then all they had to do is remove tariffs”
The U.S. has already removed many tariffs unilaterally, as is the case with MFN as well as CBI (Caribbean Base Initiative). Under this policy Costa Rica has exported all sorts of products to the U.S. without any importation taxes. Coffee, food and textiles are among the few exceptions.
Ripple33: “The people who have researched it have found that this is a very bad agreement”
Some think it’s bad, some think it’s good. This is a very one-sided statement that Ripple33 is not qualified to assert.
Ripple33: “Just a look at over 10 years after NAFTA was enacted is enough to convince most people that this is not a good deal.”
1. While NAFTA has inevitably caused some pain to its signatories, many argue that it has also brought much economic benefit. To make a blanket statement that it’s bad is irresponsible. It’s been both good and bad in many ways.
2. It’s equally important to take into account what might have happened if it weren’t for NAFTA. I believe that NAFTA has had the effect of toughening each country’s economy to better confront the realities of a global market (which is not going away any time soon). For instance, in the US NAFTA most assuredly helped us avoid tougher competition from Asia because manufacturers were able to take advantage of lower-paid labor in Mexico. Certainly, one must also agree that Mexico has undergone significant economic modernization in order to adjust to NAFTA, which I would argue has strengthened them tremendously.
It’s interesting to note that there’s also a Free Trade Agreement in place between Mexico and Costa Rica. I believe that CR has benefited from this agreement, but I also think that Mexico has been the more aggressive partner (Pan Bimbo for example). Is it arrogant to suggest that maybe they learned it from us?
IMHO those who shy away from integration will only find it more difficult to adapt down the road.
While Diego has contributed his interesting and fun concept of a Costa Rica purposefully stuck in the past (an idea I too have whimsically appreciated, especially as part of an overall strategy to increase tourism), most of the other contributors just seem to be spouting one-sided and unsupported rhetoric to back up their dislike for the less palatable repercussions of economic integration. The fact of the matter is that this integration is happening whether we like it or not. The only rational course is to embrace and enhance its potential benefits, while at the same time working to mitigate the collateral damage that comes along with it.
GringoTico, While your comments are always well thought out and informative, and I always respect your advice and opinions, I have to ask a few questions, and give a few of my own thoughts.
I am full aware Costa Rica has broadened its trade relations recently. Panama being another neighbor it is partnering with. Do you think underdeveloped nations, in general, are going to benefit in the short term by trading with the US?
My opinion is that Costa Rica, until it can trade as an equal partner, stands not to benefit in the immediate future. They just don’t have the financial resources to ramp up their supply side to make themselves export much more to the US than they already do now. What I think will happen, is what happened in the past. Companies like United Fruit came there and developed business which benefited their pockets and not the Tico’s. We see that now with international development of the waterfront areas, and workers being paid around $280 for two weeks work. When the projects dry up, where will the jobs be? Similarly, workers will be paid less than their American counterparts to work in businesses developed by US companies. While I understand they cannot make the same wages as American workers, are they going to get paid any better than if a Costa Rican company would be the one owning it?
I think Costa Ricans should be able to own more of the larger businesses in their own country. They should also have the opportunity to share in the economic growth and wealth that would allow them to afford beachfront homes in their native land.We saw what happened with NAFTA. Initially Mexico had a lot of US investment in new manufacturing facilities. I am in the billiard industry and saw first hand how Mexico was starting to produce better quality, cheaper billiard cloth, than factories in the US northeast. The reason was the modern equipment. All the Northeast factories closed up as a result. Competition from other parts of the world, where cheap labor was available, cut Mexico’s business in very short order. Many other products were sourced out to Mexico in our industry as well. Within a year or so after startup, almost every wood product made in Mexico went over to China. Mexico may have seen some benefit from the agreement. But we still have the borders being overrun by Mexicans looking for jobs.
The US is still the world’s largest trading partner, and as such, it would be foolish not to have some sort of agreement. However, the agreement should be one that is understood by both parties, and should be fair as well. No one seems to know if it can be interpreted, or if it is fair. They have looked at this thing for years now in Costa Rica. And they still can’t come up with an intelligent answer one way or the other.
Costa Rica is in a bit of a pickle. It is a small country. Both in geographical area and economic terms, Costa Rica is a dwarf by comparison to its larger trading partners. It will have to take a hard look at itself and see if want’s to enter this arena.
Japan was able to overcome these shortcomings, by building better cars and electronics than they had in the past, In the 80’s and 90’s they were an economic powerhouse and everyone here in the US thought they would buy us up. I don’t know if Costa Rica has the same will to do these things, or if they need to.In October, many Ticos will be voting on this matter. As I stated once before, it seems the Costa Rican government has abdicated its responsibility to bring this agreement to a vote. It is entrusting the electorate to ratify an agreement which they themselves could not understand. If it passes and blows up in their faces, who do you think will get the blame?
Alfred,
Thank you for your kind words, regardless of how undeserved they may be. You are forewarned, however, that “well thought out and informative” is not proof of veracity. Furthermore, it’s easy to counter what other people say, but a bit harder to put forward actual answers, particularly to the tough questions you pose.
Monopoly is a fun game, until you lose. Laissez-faire capitalists and libertarians seem to think that the world should be run by these same rules. Well, it is. National economies have all sorts of rules and regulations which are enforced by the State to keep the “Haves” from “Having it all”, to one extent or another. Cuba is one extreme, as Fidel has insured that everyone, except his political elite of course, is pretty much equally poor. The U.S. may not be completely on the other side of the spectrum, but there are few countries more to the right (we still have food stamps, Medicare, Medicaid, social security, progressive taxation, etc. – many of the trappings of socialism, but with enough market-driven factors built in to give our political leaders plausible deniability).
