Netanyahu Visits US for First Time Since Iran War Started; Plus, How Latin American Governments Are Navigating the Donroe Doctrine

Good morning, it's Thursday, July 30th, 2006. This is up front. I'm Brian Edwards Teakert. On today's show, Joel Brennan joins us to debrief Benjamin Netanyahu's trip to the White House. We'll talk Iran, Syria, and the push to cut U.S. military aid to Israel. In the second half of our program, Jake Mike Johnston, Director of International Relations at the Center for Economic and Policy Research, take stock of the wave of right-wing electoral victories in South America, and how the continent's governments are navigating the so-called Don Roe Doctrine. It's all coming up next, after the news. I'm Max Pringle with these headlines. The U.S. and Iran traded strikes overnight as prospects for a negotiated settlement to the five-month-old war dim. More from Karen Chamas. The U.S. military has said it has completed what it described as a heavy wave of strikes against Iran. Iran responded by striking a Chinese firm's building in northern Kuwait. U.S. Central Command released footage on Thursday of planes taking off from the flight deck of an aircraft carrier and aerial footage of targets on the ground being hit by airstrikes. U.S. Central Command says the attacks on Iran targeted Iran's revolutionary guard corps. The latest U.S. barrage on Iran comes after the U.S. partnered with Saudi Arabia to strike Iranian-backed militias in neighboring Iraq, killing at least 26 people. Shortly after the U.S. strikes and Iranian strike hit a... Chinese firms building in northern Kuwait on Thursday morning, severely damaging the structure and killing a worker. I'm Karen Shamas. A new Associated Press, Nork Poll, shows most Americans say the war in Iran has not been worth fighting. President Trump's approval rating on Iran has fallen slightly since last month. About two-thirds of American adults, including a majority of Democrats and independents, and one-third of Republicans, say the war has not been worthwhile. The survey reinforces how unpopular the Iran war has become at home, a potential problem for Republicans heading into November's midterms. The survey shows a slight decline from 34% last month. Most Americans prioritize keeping gas prices low and negotiating a ceasefire. A Russian missile and drone attack across Ukraine has killed at least eight civilians, including children, and wounded over 50 others. Officials say the barrage targeted multiple regions, including areas near the Polish border. This comes amid Ukraine's critical shortage of Western-supplied anti-missile defenses. NATO member Poland said a suspected Russian cruise missile entered its airspace and landed in a rural area in an incident that caused no injuries but could possibly escalate tensions in the region. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has been urging the U.S. for more air defense support.

Meanwhile, Ukraine has continued to strike Russian targets, including depots of a major online retailer. French authorities are allowing 84,000 evacuees from a massive wildfire in southwest France to return home. Ross Cullen has more. First thing to note on Thursday is it is cooler, 20 degrees cooler, in fact, down from the highs of 42 yesterday, 22 at the moment, and also it has been raining. Thunderstorms this morning in the Bordeaux region, bringing some relief to the firefighters continuing to battle those huge blazes. But we have also seen a note from the top administrative official here in the Bordeaux region on Thursday. she has been saying that the fire has not been progressing. That's Ross Cullen. Dr. Anthony Fauci will face a contempt of Congress vote in a Senate committee next week after he declined to answer lawmakers' questions in a hearing Wednesday about his handling of the COVID-19 pandemic. Sagar Magani has more. From the first question posed by Chairman Rand Paul, I respectfully declined to answer. Anthony Fauci refused to incriminate himself. Based upon my rights under the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution. He did it more than 100 times, infuriating Paul and other Republicans who accuse Anthony Fauci of lying an earlier testimony about the virus's origins. Today will be the capstone to Anthony Fauci's 40 years of abuse of power at NIH. said it pained him to take the fifth, but he had no choice given what he called Paul's obsession with prosecuting him. Even though President Biden pardoned Anthony Fauci last year, some Republicans say he could still face charges for lying under oath, while the GOP's Josh Hawley mocked him. Well, nothing says honesty like taking the fifth. Democrat Maggie Hassan praised Anthony Fauci. And it must be enormously frustrating to know that this hearing is designed to ensure. trap you. Sagar, Magani, Washington. The Federal Reserve left its key interest rate unchanged Wednesday despite persistently high inflation and a spike in energy prices caused by the Iran War. Donna Warder reports. Inflation has been stuck above the Fed's 2% target for more than five years. And new Fed chair Kevin Warsh told Congress earlier this month he has no tolerance for elevated inflation. But some Fed watchers say policymakers right now are reluctant to risk disrupting financial markets. And only 29% of Wall Street traders predict that the Fed will raise rates this week. About 76% say a rate hike will come in September. Donna Warder, Washington. Organizers of a California November ballot measure that would require voters to show a government ID when they go to vote are suing State Attorney General Rob Bonta, alleging that his revised ballot title for Prop 39 is misleading and violates state election laws. Prop 39 initially had the ballot language, quote,

