BLOG JUANCARLOS GÓMEZ-MONTEJANO

President of México Felipe Calderon concluded his visit to Spain, where he: met with President of HM Government, José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, greeted King Juan Carlos I, attended the Zaragoza Expo 2008, and finally met with Barcelona’s movers and shakers in the business world in effort to expand Mexican commerce, €60 million to be exact. Madrid’s leading newspaper, El País sat down with President Calderón and conducted fantastic interview addressing, the good, the worst, and everything in between.

From human rights issues, PeMex, to undertaking investment opportunities to lesson an apparent dependence to the United States, El País writer Javier Moreno left no taboo issue to the imagination. I went ahead and took the liberty of loosely translating the more memorable quotes and the interview itself in English. Some of the more underlying Spanish nuances were harder than I anticipated, thus I use the word “loosely.”

The Spanish version you all may read at http://www.elpais.com/articulo/internacional/considero/derechas/elppgl/20080615elpepiint_8/Tes

– in an effort not to get the copyright police angry with me for reproducing the Spanish version on my blog, nor step on any toes at El País, ha!

President Calderon’s more memorable lines included the following:

“The United States as a great drug market must share the responsibility”

"EE UU, como gran mercado de la droga, tiene que compartir la responsabilidad"

“México has the correct strategy and will win the war [against narco-traffickers]

"México tiene la estrategia correcta y ganará la guerra [contra los narcos]"

“The protectionism that domineers in the United States is a serious threat”

"El proteccionismo que impera en Estados Unidos es una seria amenaza"

“México will have universal health care. It is my promise”

"México tendrá cobertura universal en salud. Es mi compromiso"

“I intend/expect to fortify PeMex in its financial self management”

"Pretendo fortalecer a PeMex en autonomía de gestión y financiera"

“I am in favour of opening of competition [economic]

"Estoy a favor de la apertura y de la competencia [económica]"

“I do not negotiate the impunity of anyone in exchange for governing”

"Yo no negocio la impunidad de nadie a cambio de gobernar"

“I DON’T CONSIDER MY-SELF RIGHT WING”

By Javier Moreno

Loosely translated by Juancarlos Gómez-Montejano

______________________________________________________________________________

Calderón welcomed El País in a bungalow room of the El Prado museum in Madrid, where he has been staying during his official visit to Spain. Only about an hour or so until guests arrive for a reception the Mexican President is hosting for the King and Queen of Spain. And whilst palace employees are running around over the last details, the atmosphere cannot distract from the crude reality that describes the responses of the Mexican President; a reality of the war against the drug-traffickers whose numbers would provoke a cataclysm in any European democracy: 4,000 dead in less than two years, hundreds of police murdered and even Military action in certain zones of the country.

The scarcity of human rights is another undesirable correlation of a battle no less important than the drug traffickers. Human rights violations never have been scarce in México’s history, but the more closely the country advances towards modernity, its gross death throes become less tolerable for a globally conscience society, conscientious and fed up from this anachronism inherited from 71 years of dictatorship concealed by the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI). Any astute observer would find odd that the protagonists from the most recent (and scandalous) of this particular infamous history would be a governor of this old official party.

In Puebla, Mario Marín, whose political trial was denied by a vote of 6 to 4 by the Supreme Court, has galvanized pro-human rights groups, intellectuals, and the Left in general. Judicial policies, under warrants issued by Marín, illegally arrested reporter Lydia Cacho in another state (Quintana Roo), after she published a shuddering book which exposed and reported on a pornography network and the abuse of sexual minors; then she was remanded to Puebla where she was threatened by death and psychologically tortured until released on bail. The Supreme Court did not find sufficient cause this past November to prosecute the governor nor was it mentioned in the general dicta of the Court’s opinion concerning the sexual abuse of minors, depite the investigatory commission, in-charged by the same court, who took the statements of the victims: 15 year old girls.

The day to more truculent day of Mexico, nevertheless, has been written now with the part of the war embarked upon by the newly elected president against the drug cartels only 18 months into his post.

QUESTION:

Did you know then the magnitude of the problem you were about to acquire?

RESPONSE:

When I arrived to the presidency, its reach was untenable. I arrived to the operating room knowing that the patient had a very serious ailment; but after opening we understood it has been invaded by many parts and in need of treatment where it gives rise.

Q: Are you, or have you been gambling with national security?

R: If the state defines it-self, amongst other things, such as the one who has the monopoly of force, of the law, including income collection efforts, then organised crime itself opposed its own force to that of the State; opposing its own law, for that of the State, including going against official income collection efforts.

