Costa Rica's new president After Arias

SHE may be the first presidenta in a long line of Costa Rican presidentes, but when Laura Chinchilla is sworn in on May 8th she is liable to disappoint advocates of women’s rights. She supports her country’s restrictions on abortion and the morning-after pill, and opposes other liberal causes such as gay marriage and the disestablishment of the church.

Instead, her uncuddly passion is fighting crime. Although Costa Rica is relatively safe, a recent increase in violence has led to panic. The outbreak has been caused by growing inequality (says the left) and the spread of drug-trafficking gangs (says the right). Mrs Chinchilla promises to fight on both fronts, strengthening the police and getting more youths into classrooms.

<snip>

She will be reliant on a pact with the right-wing Libertarian Movement, whose leader, Otto Guevara, won 21% of the vote in this year’s presidential election, compared with just 2% in 2002. “The door to negotiation has opened,” says the confident Mr Guevara, flanked by portraits of his free-market heroes, Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman. But in return for supporting the government, he wants tougher sentences for petty criminals and the publication on the internet of the names of all those who receive state benefits. He vows to filibuster tax increases.

<snip>

http://www.economist.com/world/americas/displaystory.cfm?story_id=16064019&source=hptextfeature

Tell us what you think about the next Presidential term coming up, arcos.

I can't feel anyone but the rabid right-wing is looking forward to this.

If she makes good friends with Lobo in Honduras we know it's going to be a very rough 4 years. At various times in the last few years it really looked as if Costa Rica is getting close to some great progress. The same people are still there, so maybe they can bring this change about no matter who's in the President's office.

We'll be keeping our fingers crossed, you can be sure.

Their first plan is opening up the electricity market to more private companies... you know, a bit like 'deregulation'.

As the article says, she's totally against separation of church and state, against any recognition for same sex couples (lately she's said that "it is not a priority"), against the morning after pill, etc. And she sold it as "being centrist"... her opponents to the left and to the right both supported civil unions, but she was able to paint that as "extreme".

She's good friends with Lobo, although she has also become good friends with Ecuador's Correa. Some people are hopeful she will take a more open approach to foreign policy, because Oscar Arias not only is really arrogant, but he has had really bad relations with both Chávez and Nicaragua's Ortega. It is likely both of these will improve a bit, although Costa Rica will continue to be in the right wing side of most Latin American issues.

That's the way _{George W. Bush} kicked off his stolen Presidency: he started throwing out regulations concerning the mining companies, environmental restraints on companies, and it went steadily down hill EVERY DAY he was in office. He gutted our economy, public schools, and polarized the population, the right wing lunatics increased their level of hatred and violence against anyone who was not conspicuously European descended.

And look at all the people he brutally, viciously killed with his illegitimate war on the Iragi people.

And a friend of Lobo, too! As unpleasant as Arias is, he at least showed some distance from the Honduran golpistas.

I dread to see how she operates in that office. She sounds hideous, a real pawn of the most backward, repressive parts of your oligarchy. She looks like a close-minded, ruthless a-hole.

Costa Rica could have done so much better. How safe is your election counting process? Hard to believe she won this with such an unpleasant, primitive, feudal mentality.

We'll be hoping for the endurance, and well-being of the non-fascist part of Costa Rica constantly, arcos.

Thanks for letting us in on this.

She ran a terrible and mediocre campaign, but people voted for her nonetheless... a lot of people considered her the least evil. The opposition was split, with an important candidate to the right of her (Libertarian Otto Guevara), and an important candidate to the left of her (centrist Ottón Solís), along with several other minor left-leaning candidates. A lot of voters aren't very ideological, and even though they voted for the center-left in 2006 (allowing Ottón Solís to end up just 1% behind Arias), they decided to vote for the right this time around.

And the scary part is that she was elected president.

I don't understand why you would criticize her, if she is going to get tough on criminals and also help the poor get educated. What is wrong with such a policy to fight crime?

Right-wing governments are known to install and promote the inequalities that usher in crime and the poor being left aside. Besides, Costa Ricans don't deserve the backwardness and the social woes that come with social conservatism.

Well, the Chinese regime seems to be quite socially conservative, isn't it? And it sure is making things a lot more unequal. But I wouldn't call them backwards. They even have sent men into space, and have some pretty fancy high speed trains. You know what? I think China was held back so much by communism, they haven't had time to complain when the new "commie" brand of savage capitalism is imposed on them. They're laughing all the way to the bank, swimming in pollution and chemical poisons, but still laughing. It's going to take a while to sort out what they're going to be, but I wouldn't call them social liberals - remember, they control the internet, and they have very harsh laws. And it sure isn't any sort of democracy, nor do they have a free media. Weird.