That was me speaking into my mute button. And like the Israeli public at large and the Israeli press, how do they think the Iran war ends? They are split as is expressed in the polling for the election, which is not necessarily. very accurate, but has some sense of what's going on in the minds of the Israeli public. So the Likud has been eroding its status has been eroded. It's now projected according to the average of the polls to get something like 20, 21, 22, tops, 23 seats in the Knesset out of a total of 160. And meanwhile, Gotti Eisenkott's party is surging with an equivalent number of seats. They are either tied or Eisenkott's new party is slightly ahead by one or two seats. has popularity because he's a former chief of staff. So unlike Benjamin Netanyahu, who is seen as erratic and self-serving and corrupt, Eisencott is seen as serious, measured. He's also lost a son and two nephews since October 7th, so made sacrifices for the country, whereas Benjamin Netanyahu exploits the situation for his own personal gain. has been very careful not to put forward a comprehensive strategy or plan for how to deal with either Iran or the Palestinians. The election campaign is focused on Benjamin Netanyahu's corruption on the need for a state commission of inquiry to examine the failures that led to the October 7th Hamas attack. drafting ultra-Orthodox Jews into the army. These positions are all very popular with the middle class and upper middle class elites and they all lean right. I mean, I isn't kind of, this is not a party of the left. The actual policy difference vis-a-vis Iran or Palestinians is not particularly evident between the two of these blocks who are currently the largest ones in the Israeli political scene.

If you take a look at his electoral coalition, Eisencontz electoral coalition, can infer anything about what changes might be possible towards Iran or the Palestinians? Towards the Palestinians, I think absolutely nothing. That coalition would include Naftali Bennett, who served briefly in a government that was misnomered the government of change. There was no real change other than that Benjamin Netanyahu wasn't in it. Bennett has said very clearly that he seeks to annex at least a... large parts of the West Bank. So that there's also will be in the coalition if Eisencott leads it, the Democrats, which is the liberal Zionist party, a fusion of the old Labor Party and a Friedrich Merz's party, which was slightly to its left. They'll become, some of their leaders will become cabinet ministers if Eisencott becomes prime minister, but they won't occupy any of the key ministries and they won't have very much influence over the government's direction. And Eisencott is not talking about two states. Most people in Israel are not, most Jews in Israel are not talking about two states. And that's really not on the agenda, on anybody's agenda. Separately, apparently, Benjamin Netanyahu thought it was important to bring visual aids to defend Israel's occupation of the portions of Syria. It's taken over since the fall of the Bashar al-Assad regime. The report out in Axios, citing anonymous sources, says he showed Donald Trump maps that indicate Turkey is occupying more of Syria than Israel. The difference being Turkey is there with the current Syrian government's permission and Israel is not. Like how big a political issue inside Israel is the occupation of Syria? Not at all. It is broadly consensual, again, among Israeli Jews, that this is a proper thing to do. It's actually true that Turkey is occupying a large chunk of Syria, and they are doing that not only with the permission of the current Syrian government, they are doing it with the permission of the United States government because the reason that they are occupying that territory is to hold in check the Kurdish separate forces, the YPG who had occupied a big swath of the Kurdish area in Syria.

This Turkish government had also intervened in Syria to fight against ISIS. So there's a very complicated situation in the north of Syria, including on the common border between Turkey and Syria, in which the current Syrian government doesn't have full control over its territory. And Turkey is an ally. in trying to bring that bell. So Benjamin Netanyahu is simply blowing smoke and trying to compare Israel's occupation, which is a belligerent occupation, with Turkey's occupation. Trump, of course, probably doesn't understand very much of this at all. So it seems like the notable thing here would be that he went into that meeting with Donald Trump thinking or knowing that he would have to defend Israel's occupation of Syria. This is not something that the Trump administration has publicly made a very big deal about. No, it hasn't. But the reason that it matters is that the Trump administration... has been pushing things like the nuclear deal with Saudi Arabia, but then they say that's on hold until Saudi Arabia recognizes Israel. So Saudi Arabia is not going to recognize Israel, not only because the Israeli government, not this one and not whatever one. The next one is, are not going to be making any moves towards establishing a Palestinian state. But Israel is a belligerent and destabilizing force everywhere in the region. Israel is occupying Syrian territory. Israel is occupying Lebanese territory. Israel is making more aggressive moves towards strengthening the de facto annexation of large chunks of the West Bank. There are pogroms in the West Bank nearly every single day of settlers attacking innocent Palestinians in an effort to make them leave parts of the territory. so that the settlers can occupy it. And of course, Israel is also expanding its occupation in the Gaza Strip. According to the so-called ceasefire, Israel was supposed to occupy 53% of the Gaza Strip. Reports now are that they are occupying something like 63% of the Gaza Strip. Benjamin Netanyahu has ordered the army to occupy 70% of the Gaza Strip. Benjamin Netanyahu is under a certain amount of fire everywhere in the world, including in some parts of the Trump administration for all of these things. Yeah, I did want to get into the West Bank violence. The reporting that like penetrates U.S. media is only sporadic and, you know. often names some triggering incident. The most recent report I read, it was a fight in a village in Tall, in which in addition to the four Palestinians who were killed, two Israelis were killed, which is unusual. What is driving like the current wave of settler and military violence in the West Bank? So in that incident that you mentioned in the village of Tal, it's important to...

