This is the English version of the Obrador's interview. Has been publish in Newsweek En Español magazine, June 28th, 2009.
by ALEJANDRO LELO DE LARREA
2012: "The Rebirth of Mexico"
Andrés Manuel López Obrador has not allowed interviews with printed media for a long time, but this time he accepts, within the context of the Iztapalapa mess. The meeting is at a simple restaurant in Iztapalapa [one of the poorest zones in Mexico City] where the “executive menu” costs 45 pesos ($3 U.S. dollars). Next to him, is his wife Beatriz Gutiérrez, whom he married in 2006, three years after becoming a widower. His youngest son (he has four boys) gets close to the table at moments; he is learning to walk and is a little over a year old. His other sons are over 20 now. In his paused style and his coastal accent, he talks with Alejandro Lelo de Larrea and Hugo R. Hernández for more than 40 minutes about the red flags in the country, about Barack Obama, businessmen, his movement, President Calderón, and his aspirations for 2012. Extracts:
YOU HAVE VISITED OVER TWO THOUSAND MUNICIPALITIES DURING ALMOST THREE YEARS. YOU HAVE SURELY SEEN MANY THINGS A LOT OF MEXICANS CANNOT SEE. WHICH OF THOSE HAS IMPRESSED YOU THE MOST DURING THIS TIME?
The hardest thing is, no doubt, poverty. I had to go to very poor places, with very poor people; poverty that stems from the lack of natural resources, as well as material, economic, and social poverty, especially in the mountain ranges of Guerrero, in Oaxaca, Chiapas, Hidalgo, the Zongolica zone in Veracruz. These are the poorest regions. There is also a lot of poverty in Puebla. That is the hardest part. Seeing malnourished people, that is the toughest.
DO YOU THINK THE GOVERNMENT DOES NOT SEE THIS, OR DOES NOT WANT TO SEE IT?
Does not see it, it does not care. They attend the inauguration of some health or education center, but they see the social problems as if these were to be solved with services, in the best of cases, when these are related to the lack of opportunities, with the abandonment of the fields, with the lack of support to agriculture and fishing, with the lack of employment. Sure, this is a very complex problem.
DO YOU SEE DETERIORATION IN THE LAST THREE YEARS UNDER THE GOVERNMENT OF FELIPE CALDERÓN?
Yes, things have deteriorated and, unfortunately, the worst is yet to come, because before this last economic downfall there was already too much unemployment. Mexico already had the first place in labor export in the world, insecurity and violence had been unleashed. There will be more family and social problems; there will be more insecurity and more violence.
IN 1994 WE HAD AN ARMED UPRISING AND THE COUNTRY WAS NOT UNDER CONDITIONS AS BAD AS THEY ARE TODAY. WHY DO YOU THINK THERE HAS NOT BEEN AN ARMED MOVEMENT IN MEXICO?
Because people do not want violence. They have hopes that we will be able to do something with this [political] movement. That is what I think. Although the situation is serious and tense in several regions of the country.
SO, THERE ARE RED FLAGS. ARE THERE PEOPLE SAYING ‘WE BETTER GET THE ARMS READY’?
Yes, there are people proposing that, but I have told them I disagree. I respect their viewpoint, but I do not share it; that path would only lead to more suffering and would provide the power mafia in Mexico with a pretext to establish an openly authoritarian regime: a regime of terror. Also, it would become a confrontation between Mexicans—the people versus the Army—and soldiers are children of peasants, workers, members of the middle class. Neither Roberto Hernández [former owner of Banamex, one of the largest banks in Mexico] nor [Carlos] Salinas will show up for such a confrontation. None of the members of the power mafia in Mexico will show up. Roberto Hernández lives in London. He has a castle in France and lives in London, and Salinas lives in Dublin. Most of them spend their time abroad. So we are not going to allow a confrontation between brothers. Nothing would be solved. That is why we insist on peaceful and electoral means, even if the mafia irresponsibly tries to obstruct and even impede the electoral path.
EVEN IN YOU ARE ALSO BEING QUALIFIED AS VIOLENT?
Yes, although they are wrong. We were deprived of the Presidency of the Republic and not a single window has been broken over that.
THERE ARE SOME WHO SAY THE CALLING YOU MADE—IN LATE JULY, 2006—TO TAKE THE STREETS OF REFORMA, JUÁREZ, MADERO, AND THE DOWNTOWN PLAZA WAS TO, FINALLY, PACIFY THE MOVEMENT. WAS IT SO?
Among other things, it was to prevent violence because people were so upset. There is a film made by Luis Mandoki called “The Fraud” (Fraude: México 2006), where I explain my reasons and evidence is shown. Back then Mitofsky performed a poll and 13 percent of the population said they were going to rise up in arms. We are talking of over 10 million Mexicans! People were very upset then and we could not allow the sidetracking of the movement, nor violence, because we would solve nothing. That is why we acted as we did. It was a radical move; very strong, but pacific.
