LÓPEZ OBRADOR LOOKS TO 2012

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.