paint the picture of what happened, violence just doesn't just break out. A group of armed settlers decided that they would go on a hike through this village. And if Armed people who have declared that they want to remove you from your home are marching through your neighborhood. Anywhere in the world, that would create a certain amount of hostility and tension. So, yeah, violence broke out and there was shooting and... one of the Palestinians tried to disarm one of the settlers and he was shot. It's unclear if he was actually holding the weapon when he was shot, but whatever he did was in self-defense, it's important to underline that. So the settlers are With the permission of the government, in fact, with the encouragement of certainly Itamar Ben-Gvir, the fascist messianist police minister and Betel El Smotrich, the fascist minister in the department, in the Ministry of Defense, who is responsible for governing the West Bank. The two of them want to annex it all. So they are totally encouraging. settler aggression and violence. And if any incident like this happens, settlers are very unlikely to be investigated or prosecuted and even less unlikely to actually be jailed for any acts of violence that they commit. So this is the dynamic. The settlers understand that they have a green light from the factions of the government that actually control life on the ground in the West Bank. And they're taking advantage while the eyes of the world are on Iran or less so on Gaza, although the eyes of the world should be on Gaza because the genocide is continuing as we speak every day. Israel has killed over 1,200 people, including more than 200 children in Gaza since the so-called ceasefire was signed.

It leaves me with questions just about like the Israeli military capacity. Like it's occupying most of Lebanon south of the Latani River. It's occupying the slice of Syria that it moved into after the fall of the Bashar al-Assad regime. It is expanding its occupation of Gaza and serving as the backstop for settler violence in the West Bank. the Israeli military who goes in to get them out of the trouble they get themselves into. How taxing is it on Israeli society and the Israeli economy to maintain mobilization at the level that supports that? It is very taxing and that is an election issue. And the way that it emerges as an election issue is the Army says that it is suffering from a manpower shortage and that manpower shortage could be addressed if ultra-Orthodox young men were subjected to the draft in the same way that all other Jewish young men are subjected to the draft. But because the Benjamin Netanyahu government depends on two ultra-Orthodox parties, one Ashkenazi, one Mizrahi, to maintain its majority, and will In the future, if Benjamin Netanyahu is in a position to form a government after the next election, they will be a critical component of his coalition after the election as well. So Benjamin Netanyahu cannot anger them and therefore he cannot pass legislation, even though the Supreme Court has declared that this must happen to draft Haredi ultra-Orthodox young men at a more uh elevated level that is now the case now only a few of them are drafted into the army and there's always tiffs about uh when when they are drafted and and when the army proposes to expand the draft as the supreme court has directed the the other resource question is materiel um the the continued u.s support for for giving arms to israel is rapidly weakening in U.S. politics. I thought it was notable in the report out in Axios, and this is quoting some anonymous Israeli official familiar with the negotiations, that Benjamin Netanyahu, again, according to the article in Axios, preemptively told Donald Trump and Vice President JD Vance and Steve Witkoff, their negotiator, that he is committed to reducing U.S. military aid to Israel but wants to do it over the course of 10 years.