YOU SENT LETTERS, FIRST IN JANUARY, AND LATER IN APRIL, TO [U.S.] PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA. DID YOU GET ANY ANSWERS?
No, but I do believe that he received the second letter. I sent it through official channels. It was delivered to the Embassy, and the person there told me it was being sent to the White House. I think he got the letter because, in the eve of his trip to Mexico, there was a feeling that all was being oriented to recognize Calderón's “great government” for its combat to organized crime. They were preparing something along those lines and they wanted Obama’s backup. They were working on that. And it would have been a mistake—with all due respect to Obama—if he had made an ill-advised statement. That was the purpose of the letter: To warn him that he was coming to a country where there mafia rules; where there is a group of 30 overlords who have taken control over everything; that these 30 have accumulated wealth during the last 26 years as it has not been seen elsewhere in the world; that all this was achieved since they got power over the State, they have turned it into an instrument at the service of a minority; that all this plundering, that all this policy of pillage began with [Carlos] Salinas, with the privatizations.
I mentioned the issue with the Forbes magazine: In 1987, in the list of the richest men in the world, there was only one Mexican, one year before Salinas was imposed in power. In the 1994 list, at the end of the Salinas period, there were 24, and they accumulate $44 billion dollars. This group has conquered all powers: There is such thing as Constitutional Power, but, in fact, a group has taken control of all those powers: The group that stole the presidency from us; the ones that are keeping Calderón in Los Pinos [equivalent to the White House]; and it is them who are responsible for the national tragedy, and especially for the insecurity and violence because the economic and pillage policy they have implemented has doomed the Mexican people to mere survival and banishment; if Mexicans want to progress, they have to self-exile, because the future has been canceled for millions of them.
Also, the problem of insecurity and violence is not solved only with policies, soldiers, walls, and more severe laws. It will be solved with better living conditions and employment. This is more effective, cheaper, and more humane. So, pretending to solve the problem by militarizing the border is just not having the slightest idea of what is happening in Mexico. I explained all this to Obama, and I believe that he did take the argument into account because he acted very moderately during his visit.
THERE IS A VERSION STATING THAT YOU HAD PREVIOUS CONTACT WITH OBAMA. IS THIS TRUE?
No. I sympathized with him since his campaign. And it was out of conviction, due to his discourse and, especially, his origins. It reminded me of [Martin] Luther King´s fight for social rights and the horror it would represent to continue with the policies of [George W.] Bush. That would have been a liability for mankind. That is why I gave my opinion, but in a respectful manner because if we do not want them to get involved in the internal life of Mexico, then we must not get involved with theirs. Back then I said that I would like Obama to win. I said it here, then I went to Los Angeles and repeated there it before the elections. John McCain came here during his campaign and spoke with Calderón, and he (Calderón) placed his bet on McCain. Later he did not say a thing about that.
In Los Angeles I explained my support saying that Obama’s proposal in migration issues was much better than McCain’s, which was to continue with walls and raids, not searching for the humane and social solution to the migration phenomenon. I think that Obama could look for a better cooperation between peoples—between governments—to fully confront the migration phenomenon. We must understand that as long as there is no economic growth in Mexico—and more jobs—people will continue leaving the country, migrating out of necessity, We must find a cooperation relationship between the governments of the United States and Mexico, just as it happens in the European Union, where more developed countries support less developed ones. I feel that is the direction we must take.
BUT, APPARENTLY, THE U.S. HAS NEVER HAD SUCH INTEREST.
That is because the diplomatic work has to be done in that regards. That is what Calderón should be doing: Looking for such agreement. Actually he is doing nothing, he is clueless. Calderón would be a fine Public Ministry lawyer, at the most—and I do not mean any disrespect for Public Ministries. But the mafia imposed him as president to prevent changes in the country.
IT SEEMS CLEAR THAT YOU WILL BE A CANDIDATE FOR 2012. YOU HAVE MAINTAINED A 16 PERCENT IN PUBLIC PREFERENCE AFTER THREE YEARS OF HAVING MOST OF THE MEDIA AGAINST YOU.
We do not know what the destiny will bring, it is still far in the future. There is a permanent confrontation. It makes sense that the mafia does not like me, but we will see that the people say. I just proved it in a public meeting in Iztapalapa: the political mafia, the power mafia in Mexico is very powerful, but the Mexican people are stronger than that. I am betting on the people, there is no other choice for me. There is no money and, also, I do not want to compromise [to vested interests]. I did not compromise in the earlier campaign, and I will not compromise in the future because I do not want to be a puppet, I do not want to get there with my hands tied.
IN A LARGE MEASURE THAT IS WHY YOU DID NOT MAKE IT IN 2006. YOU TOLD ME IN A TALK IN 2005: “I RATHER NOT GET THERE THAN DO SO WITH MY HANDS TIED.” AND IT SEEMS THAT IS WHAT HAPPENED.