Q: You have assured that in México, certain situations arise, far worse than Colombia, which is a state ceasing to exist, or practically non-existent in ample zones during a certain time.

R: Not necessarily worse. We are acting in a timely manner precisely to avoid decomposition or territorial dominion loss like Colombia suffered in the 90s. It is something we avoid in México with joint operatives sets including the Army, Armed Forces, Navy and police to take full territorial control where control appears broken.

Q: Declaring War has a lexicon problem: one wins or one loses. Is México wining hers?

R: México has the correct strategy and of course will win this war.

Q: You will win, but 450 dead soldiers or police since the war began; and just in the last week of May four high ranking police officers, including the head of the Federal Police. They are worrisome numbers.

R: Yes they are worrisome. But as I warned to the Mexican people at the start of my mandate, this would be a long battle. It is a problem having accumulated, having been tolerated, for years, and maybe, even decades; and unfortunately at the cost of human life that we have lost. The fact that those federal police, soldiers, and city police whose lives were lost are precisely why we face the problem; we are not alluding ourselves, like having done so in the past.

Q: In order to win you need the United States. Bush agreed with a plan, [the Mérida Initiative] who’s initial funding included 500 million USD; the House of Representative lowered it to 400 million USD; the Senate left it at 350 million USD; and both the House and the Senate added conditions that México needed to comply, especially concerning human rights. Is this appropriate?

R: There has been a long and complex process in US Congress, but I share the principle: the exigency of México is one of common concern, and as such, has its origins as the biggest drug market consumption which the United States, as consequence, has a responsibility, and therefore must be faced in a joint manner. I will tell you this in some of the House drafts and particularly in the Senate there were imposed conditions or elements that were unacceptable. But now, this past Monday, a new document was approved which had more acceptable terms. I hope it is maintained.

Q: Members of your team have suggested that México was not prepared to accept conditions.

R: That’s right.

Q: But now you believe you can accept conditions?

R: Yes, if the document we approved this week is maintained in the House of Representatives of the United States.

Q: On the other hand, your Government has promised to contribute 7 Billion in the next few years: that sum is money that needs congressional approval.

R: That is what we spend in security

Q: But the budgets need be approved every year. The leader of the opposition party PRI, Emilio Gamboa Patron, has already shown his reluctance. Are you sure about the assuring the money will be approved in the budgets.

R: What is happening is that the budgets already anticipated will continue to climb, independent of the Mérida Initiative, because we need to have the resources for public safety/security.

Q: Can you explain if there is a relation between lack of majority in your Government, that is to say, the necessity to reach agreements with other parties, basically with the PRI [whose congressmen follow Gamboa Patrón] and the impunity whereupon some governors appear to act from this party?

R: We have strived enormously in dialogue and consensus, and have reached agreements with all political force with the PRI, certainly, but not only with the PRI. But here I will be frank: first, the PAN has a relative majority with enough force; counting on 40% of the parliament is nothing trivial.

Q: I was referring to the absolute majority you do not have…

R: …absolute majority we do not have, but we have journeyed on through agreements. If I look for the coincidence to favour national interest, but being specific in the response to your question, I do not negotiate the impunity of no one in exchange to govern, nor my Government, in the case of the governors.

Q: …I would say the governors of Oaxaca and Puebla have been the most…

R: … in all. In the case with Puebla, we were attentive to the ruling of the Supreme Court; and always I’ve said, before the ruling and after, we were going to fully attack the resolution of the ministry plenary session. And on the other hand, not-withstanding the ruling of Court, the Attorney General Office under my charge will continue investigations and has requested before a criminal court judge for an arrest warrant for the police and judiciary involved. Independently of the Court, we continue to prosecute those who we consider to be a criminal case.

Q: But from your moral or personal ethics, are you satisfied with the resolution of the Supreme Court in the Lydia Cacho case?

R: The consideration of my Government and the Attorney General´s Office is that there is a presence of constitutive crime, and we are prosecuting. Unfortunately, we did not count on the endorsement of the Judge with whom we initiated the cause, but we will continue to work until the limit of legal remedy of the federal government to demand justice.

Q: PeMex turns over to the state approximately 62% of its total income. Do you believe that a company, such as this one, is in condition to assure its own future? In fact, as much of the petrol reserves production are falling of resounding form.

