Costa Rica is a sovereign country, they can just say "no" to foreign corporations. (So could most other governments, it's just that some have corrupt leaders who want to keep receiving the bribes)
Costa Rica is also known as basically the only democratically stable country in its immediate area. They are perhaps sometimes lumped in with their neighbors when people consider them as a country when in actuality they operate pretty much on the level of European countries in terms of stability of democracy (Costa Rica is still behind Europe in some other metrics beyond their political system but as a political entity they are quite stable and well run, at least compared to their neighbors)
You can look at the Riko Diq case [1] from Pakistan. It is one of the largest copper deposits in the world. In the 90s the Balochistan provincial governments granted a foreign corporation rights to explore the region. It's quite clear that this foreign corporation bribed local politicians/officers to get these rights.
It was ruled in 2013 by the Pakistan Supreme Court that this agreement was contrary to Pakistani law, and it was improper enough that it be dissolved.
However, the foreign corporation sued at a World Bank court and was awarded damages of 11 billion USD. Pakistan's economy cannot pay this amount, and so a backroom deal was struck 2 years ago, in which Pakistan had to allow the corporation to start its mining operations, though with a somewhat better deal for Pakistan [2].
The lesson here is that, by greasing the right palms in a weak country, a corporation can basically get Western controlled international organizations to overrule the entire legal apparatus of the weak country. In other words, the regular people of Pakistan are being punished by international organizations for the actions of a few dirty apples among them.
> The regular people of Pakistan are being punished by international organizations for the actions of a few dirty apples among them.
Pakistan ranks very high in the corruption scale. They’re being punished for the actions of their elected leaders, the corrupt ones they’ve consistently refused to vote out of office.
Pakistan has been captured by the civil bureaucracy+military since almost independence - before independence, these same structures/people were used by the British to exert their control/exploit the region.
Pakistan has had three elections where the federal government was formed by the largest party with organic support, these governments lasting about 12/77 years of existence. Besides the 30 years of military dictatorship, every other election has been almost fully managed by the military, where their party of choice was artificially made to win.
Baluchistan, where this agreement was signed, has never had free and fair elections. It's too resource rich, and too sparsely populated for the elite across the country to allow its people any exercise any sort of control over their destiny.
The people of Pakistan have had very little chance or opportunity to vote out corrupt politicians.
Typically when the CIA has this problem of 'sovereign country' in central or south America they kill the leaders and install their own. I think that's the parent's point.
Of course the CIA doesn't do assassinations!
There are just very well armed rebel group that pop up everywhere the CIA operates that has all the intelligence necessary to pull off a coup. Totally not assassination.