That is right.
YOU DID NOT NEGOTIATE WITH THEM. IT IS KNOWN THAT ROBERTO HERNÁNDEZ AND ELBA ESTHER [GORDILLO, LEADER FOR LIFE OF THE MEXICAN EDUCATION WORKERS SYNDICATE] LOOKED FOR YOU.
That is true, but I never met with them.
DO YOU THINK THEY WILL LET YOU GET THERE? WHAT MUST HAPPEN FOR YOU TO OBTAIN THE PRESIDENCY OF MEXICO?
A large movement, and a lot of organization. In 2006 the election was stolen from us because, of course, the mafia does not want a change, but they also leveraged on something we were lacking—organization. So this tour across the country also has the purpose of organizing people: We already have 2.2 million representatives of the ‘Legitimate Government´ in the country. We have representatives in the 2,038 municipalities. I just completed an evaluation tour: Between June 1 and 16 y visited 31 states and Mexico City to evaluate the work of the municipal committees. This is an organization with 12-15 thousand citizens because each committee is formed by 5, 7, 9, 11 members, and there are 2,038 committees. We did not have this organizing structure before. Now those committees are working, they have tasks to do, and we will have an evaluation meeting every three months to see our progress. If there is not a deep change in Mexico, we will not find the solution to the national issues. If this mafia continues its domination, the economic, social and political situations in the country will be increasingly worse. The change needed by this country is not from the top-down, it must come with a wide, plural and inclusive bottom-up movement.
ALWAYS PACIFIC?
Always pacific, for such is the path, even electorally.
BUT IF THE ELECTORAL AUTHORITIES ARE NON-RESPONSIVE?
For example, the trap here in Iztapalapa: They set obstacles, make this move. It is an anticipated fraud. We have made a decision: We have 11 days to go, it is a complete challenge and we will see the results obtained. There will always be obstacles. We know that the cards are marked. But I maintain that it can be done: It depends on people finally waking up, although there are many who are aware now, we need that people continue waking up. I am confident that this change of mind comes to being; I expect a revolution of conscience because we cannot carry on sleeping through this nightmare, with everything that is going on. We can achieve the renovation of the country. When? 2012, I believe, not because the main thing is to arrive to the National Palace [the presidential office in downtown Mexico], but because there is always an opportunity close to the presidential succession—that is when conditions are more appropriate.
BUT IN 2010, DUE TO ITS SYMBOLISM [IT IS THE 200TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE INDEPENDENCE], YOU DO NOT SEE A RISK OF AN UPHEAVAL?
No, I cannot risk a hypothesis. I am aware that the situation is critical in Mexico, there are tensions, and that the date is symbolic. Yes, it is doubtlessly a special year, but I do not believe that is the road to follow. And I not only tell this to you, I say it in Oaxaca, in Guerrero, where there are people who think otherwise. People who I respect, but with whom I do not share such viewpoint.
WHO IS THE BEST LEADER IN LATIN AMERICA, THE ONE CLOSEST TO WHAT YOU FEEL IS IDEAL?
I have always admired [former Chilenian president Salvador] Allende.
AND FROM THE CURRENT ONES, THOSE AT THE LEFT AND ITS DIFFERENT HUES?
Put them all together in a cement mixer, and whatever comes out from it is what I like. They are all very good.
ARE YOU MORE LIKE LULA OR HUGO CHÁVEZ?
That is something I always am asked. Each country has its own history, they cannot be extrapolated. I like them all. That is why I said to mix them all together. Of course, I am a follower of Luther King, but I think that the best U.S. President has been [Franklin Delano] Roosevelt. I hope Obama has Roosevelt’s virtue to pull his country out of the crisis. Roosevelt received the country in a severe crack—hopeless—and was able to push the people ahead. I hope that Obama has the virtue and the luck.
DO YOU THINK THAT THE U.S. HAS A CLEAR VIEW OF THE MEXICAN SITUATION YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT?
I believe so.
THEY ARE INTERESTED IN MEXICAN STABILITY, ARE THEY NOT?
That is why we must have democracy, political stability, and social peace in Mexico. All that comes to being based on a true democracy, and there is none now. There is an oligarchy: Government at the service of a few. When we have a democracy we will have stability, social peace, development, and well-being. And this is also convenient for our neighbors.
AMONG AL THE PERSONS YOU MENTION AS THE MAFIA—ROBERTO HERNÁNDEZ, CLAUDIO X. GONZÁLEZ AND OTHERS—YOU NEVER MENTION TWO NAMES THAT ALSO BENEFITED FROM CARLOS SALINAS’ GOVERNMENT. I MEAN CARLOS SLIM AND RICARDO SALINAS PLIEGO. ARE THEY IN THIS GROUP OR NOT?
Both were benefited by Salinas, but I did not want to include them because they do not have a political activity, they are not using power to divide Mexico.