Because I don't measure progress and backwardness with technological advances. I measure with how leaders treat their people in their society.

I'm starting to get confused here.

won 21% of the vote in this year’s presidential election, compared with just 2% in 2002. “The door to negotiation has opened,” says the confident Mr Guevara, flanked by portraits of his free-market heroes, Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman

Ultra-liberalism + social conservatism = criminal political tendency and especially in Latin America.

You very well know that this goes well beyond fighting crime in its real intentions. For instance, I don't trust any Hayek and Friedman fanatic for helping the poor get educated. It sounds so much like an antinomy, don't you think?

They will be reliable votes for her agenda, in exchange for a "few" concessions.

I happen to believe a lot of what Hayek said was true, and I also believe educating the poor is important. I should clarify: what is important is social mobility, the system has to be truly darwinian, so the sons of the rich fall into poverty unless they can pull their own weight, and the sons of the poor can move up and be rich if they happen to hit it right. Education, of course, helps a lot. But I know a guy from Portuguesa who only has a 6th grade education, and was doing quite well by transporting his produce all the way to Caracas in his own trucks, and selling it in his own markets.

The scheme worked until lawlessness became so bad, they started hijacking his trucks and the cost of security became so high, he had to slow down the flow of food he was selling in Caracas. This guy read the tea leaves, and sent most of his children out of the country, and is now getting rid of everything, to move his business elsewhere. I know anecdotes don't count for much, but consider this a "case study".

Regarding Hayek's ideas, I do believe it's better to let private industry flourish with an intelligent regulatory system. By intelligent I mean it has to avoid cases such as the Lehman brothers failure, this being easily achieved by not allowing banks to grow too much - and if you check history you'll see they mostly grow inorganically, so it's fairly easy to block their growth by blocking inorganic M&A activity. If the world were to select me as their UGUR (Uber-Guru of Economic Ruling), I would wear a very tall red hat, and issue all sorts of directives and policies, and you would see things work a lot better. And this would include a good dose of Hayekism :-)

potentially leading to quasi criminal policies. Unless you're talking about Salma Hayek who would most certainly express no opposition against your will to regulate the markets as the new UGUR-Baba :)

Seriously, I share the idea that "it's better to let private industry flourish with an intelligent regulatory system" excepted for ten or twenty hidden externalities producing sectors which can't possibly be administered by private agents in an efficient way since they have a very limited and short-sighted rationality/horizon (such as healthcare).

The private sector cannot care about counting the (non profitable for them) social wealth its activity produces. In some cases, its investment is not based on the creation of real total wealth for the economy/society (having healthier workers) so it tends to be sub-optimal by nature.

Healthcare companies in the US = way higher costs per person than Europe, way lower level of health, biggest profits in the planet for the sector = economical and human waste, scam.

I've worked for private companies, and high enough in the feeding chain I understand how sub-optimal they are. However, that optimum you dream off is essentially impossible to achieve. And if you try to do it with state-owned enterprises, they usually turn out to be even more sub-optimal. The private sector is in the end a lot more efficient.

Regarding health care costs in the USA, they are tainted by the litigation issue - too much defensive medicine is being practiced.

And I'm not opposed to some government activities. Police, firemen, national defense, basic education, the main water supply systems, should definitely be in government hands. I would also support having the main power distribution systems be government owned, so they can be sturdier. However, individual power plants should be private, and I don't see a reason to have nationalized power, oil, airline, banks, stores, farms, etc. The only reason those should be remotely considered would be to create a national champion in a specific area - I can think for example of creating TWO competing companies to make valves, toilets, bathtubs, bathroom and kitchen sinks in Venezuela, then spin them off and float the stocks in the local market.

On the issue of regulation, it should be set to achieve objectives. For example, something I bet is very dear to you: fuel efficiency for vehicles. The evident answer, as far as I can see, is to charge a fee for an annual permit, which will vary depending on the fuel efficiency of the vehicle, rated in energy/km/passenger capacity, up to six bona fide seats. The scale can be set to penalize the inefficienct vehicles, and subsidize the ones that achieve high efficiency. But government should stay out of describing the means used to achieve efficiency. The ideas touted by some, such as subsidizing electric vehicles, are incredibly stupid, because the best answer, at this time, is probably a six speed diesel or a light weight hybrid, not a fully electric vehicle.

