Costa Rica: the End of Hope?

What do the Free Trade Agreement with the United States and the open sky mine in Crucitas have in common? Both are justified, necessary instruments for the creation of jobs. As we well remember, it used to be said that 500,000 jobs depended on the FTA.

Many don’t speak of the affair after the unemployment rates in Costa Rica increased to their maximum levels in over a quarter of a century, and at the same time, the regulations of the treaty impose restrictions that are now causing obstacles in the creation of new jobs. In fact, I am referring to the impossibility of denying entry to speculative capital, which has caused the revalorization of currency, leading to negative effects in exporting activities, tourism and those competing with imported goods.

In some respects, Crucitas, the company involved, has acted like a greedy politician hunting for votes or like one of those narco-launderers of capital: they hand out presents trying to take advantage of poverty and the need to gain popular sympathy, in a cynical operation of bribery and corruption. The mine, in particular, posed as a savior of the people, when in fact it lacks productive opportunities and employment and is victim to this excluding and concentrating economic model.

All things aside, it is undeniable that the propaganda for the FTA is remarkably similar to the propaganda the Canadian mining company uses to promote its image.

The FTA would be like the last straw, or if you prefer, the solemn act of coronation, of a development model — the neoliberal model or strategy — that throughout the years caused huge development unbalances, the perpetuating of poverty and a brutal deepening of social differences. Part of this problem was caused by the radical loss in quality of the available jobs and their increasing uncertainty, in a setting of systematic disrespect to all regulations involving labor issues.

With economic and employment insecurity and the subsequent anguish it instilled, there was plenty of room left for bribery. And by means of bribery alone, and on a large scale, was the treaty finally approved. The FTA is the child of threats and fear imposed on a population that, in any case, was already living in distress due to its income and employment situation. Eloquently speaking, this was recorded by the diplomatic cables filtered by Wikileaks, the ones experienced by the open intervention of the United States embassy.

Crucitas, in this aspect, is an extreme case, though in small scale, of that same scenario of uncertainty and insecurity. An impoverished community, long forgotten by politicians and politics, political groups and governments, that has become victim to a mirage of employment and prosperity opportunities created by this mining company, that in reality, will only present them with a handful of temporary and bad quality jobs, at the cost of horrific environmental destruction.

In a similar way to that of a vicious circle, this neoliberal strategy arises and seems to feed itself in order to sustain its hegemony. Its basis and foundation is denial: it denies employment rights and job security and income; it denies equality and justice; it does not give way for the possibility of a respectful relationship with nature; it discourages a regionally balanced development; it obstructs the path for national capital growth and it specially blocks the possibility for small businesses and social economic endeavors to consolidate. It even denies the right to health care, education and water. And from that standpoint in denial, it creates a setting of terror: a population in need, afraid that the few possessions they still own and have managed to conserve will be taken away from them. Because of this, bribery becomes the only alternative: if the FTA is not approved, there won’t be any jobs or incomes to live on. Or, in a more reduced context but equally meaningful: if there is no mine, there will be no work for a poor and forgotten community.

Just like that, this neoliberal strategy exercises a sort of dissipating effect on hope. Subsequently, uncertainty and insecurity become instilled, life becomes a fight of “every man for himself” and the possibility of having something different is extinguished, all of which has a paralyzing political effect.

Anyway, development should be something very different. And maybe the case of Crucitas, because it is small scale, illustrates it with special clarity. This small community deserves the genuine right of a healthy and just development: jobs with full employment securities; sufficient and stable incomes; equal distribution of wealth; quality public services; education, art and recreation; peace and tranquility; harmony with nature; a healthy and enjoyable environment; and decent housing. And, desirably, a culture that promotes fairness of gender, respect to diversity and participation in democracy.

This mining company does not offer any of this; neither have the pineapple and banana companies offered this in the regions where they have settled. A different kind of development is definitely urgent, but along the way there is a cultural, political and educational task that is very complex: that of making the people understand that other kinds of development are possible and that hope is still alive.