ARE THEY JUST DEDICATED TO BUSINESS?
They are dedicated to making money. But the others link the amassing of wealth with the accumulation of power; they nourish the economic power and the political power. They are the ones benefited by the regime and traffic of influences. Roberto Hernández commands, gives orders to Calderón. Elba Esther Gordillo asked him [Hernández] during a telephone call to London: ‘You tell me what we need to do; what do we do first, Roberto, the Energy Reform or the Fiscal Reform?’ And he answered: ‘Energy Reform first’. And so it happened!
WAS IT THE SAME WITH [FORMER MEXICAN PRESIDENTS] ZEDILLO AND FOX?
The same. And Roberto Hernández is a special case because he has amassed a large fortune and great power. He bet on Fox and allowed him to name Francisco Gil Diaz as Ministry of the Treasury. He bets on Calderón and the same happens. He is in charge at several government agencies; he holds stocks in Televisa. He has power. The Director of Pemex [Petróleos Mexicanos] is one of his associates. Many are employed by him. It is different with Slim. It is very possible that he picks up the phone and calls someone, but he is not on the front lines as the others. I am not exculpating them. I am saying that there are 10 men here and that the corresponding authorities must investigate their complicity.
WHICH WOULD BE THE MAIN OBJECTIVE OF YOUR MOVEMENT?
The transformation of the country: making history. Politics is about making history. What we want is to transform Mexico. There have been only three transformations in our history: The Independence [1810], the Reform [1857], and the Revolution [1910]. We want the fourth transformation of the country’s public life
HOW WOULD YOU CALL IT?
The Rebirth of Mexico.
viernes, 11 de diciembre de 2009
LÓPEZ OBRADOR LOOKS TO 2012
jueves, 3 de diciembre de 2009
EL DOCTOR QUE NO ES DOCTOR
México, D. F., a 3 de abril de 2009.
A QUIEN CORRESPONDA:
Número de solicitud:
0001100128009
Información solicitada:
Solicito copia ESCANEADA de los títulos (o validación u homologación de éstos por parte de la autoridad mexicana) de MAESTRO y DOCTOR en Ingeniería en Ciencias Petroleras, otorgado por la Escuela Nacional Superior del Petróleo y de los Motores, del Instituto Francés de Petróleo (Francia), al C. José Enrique Villa Rivera, director del Instituto Politécnico Nacional.
La copia ESCANEADA solicito es respecto de los que dice su currículum oficial, a la letra: “Maestro y Doctor en Ingeniería en Ciencias Petroleras por la Escuela Nacional Superior del Petróleo y de los Motores, del Instituto Francés de Petróleo (Francia) en 1983”.
(sic).
Respuesta:
En atención a la solicitud recibida con No. de Folio 000110012809, dirigida a la Unidad de Enlace de SECRETARÍA DE EDUCACIÓN PÚBLICA, el día 06/03/2009, nos permitimos hacer de su conocimiento que, con fundamento en el artículo 42, de la Ley Federal de Transparencia y Acceso a la Información Pública Gubernamental, después de realizar una búsqueda exhaustiva, en la Dirección General de Profesiones, se encontró el registro del C.JOSÉ ENRIQUE VILLA RIVERA como Ing. Químico Industrial con cédula profesional No. 0985134, pero no se encontraron sus registros como maestro y doctor en Ingeniería en Ciencias Petroleras, por lo que no es posible enviarle las copias de los documentos solicitados.
Es preciso señalar que esta persona puede no haber solicitado aún el registro de sus grados académicos, o bien, puede ser que los haya registrado en alguna Entidad federativa. Lo anterior no prejuzga sobre los conocimientos y calidad de los estudios que esta persona tenga o haya realizado.
Sin otro particular, reciba un cordial saludo.
ATENTAMENTE
Patricia Ramírez Buendía G.
miércoles, 2 de diciembre de 2009
Las dos caras de Federico Arreola
Por ALEJANDRO LELO DE LARREA
Rafael Giménez no pensaba que el espacio para publicar encuestas en Milenio Diario se cerraría por la terquedad de su entonces director general, Federico Arreola, y por entregar un estudio de opinión que ubicaba a Fox 5 puntos por sobre Francisco Labastida en la intención de voto presidencial, a un mes de la elección de 2000.
Todo comenzó el 28 de abril de 2000, tres días después del primer debate presidencial de aquel año. Federico Arreola, necio como es, le insistió a Rafael Giménez que saliera a campo para levantar el estudio de opinión que publicarían casi de inmediato.
Rafael Giménez, propietario de Arcop, empresa que desde 1996 ha trabajado fundamentalmente para el PAN, le había advertido a Arreola que no era conveniente salir a campo para levantar la encuesta el fin de semana posterior al debate, porque Fox lo había ganado claramente y había una burbuja que lo beneficiaba. Le recomendó que se esperaran una semana. Pero en su terquedad, Arreola dijo que ya levantara el estudio de opinión para ganarle la nota a Reforma. Los entrevistadores salieron a hacer su trabajo. Rafael Giménez sabía que Fox saldría adelante, pero esperaba que fuese por un margen pequeño. Pero el resultado de la encuesta sorprendió a todos: ¡Fox arriba por 5 puntos!