As you can see, I would be a top rated UGUR. On the other hand, the lot running these "socialist" economies are not only trying to create a communist economy (as in Cuba and North Korea, those paragons of poverty and poor diet), they are also doing so in an erratic and corrupt fashion. You see, what makes this uber socialism (aka communism) so incredibly bad is the way it concentrates power in a few hands, in such a way, that it usually leads to personality worship of a top leader, terrible feedback loops, and decay of individual freedom. Raul Castro didn't inherit the mantle from his brother by accident, these regimes do tend to become clannish affairs focused on sustaining a small oligarchy in power.

protocol rv says:

>government should stay out of describing the means used to achieve efficiency. The ideas touted by some, such as subsidizing electric vehicles, are incredibly stupid, because the best answer, at this time, is probably a six speed diesel or a light weight hybrid, not a fully electric vehicle.

>On the other hand, the lot running these "socialist" economies are not only trying to create a communist economy (as in Cuba and North Korea, those paragons of poverty and poor diet),

>it concentrates power in a few hands, in such a way, that it usually leads to personality worship of a top leader

>Raul Castro didn't inherit the mantle from his brother by accident, these regimes do tend to become clannish affairs focused on sustaining a small oligarchy in power.


BS on your "incredibly stupid". Your six speed diesel is nothing more than a small refinement on an old technology. A technology that has past it's time and now keeps us imbedded in endless resource wars, choking on its byproducts and scampering like crazed junkies to dig the last of it out of increasingly inaccessible and ecologically sensitive places.

And, that old technology is old because they've been refining it for more than a century. The early stages of internal combustion mechanics were weak, inefficient, fume belching monsters. The electric has the highest overall and all-around potential for future development.

If the government shouldn't encourage the development of a superior technology, then who should? The government subsidized the development and insane expansion of our internal combustion world. They did it on behalf of the Oil Corporations and their associates who have now become our own home-grown Oligarchs who own our government and military and use them both to spread the pain around the world because their personal mountain of gold is never enough to satisfy their perverted need for more power.

But, of course, thoughts like that require the presentation of "socialist" (in fine quotation marks) so that it can be transformed, by the application of a large dollop of magical thinking, into COMMUNIST!!! so that attention can be directed with trepidation towards North Korea rather with curiosity towards Norway.

By the by, as I see personality worship getting a mention, might I direct your attention a moment for a gander at G.W. Bush and Obama. You'll find that clannish bunch you were concerned about right there pulling their strings.

:kick: :kick: :kick: :kick:

I was so surprised to see this in chilled out Costa Rica, usually one of the most equilibrated societies in the region. How could they go that far on the right??

Is that people really are horribly concerned about crime. It's not covered in the papers but the same thing is starting to happen in Panama. It's all the drug war mostly, and both Costa Rica and Panama will soon realize that it can't be fought. All of LatAm needs to get together at once and legalize it all.

that is why the upward trends is freaking people out.

Costa Rica's first woman president reinstates gold mining ban
The long-delayed Crucitas Gold project, which had finally won the approval of the Costa Rican high court, may be delayed another four years by the country's newly inaugurated president.

Author: Dorothy Kosich
Posted: Monday , 10 May 2010

RENO, NV -

After Laura Chinchilla became Costa Rica's first female president Saturday, among her first decrees was to issue a moratorium on open-pit mining, immediately placing the controversial and hard-fought Crucitas Gold project on hold.

The decree indefinitely suspends "the exploration, extraction and processing of the materials extracted through the use of cyanide and mercury."

It also repeals an executive order by former President Oscar Arias which established an environmental safeguard for mining in the country and spelled out the environmental regulations for mining.

Presidential spokesman Carol Roverssi told Reuters gold mining is not profitable enough to sacrifice the environmental aspect of a country which depends heavily on environmental tourism, a $2 billion-a-year source of revenue.

In 2002 then President Abel Pacheco issued a presidential decree banning open-pit mining in Costa Rica. At the time, Pacheco declared, "We have many reasons for rescinding these contracts, and if they sue us for compensation it will be cheaper than paying for the loss of the country and its environment."

But his successor, President Arias, a Nobel Peace Prize winner and economist, overturned the ban when he assumed the office of president, declaring Infinito Gold's (TSV-IG) Crucitas in the country's national interest.