Once you get past national boundaries, on the other hand, the rules of monopoly seem to take over. There are some global bodies in existence which provide the minimal framework within which businesses can operate, such as the World Trade Organization, but not enough to hinder the mafias, nor keep the larger multinationals from overpowering the smaller countries, nor inhibit the dictators who use their country’s wealth and industry as their own mad money.
Is this any way to run a world? Probably not, but nonetheless, it is what it is. In it’s defense, free trade in a global economy, connected at broadband speeds, is a new paradigm, and some growing pains are to be expected.
What do you do when the whole world is playing monopoly? Sit it out and starve? No, you learn to play the game, take your lumps, and get wise to the rules.
Any country no matter how big or small that opts out will stagnate while the world around them moves on. Some simply don’t have the internal resources to last a day. Others have enough to make a go of it for a while, but the sad end to it is inevitable. Walling yourself in is no solution.
Every person, and every country, has unique value. All one has to do is exploit that value for one’s own, or one’s country’s benefit. If small country X has $1,000, and can produce computer software for $10 per CD and computers for $500, they can choose to either produce 100 CDs or two computers. If they can export the CDs for $20 each and import the computers for $250 each, they’ll end up with no CDs and 4 computers. If they want to use some of the CDs themselves, they can choose to only import 3 computers and they’ll still be ahead.
Trade is GOOD! Trade is also a NATURAL HUMAN ACTIVITY FROM BEFORE TIME. What a country does with the profit is an INTERNAL MATTER to be decided BY ITS OWN PEOPLE. If they want to put into place agreements with their trading partners to facilitate and enhance this beneficial trade, GREAT! Such agreements are NEGOTIATED between the parties, just as the Costa Rican government has been stubbornly and steadfastly doing for years.
No, it’s not an even match, the U.S. holds many a carrot and stick. But multinational companies and trading blocks make up the dominant structure of our economic world today, whether you live in New York City or Talamanca. In other words, just like in Five Points back in the 50’s, unless you want to stay home all day, every day, you have to join a gang.
The gang offers you protection, kinship, more resources than one could provide for oneself, and an opportunity to learn street sense. In exchange, you get beat up a few times, and you learn some moves yourself.
Regarding foreign companies operating in Costa Rica (we are by no means the only ones), I think underdeveloped countries have wizened up to varying extents, if not to the finer points of keeping them from plundering their natural resources, then at least to institutionalizing the bribe so it’s all apparently legal.
I believe Costa Rica in particular has done a good job of working with foreign companies to strike a balance between the public good and the profit motive. Foreign companies frequently offer the best employment opportunities for Ticos, and for the most part enjoy excellent reputations among the masses.
Even if they are foreign-owned companies, there is still much benefit.
1. Gainful employment
2. Higher wages (often)
3. World-class training
4. State-of-the-art industrial tools, materials & processes
5. Introduction to the workings of the global economyFurthermore, let us not forget that most of these companies are publicly traded. Anyone, including Ticos, can and do buy shares.
Finally, while size does matter, history is replete with small companies overtaking larger ones in the never-ending business cycle. The bigger they are, the harder they fall, while the small and agile can be quite formidable.
Oh, I forgot. Who are the in-country executives at these companies? Mostly Ticos!
Ands how about all the locally-owned companies and Tico entrepreneurs. There are quite a number of them, all of varying sizes. Some are more protected from competition by the State, some less. Some will not survive CAFTA, others will thrive.
I personally know a large number of VERY well-off Tico business people that own beautiful spreads in Bello Horizonte and condos in Flamingo. Ticos are smart, highly educated, and natural-born salespeople. I think they’re ready, and deserve, to play in the majors.
As far as Mexicans overrunning our borders, if you thought a simple trade agreement with the U.S. could enrich a country and it’s peoples from overwhelming poverty in a decade, well, you have high expectations. Countries are “coming on line” in the global economic market, and as they and their trading partners develop, things will shake out, and countries will find their niches. There may also be additions to the structure of global governance to provide a more solid framework for an even more globalized economy. Such systems are naturally “benevolent”, as they must strive to keep the mafiosos in check, as well as protect the smaller players, in order to keep the game going.
However, I’m afraid this “benevolence” is limited to the Monopoly rulebook. Parker Brothers can’t replace flesh and blood world leaders to help keep it a fit economic model for human participants, not just a metal boot, horse or thimble.
Sorry to drone on…I’m even getting bored with myself.
GT, Yes, you are deserving. An excellent answer, and education, I have gotten again from you.
It is true international trade has gone on since before Marco Polo. I’m sure the reason for inventing ships to sail the seas was mainly for commerce. They must have had their problems as well.
Your response makes an awful lot of sense. I agree with you that the Tico’s are highly educated and have a natural ability for business. I’ve always been amazed by how many small businesses there are there, and still manage to have stayed open when we visit the next year. I have a soft spot for Costa Rica, and the Ticos in particular. Some of my comments may have been influenced by my feelings for them. Hopefully it wasn’t “European/North American” paternalism.
They do deserve a chance to compete with the world. Time will tell if they are up to the challenge.As always, it has been a pleasure to read your words.
Please, do not get bored!
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