Cuando Giménez le entregó a Arreola los resultados, se acabó la paz para el demóscopo en Milenio. Incrédulo en el resultado, el director del diario primero la sometió a votación de tres personas: él mismo, su brazo derecho Enriqueta Medina y el propio Giménez. Y vino la decisión autoritaria de Arreola que, casi en un arrebato le dijo a Giménez: “Pues decido yo, porque mi voto es de calidad, y decido que no vamos a publicar la encuesta este fin de semana”.
La instrucción del entonces director de Milenio fue que los entrevistadores salieran nuevamente a campo para librar la burbuja del posdebate. Pero de manera intempestiva, ese fin de semana la actitud de Arreola para con Giménez cambió drásticamente, y lo citó en la redacción del periódico.
Arreola le dijo a Giménez que tenía información que lo descalificaba profesionalmente y le reclamó que trabajara de manera simultánea para el PAN y para Milenio, lo que constituía un conflicto de intereses. En ese momento le dijo que estaba fuera del periódico.
Giménez reconoció que trabajaba para los panistas desde 1996 y estuvo de acuerdo en que había sido una mala decisión hacer encuestas simultáneamente para el rotativo. Por ello, no dudó en que la decisión del director de buscar otro pollster era la más adecuada. Pero defendió que lo que estaba haciendo para Milenio era un trabajo metodológica y técnicamente profesional.
Pero Giménez también le reprochó a Arreola dos errores que cometió: el primero, que se esperó a que el resultado de la encuesta desfavoreciera a Francisco Labastida y al PRI para sacar a cuento que Giménez también trabajaba para el PAN. Arreola argumentó que antes no tenía ningún dato de la vinculación de Giménez con los panistas y éste le respondió que en Milenio prácticamente todos los altos mandos lo sabían: Ignacio Rodríguez (entonces director de Milenio Semanal), Ciro Gómez Leyva (entonces director adjunto del diario), y Raymundo Riva Palacio (entonces director editorial).
Los argumentos de Arreola en el sentido de que desconocía que Giménez trabajaba para el PAN se caen fácilmente, pues fue público que en octubre y noviembre de 1999, cuando se estaba negociando una posible gran alianza entre PAN y PRD contra el PRI, el propio Giménez era el invitado del blanquiazul.
La línea de Los Pinos
Así como Arreola, siendo director de Milenio se acercó a Andrés Manuel López Obrador en 2005 para defenderlo casi a diario en su columna y en las páginas del rotativo, en 2000 hizo lo propio con el equipo del entonces candidato presidencial del PRI, Francisco Labastida. Acaso por eso era su temor de publicar una encuesta a favor de Fox.
Después de que Arreola despidió a Giménez buscó a Demotecnia, de María de las Heras, esposa del priísta César Augusto Santiago. Hacía la última semana de abril de 2000 Arreola formalizó la invitación a María para hacer las encuestas de Milenio. Ella declinó porque no le pareció correcto haber trabajado todo el tiempo para el PRI y llegar a un medio de comunicación en plena campaña.
Además, estaba en la disyuntiva de perder-perder: si el resultado de Demotecnia daba a Labastida arriba iban a decir que era porque María es priísta, y si daba abajo a Labastida dirían que María estaba resentida o era una traidora, porque no formaba parte del equipo de campaña del sinaloense. Sabía que en ese momento no tendría credibilidad, y por eso tomó la brillante decisión de no aceptar.
Federico Arreola fue corriendo a Los Pinos a pedir línea con Liébano Sáenz, el entonces secretario particular del presidente Zedillo. Le pidió que le recomendara una empresa encuestadora para Milenio.
Como siempre ocurría cuando alguien le pedía línea a Liébano Sáenz sobre empresas de estudios de opinión pública, remitió a Arreola con Ulises Beltrán, el hombre fuerte de las encuestas en Los Pinos de 1988 a 2000.
Arreola acudió a las oficinas que tenía la Presidencia de la República en Constituyentes para entrevistarse con Beltrán, quien lo recibió y le expuso que cualquiera de las empresas afiliadas a la AMAI (Asociación Mexicana de Agencias de Investigación de Mercados y Opinión Pública) reunía los requisitos de calidad y de confiabilidad para hacerse cargo de las encuestas de Milenio.
Arreola le insistió en que le diera la línea más directa, que le recomendara concretamente una empresa. Ulises Beltrán le habló de AC Nielsen, una afamada firma de investigación de mercados. “Ustedes pueden contratar a quien mejor les parezca”, le remarcó Beltrán a Arreola.