R: With the reforms I proposed to Congress, precisely I intend to fortify PeMex from diverse ambits: financial autonomy and self-management: transparency and independent consultants: and I really hope Congress approves the measures.

Q: Do you really believe with such reform PeMex will be in condition to avoid absurd situation, for example, that 25% of gasoline that is consumed in México a great producer, come from the United States?

R: 40% of gasoline that México consumes arrives internationally: Spain, India, and USA,,,: it’s absurd. What am I proposing? A site that PeMex has to divert 10 Billion dollars USD, which is the cost of a refinery, at heart of the business, which is a producer of petrol and natural gas, that can contract a business that constructs refineries and operate for PeMex and PeMex simply will pay for the refinery service. We would process the crude Maya which is a heavy and difficult to process, and we would guarantee the national supply, we would produce cleaner fuels. We would create more jobs in México, and we would fortify PeMex financing. Thus, the categorical answer is yes.

Q: And are you equally sure that Congress will approve such reform? I ask because something is failing in the discussion. In fact, you declare on time, and I quote: “If logic will domineer, the reform would have already been approved a while ago.” Maybe there is another logic functioning?

R: In politics many elements concur, between others politics itself: politics in this sense, which is the dispute, the search for space and power and the ability between those who make decisions in Congress.

Q: In any case, PeMex appears to form part of a certain double talk in México in general, but also in yours in particular: you, on one hand, accuse the US of going against open current world markets when erecting a wall to its border, but México maintains closed or strong ties to foreign company sectors, in energy, petrol but also protectionism in mass media or telecommunications to maintain a certain nationalistic culture in a world that indeed is more and more open. Is that not a contradiction, double talk?

R: No, because I am in favour of open markets and competition. The truth is, to me, that it does not appear to be a contradiction. To the contrary: I endeavour for México to be a competitive economy, generating employment, and I am someone that decidedly impels competition and investment.

Q: Barack Obama threatens to suspend NAFTA to exalt more protection for workers and the environment in México if he wins the elections. Are you worried, about this protectionist derivative of the United States?

R: Yes. The neo-protectionist that domineers the talk, at least in US politics, is a serious threat, not only for countries like México, that a good chunk of our economy relies on trade with the United States, but rather a serious threat to the United States it-self.

Q: The politics of Latin America appear to gravitate between two poles: on the one hand a social democracy, let us say with a vision of market, as represented in Chile or Brazil, faces with a nationalist left and authoritative, returning from the past as represented by Venezuela. In that map, where do México and its current PAN[conservative] Government fit?

R. Precisely what I insisted yesterday. [on Wednesday when addressing the Spanish legislature [las Cortes españolas / "Commons"] was a dilemma that Latin America was not between Left or Right because effectively, there are governments which in theory are of the Left, and take measures in favour of trade and investments like Chile and Brazil.  Then there are governments that are Right-wing, that take measures of a strong social promise, like that in Uribe’s (Colombia) Government or El Salvador. I do not consider my-self right wing. Sometimes, in one interview I had the fortune of having with El País about a decade ago, I already assumed my-self a politician in the centre.

Q: At any time, have you declared including that you were doing to surpass Andrés Manuel López Obrador on the Left?

R. Effectively, we are doing it, because we have a solid social policy and without precedents: for example, medical insurance for a new generation, of my doing, and signifies that every Mexican child will have guaranteed medical coverage for them and their families for life. México will have universal health care. And that is not a flag of the Left, it is simply human responsibility and a social one that I have felt promised to deliver.

Q: In this project as President, does it not seem like a conflict with your party that historically is more conservative, of a strong Catholic base, and contrary to the instinct of many seated rights already recognised in the West, such as abortion, contraception and gay marriage?

R: Concretely, referring to social subjects, I have always had a solid promise with justice, always, and now as President, I am doing it fully. But I return to my subject: the dilemma I presented in my address before the Spanish legislature, [las Cortes españolas / "Commons"] in Latin America, it is not simply between Left and Right, the dispute is between past, present and future, between the past economic terms, with closed economies, centralised to that of an open market, competition, and investment. The past political terms are authoritarian and personal, and the future, is that of democracy and respect of human rights.

Q: How do you see the legislative elections next year?

R: Competitive. The results speak of strategy, no? The PRD has become a favourite in the electoral preference of the whole country.

Q: And do you think PAN has the possibility of reaching the majority?

R: There are possibilities but first thing is first, and that is to elect the electorates. Whatever happens, I still will be President that meets and dialogues And I will continue the changes for México, reforms that no one has attempted in more than a decade.

