Last February, Costa Rica saw Laura Fernández — a continuity candidate from the Sovereign People’s Party — win the presidency. The woman set to become the Central American nation’s 50th president promised a “firm hand” against crime and an alignment with traditional values.

President Rodrigo Chaves — who remains in office until Fernández’s inauguration on May 8 — has undertaken actions that appear somewhat contradictory.

On one hand, on March 18, Costa Rica announced the closure of its embassy in Havana and requested the withdrawal of Cuban diplomatic personnel from San José. In doing so, it aligned itself with a foreign policy of isolating the socialist tyranny — a strategy designed by U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, for which Ecuador had served as a precedent.

Foreign Minister Arnoldo André Tinoco confirmed in a press conference that the embassy closure was a response to the sustained “deterioration” of human rights on the island. But President Chaves went a step further, declaring: “We do not recognize the legitimacy of that government,” and asserting that Castroism generates “abuse, repression, and undignified conditions” for the population.

This decisive move was hailed by Cubans both in exile and within the island as a demonstration of diplomatic solidarity.

However, the Costa Rican government’s foreign policy has not been consistent with the conservative line it promised the electorate. When it comes to voting within international bodies, support for “gender ideology” appears to be a foregone conclusion.

On March 19, during the 70th session of the U.N. Commission on the Status of Women (CSW70), the United States delegation introduced a resolution titled “Protection of women and girls through appropriate terminology.” The resolution sought to define the term “gender” specifically as “man” and “woman” — running counter to the definitions imposed by bureaucrats and feminists within supranational bodies such as UN Women (an organization from which the U.S. had withdrawn in January due to the “infection” of gender ideology present there).

However, several countries utilized a “no-action” motion — a procedural maneuver that blocks a text from being considered — to prevent the proposal from being brought to a debate and vote. “Countries that publicly oppose ‘gender ideology’ actually favored it behind closed doors by supporting the blockade,” stated the Global Center for Human Rights. One of these countries was Costa Rica.

Blake Bauman, special advisor to the U.S. Bureau of International Organization Affairs, emphasized that the motion sets “a disturbing precedent and undermines not only the working methods of this Commission but also those of other U.N. bodies.”

“The content of the U.S. resolution reflects proposals that the United States has been putting forward since mid-February — proposals that were also raised in the first amendment we proposed to the Commission’s ‘Agreed Conclusions.’ Had a vote been held on each amendment — as requested — this resolution would not have been necessary,” Bauman protested.

Former Costa Rican presidential candidate Fabricio Alvarado told this publication that the “lukewarmness” of the Soberanía Popular (Popular Sovereignty) government was something his party, Nueva República (New Republic), had been denouncing throughout its four years of representation in the Legislative Assembly.

“We observe a lot of this in the current administration. And we hope it will not be repeated in the next government, which takes office on May 8,” he mentioned. “Their conduct within international organizations has been practically identical: either remaining silent or, in the worst-case scenario, supporting progressive causes and initiatives — both at the U.N. and at the Organization of American States (OAS).”

Hours before this article was published, Costa Rica announced, through its Foreign Minister Arnoldo André, that the country will no longer participate in the Organization of American States’ LGBTIQ+ forum, as it intends to prioritize resources on issues considered more urgent, reported CBN News. An encouraging step, yet still contradictory regarding the vote at CSW70.

Alvarado believes that, when it comes to the United Nations, “There is not a single instance in which the current government has voted in favor of the conservative position.”

Years ago, he himself urged the president to sign the Geneva Consensus Declaration. This political declaration — signed in 2020 by several nations led by the United States during the Trump administration — affirms national sovereignty in the face of the alleged existence of an international right to abortion, defends the right to life, and defines the family as the natural and fundamental unit of society. President Chaves never signed it.

Alvarado believes he failed to do so because “certain actions have been driven more by electoral objectives than by a commitment to following a conservative line.”

Internally, he believes the same pattern has prevailed — such as the elimination of the technical protocol for therapeutic abortion in the midst of an election campaign, “when he could have done so from the very beginning of his administration”; or the belated rejection of “sex education guidelines that contained numerous elements of gender ideology.”

Looking ahead, Alvarado notes that President-elect Fernández signed a pledge with pro-life and evangelical sectors. “In theory, one might expect a greater degree of consistency than that observed in the current administration.”

All that remains is to wait for May. While wishing President Fernández the very best, let us also remain attentive to the consistency of the foreign policy of a country that has stood for decades as a symbol of hope during times of dictatorships and extremism in the region.