Pero hábil como es para quedar bien con el poder, Federico Arreola acató la línea de la Presidencia de la República y salió corriendo a contratar a AC Nielsen.
El directivo de Milenio no consideró lo que es de dominio público en el gremio de encuestadores y debería haber sido valorado: AC Nielsen es una empresa que sabe medir la penetración de la Coca Cola o la Pepsi Cola y otros productos de consumo, o ratings de televisión y radio. Esta fue la primera incursión de AC Nielsen en estudios de opinión pública, de campañas electorales. Y acaso fue el último, pues su desafortunada actuación le generó problemas incluso con sus clientes que le reclamaron por sus pésimos resultados.
Milenio: errores y mentiras
Precisamente en la manera en que Milenio contrató a la nueva empresa y en cómo trabajó radicaron las críticas que hizo Rafael Giménez en varios foros de encuestadores. Los graves errores de AC Nielsen se evidenciaron desde la primera encuesta que publicó en el rotativo, en la que ubicó al Partido del Trabajo (PT) con 10 por ciento de intención de votos, por encima del PRD que resultó con 9.7 por ciento. Este dato fue la burla en el gremio de los encuestadores, pues jamás en la historia de ambos partidos, a nivel nacional, el PRD ha estado abajo del PT. En este mismo sondeo, mágicamente, Labastida apareció 6 puntos por encima de Fox.
Además, Milenio mintió varias veces a sus lectores en la divulgación de las dos encuestas que levantó AC Nielsen e hizo públicas entre mayo y junio de 2000. La primera falsedad: que esta era “la continuación de una serie” verdad es había roto la continuidad al salir Rafael Giménez del diario y ser sustituido por un nuevo pollster.
La segunda falsedad de Milenio: en la encuesta de junio da 4 puntos a favor de Labastida, y afirma que es un cambio de un punto respecto del mes anterior, cuando en realidad se había movido dos puntos.
Por cierto, en el último estudio de opinión que divulga Milenio, el resultado es prácticamente idéntico al de Reforma y al del Centro de Estudios de Occidente (CEO), entonces todavía ligado a la Universidad de Guadalajara (UdeG).
Lo que pareció muy claro de la actitud de Federico Arreola en Milenio, es que con él al frente y sus compromisos con el equipo de campaña de Labastida en 2000, jamás iba a permitir que se publicara una encuesta que favoreciera a Fox, sin importarle el ridículo en que a la postre quedó el periódico. Arreola fue despedido de Milenio por Carlos Marín, en octubre de 2006, después de que el rotativo lo soportó durante más de dos años, defendiendo a Andrés Manuel López Obrador.
FUENTES: Entrevistas con Rafael Giménez, Raymundo Riva Palacio, Ricardo de la Peña, Miguel Basáñez.
HE AQUÍ LA SERIE DE ENCUESTAS QUE PUBLICÓ MILENIO EN 2000, CON FEDERICO ARREOLA COMO DIRECTOR GENERAL. ÉL MISMO CENSURÓ LA PUBLICACIÓN DE ABRIL.
Dic Enero Febrero Marzo Abril Mayo Junio
Labastida 42 38 38 37 Censurada *43 *42
Fox 38 34 37 35 Censurada *36 *39
*Estas encuestas las levantó AC Nielsen
miércoles, 29 de abril de 2009
A/H1N1, EPIDEMIC
By Alejandro Lelo de Larrea and Hugo R. Hernández
Manuel Camacho Solís went home last week feeling intensely ill and struggling to breathe. Hours later, he went to the emergency room of a private hospital where he was diagnosed with pneumonia. Several tests later, the news got worse: the former mayor of Mexico City was suffering from swine flu. Camacho was not alone. The same day that his virus was confirmed, the Mexican government announced that 18 of its citizens had died of this particular flu, closed the nation's schools and asked scientists around the world for help in preventing a pandemic.
As cases of swine flu—and fear of the virus—move across global borders, Mexico now also faces political and economic fallout from the health crisis. Some residents are questioning whether the government should have started taking preventive measures sooner, when the World Health Organization (WHO) first informed authorities of confirmed swine flu cases in Mexico City, on March 18. Others fear the impact the outbreak will have on their recession-hit economy as foreign tourists cancel trips and businesses are forced to cut back on their operations.
The effects are clearly visible on the rapidly emptying streets of Mexico City. Sadness and depression—a stench of tragedy akin to the aftermath of the 1985 earthquake that killed more than 5,000 people in the capital—are palpable. Schools from elementary to college level have been shut, forcing more than 33 million students around the country to stay home until classes are scheduled to resume May 6. Church services have been canceled; movie theaters are closed and even stadiums are now off-limits in this soccer-crazy nation.