¡NO SEÑOR DON FELIPE! Se Prenuncia con la Z de Zapatero – con “θ”

Think you have a better caption¿? Go ahead and leave me yours in the comment section, and remember to have fun

I have to hand it to Brazil; I really do. Turnabouts being fair play, when it comes to the diplomatic principle of “reciprocation,” Brazil takes the cake.

As many may recall when the U.S. implemented its controversial passport control regime in January 2004, it entailed a programme and public policy shift which notably included the collection of personal data in various forms such as fingerprints, photographs and interrogations.

Brazil responded in kind by now imposing Visas, fingerprints, photographs and “interrogations” interestingly revolving around terrorism and sex tourism specifically directed to U.S. Citizens. This policy shift resulted from a Brazilian federal court order under the principle of reciprocation no doubt causing an outcry from U.S. sexual deviants and perverts to complain to the U.S. consulates in Brazil’s major ports of entry. Even the U.S. Department of State went on record as stating: “"While we acknowledge Brazil's sovereign right to determine the requirements for entry into Brazil, we regret the way in which new procedures have suddenly been put in place that single out US citizens for exceptional treatment that has meant lengthy delays in processing, such as the case today with a more than nine hour delay for some US citizens arriving at Rio's international airport," who knew sanctimonious perverts had so much clout.

With the same comic relief, Brazil and Spain are at it in a row resulting in dozens of tourists from the two nations being refused entry to one another's country and deported. Spain turned back 452 Brazilians at Madrid airport in February, arguing that they did not meet the conditions for entry.

On March 6, customs authorities at Madrid's Barajas airport denied entry to 30 Brazilian citizens, including students on their way to a seminar in Portugal, they returned home on a flight two days later and reported inappropriate treatment by the Spanish authorities despite having the appropriate documentation issued by fellow EU and Schengen Treaty state Portugal. When he asked passport control authorities “why are you treating us like dogs?” – Spanish immigration authorities allegedly replied “because that’s what you are.” Both the Brazilians and Spaniards accused the other country's police of degrading treatment and racial profiling of mulatos, mestizos and single or otherwise unaccompanied women with or without child.

Brazil retaliated by turning back around a dozen Spanish businessmen and tourists this month and requested an explanation from the Spanish ambassador, and Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva intended to discuss the matter with Spanish Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, according to the daily El Pais.

Spanish Prime Minister/President of the Government Jose Luis Rodríguez Zapatero pledged that the Socialist Party would advance further gay rights should the Spanish population re-elect him on 09 March according to an interview in Zero magazine.

In 2004, when elected, the Zapatero administration positioned itself and Spain as world leader when it comes to the rights of gays, lesbians and transsexuals.

"We will continue to make reforms to improve the conditions of all," he said in an interview with the monthly gay magazine Zero, where he appeared on the cover for the third time since 2002.

"We must facilitate the implementation of the rights that we have already approved: the right to adoption (for same-sex couples), of course, and the right to legally change sex," he said.

Should the conservative opposition Popular Party, Mariano Rajoy, win the election, Zapetero vowed to prevent "a single step backwards" in the policies of his government. "I will do whatever possible so that Mr. Rajoy does not withdraw the rights of any family," he said.

Rajoy has already said that he wants to remove the right to adopt from gay couples in Spain, and indicated he wants gay and lesbian marriage to be called something else.

The interview comes as the Socialists hope for support from the gay and lesbian community in the general election, and the Prime Minister promised to extend the equality law to ensure that any homophobia is met head on.

Spain became only the third member of the European Union, after the Netherlands and Belgium, to allow same-sex marriages in July 2005 with a law that also legalised adoptions by gays and lesbians.

Zapatero has a narrow lead over the right-wing candidate Mariano Rajoy after the first TV duel staged before 9 March elections, Spain's media reported. Three separate opinion polls conducted after the TV debate showed that 45 percent of Spaniards support the Socialist Zapatero in his bid to win another term.

Rajoy, who won support of 30 to 39.3 percent of the respondents, accused Zapatero of lying and misleading the nation, focusing mainly on his leniency toward the separatist organization ETA.

Notably, whilst the PP actions against the gay community are not in the party manifesto, the party interestingly issued a challenge against gay marriage in the Spanish Constitutional Court and the Partido Popular declined to take part in the current election special of Zero magazine.

Wasn't Mariano Rajoy on the cover a few gay magazines proclaiming his own homosexuality and being part of the conservative Popular Party?