More:
http://www.mineweb.com/mineweb/view/mineweb/en/page34?oid=104599&sn=Detail

It puts a hold on any other metal mining permit, but there really weren't many, much less close to approval. According to polls, over 80% of Costa Ricans are against open pit mining, so this comes as no surprise, if she had said she was for mining she would have probably lost the election.

The mine that's really important is Crucitas, which the decree doesn't cover because the permit was already approved (although it is under appeal at the courts).

http://1.bp.blogspot.com.nyud.net:8090/_4z5NzzOWD7Y/SJ50vACsy0I/AAAAAAAAACs/lqJRM0f1kIk/s400/MINA-hueco.jpg

"When I signed the decree was because I was informed that met all legal requirements." With these words the President of the Republic, Oscar Arias, reaffirmed that he gave his endorsement to the mining project Crucitas in Cutris San Carlos, believing that met the requirements.

Under this assumption, the Government of the Republic signed Decree 34 801-MINAET (October 13, 2008) which was declared of public interest and national convenience Crucitas Mining Project developed by the Industrias Infinito, S. A and for which, the developer, subject to authorization by the appropriate office of the National System of Conservation Areas, could proceed to the cutting of trees (including species that are banned) and the development of infrastructure in areas protection, as indicated in the project.

This, as we all know, led to an ongoing investigation by the Attorney General for possible criminal malfeasance, both against Dr. Arias as against Roberto Dobles, Minister of Environment.

Not surprisingly, ends up defending the president that, in their opinion, could not have committed this crime because "distinguished officials" told him that "all is well" before his signature to a decree, according to environmentalists and technicians in the area, giving the green light for the proposed open-pit mining in one of the most biodiverse areas of northern Costa Rica. Apparently, Don Oscar, by the full faith in his subordinates, was not able to hear the voice of hundreds of citizens, national and foreign authorities declined to meet the President the risks of industrial activity.

~snip~
What is gold mining in the open?
Open pit mining is an industrial activity that consists of the removal of large quantities of soil and subsoil, which is then processed to extract the mineral. This mineral can be present in very low concentrations in relation to the amount of material removed

This type of mining uses large quantities of cyanide, highly poisonous substance, which allows you to recover metals from the rest of the material removed. To develop this process requires that the site covering large areas and are near the surface. As part of the process, huge craters dug which reach 150 hectares in area and 200 meters deep. To extract 0.01 ounces of gold, mining companies need to remove and destroy one ton (2000 pounds) of soil.

No industrial activity is as devastating as the open pit mining:

* The dimensions of the land it touches.
* The land can be tropical forests, mountain slopes, watersheds or agricultural soils.
* In its operation uses huge amounts of chemicals and toxic materials. In the extraction process wastes are discharged pollutants into the environment.
* It causes the collapse of local agricultural economies and produces social impacts such as population displacement and loss of collective rights, territorial and environmental.
* After the operation, open pit mining generates millions of tonnes of waste, poisonous material that is left on the ground.


By definition, the mining industry is unsustainable, because the exploitation of the resource is exhausted. The mining industry withered the rich veins tunneled underground metal miners pick and shovel are a thing of the past, today extends its modern machinery mining on mineral deposits scattered over large tracts of land. All serious studies and research on mining, agree that no industrial activity is so aggressive, environmentally, socially and culturally, as the open pit mining.

Among the main environmental impacts caused by mining note the following: Effect of the surface and the environment in general, air pollution, impairment of surface water and groundwater or groundwater, soils affected, impact on flora and fauna, changes in the micro climate and scenic impact after the operation.

http://fueradecrucitas.blogspot.com/2008/11/hacer-la-cruz-las-crucitas.html

Really, really horrible, arcos. It's so easy to understand instantly why decent Costa Ricans do NOT want this criminality going on in Costa Rica. This world is running out of places to destroy. This is unforgiveable.

Development itself hasn't started. Precisely one of the things that environmentalists are trying to prevent is the destruction of the forest which is the habitat of the endangered green macaw.



This is how the Crucitas pits would look like... these two future pits are currently hills two forest-covered hills.



This is a picture of how it looks right now (notice the two hills at the back, where the pits will be)

How can they live with their consciences?

It's painful just thinking about it.

Thanks for straightening it out. This plan is so wrong.

because President Arias declared the mine of "public interest".

Now, barring the courts declaring that the permits were not approved according to the law, the only way to stop the mine is by cancelling the permit and paying the company that won the contract more than $100 million in damages.