In Mexico City, priests at the main cathedral took an iconic crucifixion image known as the Healing Christ out onto the streets for the first time in more than 100 years as part of a procession to pray for health. Few people venture out in public without surgical masks, and police are distributing the face coverings at entrances to subway and bus stations. Fear of infection is keeping many people off mass transit anyway, and bus drivers refuse to allow barefaced passengers on board. Sneezing or coughing? Expect to be viewed with suspicion by those around you.
And in another blow to the economy, the mayor of Mexico City has ordered restaurants to shut their seating areas and serve only takeout meals. Private businesses have reduced their hours and are asking employees to work from home wherever they can. Firms that are still open are reporting that thousands of workers have called in sick and health centers ranging from basic clinics to top-tier hospitals are crammed with patients who fear they have the flu. Panic is starting to build, too. On Monday, thousands of Mexicans rushed to supermarkets to stock up on canned food, despite government assurances that there would be no food shortages.
Local authorities are trying to tamp down fear in other areas, as well. Clinics and hospitals are crammed with sniffling patients, but officials in Mexico City say that only about 2 percent are being kept for observation because they show swine-flu symptoms. According to Mexico's minister of health, José Ángel Córdova, around 2,000 cases of pneumonia have been detected nationwide. About half of the patients have been discharged, 700 remain hospitalized and 150 have died—although Córdova is still waiting to confirm whether swine flu caused all of the deaths.
These statistics, however, may not be reliable. Some Mexican doctors say that some swine-flu deaths have not been recorded as such because patients were not tested for the virus; others suggest that Mexican health authorities may be trying to conceal the extent of the crisis. In Mexico City's state-owned Darío Fernández Hospital, for example, four patients were admitted to the intensive-care unit in the last week suffering from pneumonia. All showed symptoms of swine flu, and two died last Friday. Yet their death certificates made no mention of the virus because the victims were not tested for it.
Another physician, who spoke with NEWSWEEK en Español but asked not to be identified, claimed that in the Gea González Hospital—the biggest facility run by the Ministry of Health in Mexico City—doctors have been explicitly told not to record pneumonia as a cause of death. "You must say that they died of cardiac arrest or anything else," said the physician about the instruction given to them. (The Ministry of Health did not comment on these allegations ahead of NEWSWEEK en Español's deadline this week.)
Meanwhile, scientists from around the world are working closely with Mexico to solve the mysteries of the mutated virus and to prevent it from establishing itself as a pandemic. Frank Plumber, director of Canada's National Microbiology Laboratory, found that the samples sent to his facility indicated the virus was related both to one found in North America several years ago and to a Euro-Asian variety of swine flu detected in Thailand.
With so much unknown, doctors are extrapolating information based on their previous experiences with Asian bird flu. That may not always be appropriate. Initial indications, for example, suggest that the swine flu may be transmitted differently, because—unlike instances of bird flu—not all of those in close contact with the ill have been infected themselves. Another unanswered question is why the virus seems to affect some more virulently than others, with the bulk of the deaths so far coming mainly from Mexico.
Researchers are also struggling to find an effective vaccine, a development that is expected to take several months. Mexico's government has allocated additional funds to adapt the country's two biosecurity labs and to invest in the hunt for antigens. For now, Mexican doctors are focusing on treatment with antivirals like oseltamivir (Tamiflu) and zanamivir (Relenza). For Camacho, the former mayor, the treatment seems to have worked. Last Sunday, three days after he was hospitalized, doctors told him he was out of danger. Mexico, though, remains at risk on both the health and business fronts.
domingo, 26 de abril de 2009
PUBLICADO: 20-ABRIL-2009
Por ALEJANDRO LELO DE LARREA
LOOKING SOUTH
How Obama can mend relations in Latin America
By Alejandro Lelo de Larrea and Hugo Hernández Newsweek Web Exclusive
Since the attacks of 9/11, the Bush administration's focus on terrorism led to a neglect of Washington's relations with Latin America—and a loss of U.S. influence in the region. Barack Obama is about to change that. "He's looking at what's happening in the continent after Bush's negligence, because he wants to rebuild that bloc," says Eduardo Rosales, a professor of Latin American international affairs at the Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.
This philosophy is behind Obama's latest initiatives on Latin America. He has met recently with Brazil's president Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva and visited Mexico's President Felipe Calderón on his way to this weekend's Summit of the Americas in Trinidad and Tobago. Obama also dispatched Joe Biden on a visit to Chile and Costa Rica ahead of the summit. "I'm here to launch a new chapter of engagement," Obama told summit delegates to applause on its opening day Friday. "There's no senior partner and junior partner in our relations."
What else does the continent want to hear from the U.S. president? First, Obama needs to acknowledge at least two new realities about the continent, says Lorenzo Meyer, a researcher at the Colegio de México. One is that the major South American economies have been drifting apart from the Washington consensus, a term coined to explain the economic advice from Washington-based financial institutions to Latin America, but now often used interchangeably with neoliberalism or globalization. "He must accept that those countries have changed the economic model because it failed," says Meyer. And if the U.S. wants to get along with South America, he adds, "it has to get along with the leader, with Brazil, since Mexico doesn't have that leadership anymore, if it ever had it."
