We were vacationing in Costa Rica when a tour guide on our bus surprised us by announcing that President Obama had refused to help Costa Rica after Nicaragua had moved large numbers of soldiers into Costa Rica for the purpose of “building a new canal.” The guide said Costa Rica has no military and had asked President Obama for help. He then said Mr. Obama’s reaction was to continue his policy of bowing to every belligerent. He emphasized the point by making a series of stiff bows in several directions. The guide said the people of Costa Rica continue to appreciate Ronald Regan and his support for the Contras who fought against the Communist Sandinistas. The guide explained that Daniel Ortega, the Communist ruler of Nicaragua, continues to have designs on Costa Rica, and that the U.S. refused to help. “The Canadians helped and the Nicaraguans withdrew.”
I was fascinated with the story, and began searching the Internet to educate myself. President Obama visited Costa Rica for two days in May 2013. The descriptions of his visit were mostly about the extreme security measures taken for his protection. There were a few hundred people allowed to view his limousine trip through the capital city. A few dozen gathered in the city park to protest the visit. Most complied with the order to stay home and watch television coverage. This is in contrast to John F. Kennedy visiting and wading into adoring crowds. Kennedy is called the “most beloved U.S. President” based on the memories of his visit and the Peace Corp.
I learned the Nicaraguans claimed they moved into the disputed area to begin dredging to improve navigation. Costa Rica suspected they were establishing a military base and/or were beginning to build a new canal. I found no reference to Mr. Obama refusing to help in the conflict with the Nicaraguans or that Canada stepped up militarily to defend Costa Rican interests. There are numerous references that Canada has been very friendly and helpful to Costa Rica. The International Court of Justice ruled Nicaraguan soldiers had to evacuate the disputed swath of land south of the San Juan River (which they had occupied as the result of a Google Map error). Twenty-two members of the Organization of American States voted in favor of a resolution condemning the Nicaraguan action with only Nicaragua and Venezuela voting against.
The Costa Rican suspicions of Nicaragua were undoubtedly heightened when the Communist President of Nicaragua “…said he may file a case with the International Court of Justice to recover Guanacaste, which he claimed was Nicaraguan territory.” Guanacaste, which was the area we visited on our vacation, was annexed to form part of Costa Rica in 1824, about three years after Central America’s independence from Spain. Nicaragua also signed a treaty in 1858 ceding the area to Costa Rica while it was being governed by the U.S. adventurer William Walker.
Nicaraguan immigration into Costa Rica is another source of conflict that we heard about on two of our tours. Costa Rica has a per capita income at $10,900 a year and ranks 97th in the world. Nicaragua has an average income of $2,800 a year. Costa Rica works diligently to keep illegal Nicaraguan immigrants out. However, more are trying to get into Costa Rica as the drug cartels prey on people trying to cross Mexico to get to the U.S.
As an aside, Mr. Obama made a speech during his visit to Costa Rica that would play better in Central America than with some in the United States. He said the U.S. is on the verge of adopting the most comprehensive reforms on immigration in the country’s history. Obama said that reform would “pave the way for millions of undocumented immigrants to receive citizenship” and avoid becoming “victims of abuse and exploitation.”
Next week: Costa Rica travel
It should surprise no one that the U. S. media made no mention of the President’s Costa Rican speech, just as it should not shock anyone who pays attention to these things that immigration reform, as envisioned by the President and his party, continues to encounter stiff opposition from the Right. Somewhere between open borders and amnesty and mass deportations and the “fence” there is a sensible, doable immigration policy, but we will never see it as long as the Democrats’ position starts and ends with the elements the President outlined in Costa Rica. If the stateside media had accurately reported the details of Obama’s address here, the backlash might have served to move the needle enough to start serious negotiations. Failing that, the public is left with the impression that the President’s is the reasonable, not the radical, position. His true position, as evidenced by the duplicity on exhibit in Central America, is more rad than reasoned.