Costa Rica’s recent decision to abstain from recognizing and condemning Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has stirred notable controversy within the Central American country. The Costa Rican representatives refrained from voting on a resolution during the recent United Nations (UN) assembly, which condemned Russia's actions against Ukraine and labeled it a 'full-scale invasion.'
The resolution, discussed at the assembly, reiterated strong support for Ukraine and its territorial integrity, coming three years after hostilities began. It garnered considerable backing, achieving 93 votes for, 18 against—including those of both the United States and Russia—and 65 abstentions. Remarkably, Costa Rica shifted its stance at the last minute after initially co-sponsoring the resolution.
While the assembly expressed urgency for the immediate cessation of hostilities and demanded the unconditional withdrawal of Russian forces from Ukrainian territory, the Costa Rican delegation's abstention raised eyebrows, leading to calls for clarification from local media. Maritza Chan, Costa Rica's ambassador to the UN, refrained from providing reasons for the shift, leaving citizens puzzled about their government’s stance.
This situation drew sharp reactions from former Costa Rican presidents. Laura Chinchilla, known for her firm defense of human rights and democratic values, voiced her disappointment on social media. “What a shame! Until now, the conditions had remained within somewhat understandable margins... But... sacrificing the essence of our foreign policy? Denying the facts and international law?” she posted, expressing her concern over Costa Rica’s wavering commitment to international principles.
Chinchilla's sentiments were echoed by former President Miguel Angel Rodriguez, who articulated his emotional distress at the country's abstention. “I am deeply hurt by Costa Rica’s refraining from defending the principle of Ukraine’s territorial integrity. This is contrary to our national interest as an unarmed nation and breaks with our uninterrupted foreign policy of defense against non-aggression and respect for the territorial integrity of nations,” he stated.
Critics argue this abstention could undermine Costa Rica’s traditionally neutral foreign policy, which has long championed sovereignty and respect for international law. Observers noted the shift from being co-sponsor to abstention reflects internal political divisions and complex international relations, particularly amid the growing geopolitical tensions between major powers.
The controversy surrounding the UN vote adds yet another layer to Costa Rica's diplomatic narrative, particularly as it seeks to navigate its role on the global stage. Unknowns linger about the specific motivations behind the country's last-minute abstention, leaving citizens and politically engaged observers awaiting clarifications from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Worship.
Costa Rica's uniqueness as a nation without a standing army has positioned it as a proponent of peace, environmental preservation, and human rights throughout its history. How this recent diplomatic slip will influence its relationships, particularly with like-minded nations, is yet to be seen.
With shifting dynamics globally and local voices urging adherence to traditional values, the direction Costa Rica chooses to take could either reinforce its diplomatic standing or push it toward re-evaluation and urgency for clear, actionable foreign policy.”