A key part in new U.S. policy strategy toward Latin America, says Rosales, is to prevent the bloc of radical governments led by Venezuela from expanding. The main countries forming this axis are Honduras, Nicaragua, Ecuador and Bolivia. The global drop in oil prices has weakened Venezuela's economy, giving Washington fresh leverage over the South American nation. "This puts [Venezuelan leader Hugo] Chávez in a weak position, not only internally but externally, and the same goes for his radical movement in the American continent," says Rosales.
According to Rosales, the United States has good relations with other nations not aligned with Chávez, such as Costa Rica, Colombia, Chile, Panama and even El Salvador, despite the fact that its March 15 elections were won by the leftist Frente Farabundo Martí para la Liberación Nacional (FMLN) and its candidate Mauricio Funes. These leaders realize that while criticism of the U.S. may win them political points at home, such confrontation won't solve any of the region's problems. "We must understand that if the United States does well economically, Latin Americans could also do well," says Rosales. That's a message that summit delegates should find easy to digest.
This report has been adapted from an article published in Newsweek's Spanish-language partner, Newsweek En Español. Additional reporting by Arlene Getz in New York.
© 2009
viernes, 16 de enero de 2009
DOS ARTÍCULOS QUE FUERON MUY INCÓMODOS
Paradójicamente, ambos artículos enfadaron no tanto a los funcionarios de quienes se habla, sino a otras personas...SE HACEN LLAMAR PERIODISTAS
Y EL CÓDIGO DE ÉTICA, GERMÁN?
DINOSAURIO BLANQUIAZUL
jueves, 15 de enero de 2009
UGALDE Y SU LIBRO
Este jueves 15 de enero, el expresidente del IFE, Luis Carlos Ugalde, presentó su libro Así lo viví, en el que narra su experiencia alrededor de los comicios del 6 de julio de 2006. Le acompañaron a la presentación el historiador Héctor Aguilar Camín, y el analista político Leo Zuckerman.
Aquí ofrezco tres breves estampas de la presentación, realizada en el Club de Industriales de la Ciudad de México.
"El mejor contralor de México"
Ugalde le firmó una dedicatoria en su libro a Gregorio Guerrero Pozas, contralor general del IFE, en la que textulmente le dice: "Para el mejor contralor de México". Vale la pena decir que Guerrero Pozas todavía puede revisar asuntos de la gestión de Ugalde al frente del IFE, y sólo espera que si algún día surge un asunto de la etapa de Ugalde, éste siga sosteniendo que es el mejor contralor de México, no vaya a ser como todos que cuando los investigan lo primero que hacen es descalificar al auditor.
¡No le ayudes, comadre!
La comisionada ciudadana del Instituto de Acceso a la Información Pública del DF, María Elena Pérez Jaén demostró que es una gran amiga y admiradora de Luis Carlos, pues avaló una de las historias que plasma en su libro el hoy catedrático, en el sentido de que conoció a Elba Esther Gordillo ya cuando era presidente del IFE."A mi me consta lo que dice en la página 18, porque esa reunión en que se conocieron fue en mi casa", dijo. Pero también exhibió que Ugalde no dice toda la verdad en su libro, pues la misma Pérez Jaén afirmó que en la reunión en su casa había más periodistas de los que señaló el ex consejero en su libro. Y cabe aclarar que el propio Ugalde ha tenido diversos problemas porque algunos de los personajes de que habla en su libro le han recriminado que haya citado reuniones o charlas sin haberles solicitado su consentimiento. ¿Entonces fue selectivo en balconear personajes.
Ugalde descalifica a Crespo
En la última pregunta de la presentación, quien esto escribe preguntó a Ugalde:
En su libro 2006: hablan las actas, el investigador del CIDE, José Antonio Crespo, hace una revisión de la mitad de las actas electorales, las actas avaladas por el IFE, unas 65 mil de las más de 130 que resultaron de es a elección, y encuentra que hay errores aritméticos por más de 600 mil votos. Crespo dice que no hay plena
certidumbre sobre el resultado de esa elección, porque la diferencia entre el primero y segundo lugar es de poco más de 230 mil votos. ¿Cuál es su opinión al respecto, doctor Ugalde? El expresidente del IFE descalificó la investigación de Crespo y dijo que éste no tiene razón, porque los errores en las actas se reparten de manera aleatoria en favor y en contra de todos los candidatos, de tal suerte que el error, en todo caso, fue parejo para todos.
Lo cierto es que Crespo resalta en su libro que con un voto de error en cada una de las más de 130 mil casillas el resultado pudo ser distinto, y sin pretender alegar un fraude, el investigador del CIDE simplemente concluye en que ni el mismo IFE pudo tener claridad, con las actas, sobre quién ganó esa elección presidencial.