Right. This is the strategy for dealing with the fact that certainly among the American public and now even beginning to be a substantial force in Congress, there is opposition to continuing military aid to Israel at the current level, which is $3.8 billion a year plus the many billions that have been given. since October 7th, 2023. The total amount of additional aid that Israel has received is in the range of tens of billions of dollars. So the current National Defense Authorization Act has a workaround about for that, which is that embedded in U.S. law when this act passes, as it is expected to, because it's already been passed the House, that Israel and the United States will be bound together through joint research and development on weapons and co-production of weapons. So there won't be any more... financial gifts to Israel, it's just that future weapons development and production will be joint with Israel. And that won't be front and center as a political issue in the way that the annual appropriation of the $3.8 billion would be. And it'll be hidden. that arrangement will be protected by the interests of the major American arms manufacturers, Boeing and Lockheed Martin and so on, who will be profiting from this new arrangement. And everybody seems to be fine with that. Trump and his guys and Benjamin Netanyahu and his government and even people like Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer. Although Chuck Schumer and Donald Trump together have not been able to get the National Defense Authorization Act through the Senate so far. It's failed its cloture votes because there are enough objections in the Democratic caucus and among a couple of libertarian Republicans against the funding request for the war in Iran. I actually hadn't followed that, so that's a piece of good news if, in fact, that will block the legislation. We'll see then whether it passes or not. Yeah. So the idea here is that the way the funding would be structured going forward is that U.S. military spending would boost Israeli domestic military industrial capacity. In other words, our spending on weapons would be helping to build in stock Israeli weapon factories. Not exactly. It's where the jointly produced weapons would be produced is unclear. Okay. The research is transnational. So some will be done in American.

think tanks and so on and so and corporations and some will be done in Israel. It's already the case that there are factories in the United States. that are co-producing weapons that are used by both the Israeli and the US military. And there are factories in Israel that manufacture parts for weapons that are used in both countries. So for example, one of the vice presidents of Boeing, which is the lead manufacturer of the F-35, the United States most advanced attack plane has said, there is a piece of Israel in every F-35 that's ever been manufactured. And that is absolutely correct because Israel is especially focused on things like the advanced avionics, the night vision, all of the advanced electronics suite that the pilots use. At one level, this has been going on for quite some time already. If the NDAA passes, then that will be built up and expanded more. Brian, I think we lost you again. Oh, sorry, Joel. That was me getting over-eager with my mute button again. Thank you so much for speaking to us. You're very welcome. Any time. Joel Brennan is Professor of Middle East History Emeritus at Stanford University. I have just one minute before we go to news headlines, and I am, as you can probably tell, a little groggy and punchy because we just wrapped up our fun drive. I wanted to tell you where we ended things yesterday. So our 11 a.m. finish yesterday for our summer fun drive was almost three days sooner than our typical summer fun drives have ended for most of the past 20 years. Which is enormous. We all want to have shorter and less intrusive fun drives here at KPFA. It takes a lot of work where we get to the point where we can even have a plausible shot at ending them early and still paying KPFA's bills. So to everyone who chipped in, thank you for getting us on that path. We ended $5,745 short of our goal, which is a tiny shortfall. but still the shortfall. So if you didn't get a chance to give, or if you're as elated as I am, that KPFA is on the past to shrinking the length of our fun drives, the single greatest way you could show that appreciation is by making a belated gift at KPFA.org, where for the rest of this week, we will still have the thank you gifts from our summer fun drive available. At www.kfa.org.

$5,745 left to raise. This show is up front. My name is Brian Edwards Teaker. Coming up in the second half of our program, we'll speak to Jake Mike Johnston. He is Director of International Research at the Center for Economic and Policy Research to take stock of the wave of right-wing electoral victories in South America and how the continent's governments are navigating the so-called Don Roe Doctrine. That's next after the news. I'm Max Pringle with these headlines. The U.S. and Iran traded strikes overnight as prospects for a negotiated settlement to the five-month-old war dim. More from Karen Chamas. The U.S. military has said it has completed what it described as a heavy wave of strikes against Iran. Iran responded by striking a Chinese firm's building in northern Kuwait. U.S. Central Command released footage on Thursday of planes taking off from the flight deck of an aircraft carrier and aerial footage of targets on the ground being hit by airstrikes. U.S. Central Command says the attacks on Iran targeted Iran's revolutionary guard corps. The latest U.S. barrage on Iran comes after the U.S. partnered with Saudi Arabia to strike Iranian-backed militias in neighboring Iraq, killing at least 26 people. Shortly after the U.S. strikes and Iranian strike hit a... Chinese firms building in northern Kuwait on Thursday morning, severely damaging the structure and killing a worker. I'm Karen Shamas. French authorities are allowing 84,000 evacuees from a massive wildfire in southwest France to return home. Ross Cullen has more. First thing to note on Thursday is it is cooler, 20 degrees cooler, in fact, down from the highs of 42 yesterday, 22 at the moment, and also it has been raining. Thunderstorms this morning in the Bordeaux region bringing some relief to the firefighters continuing to battle those huge blazes. That's Ross Cullen. Dr. Anthony Fauci will face a contempt of Congress vote in a Senate committee next week. after he declined to answer lawmakers questions in a hearing Wednesday about his handling of the COVID-19 pandemic. Sagar Magani has more. From the first question posed by Chairman Rand Paul, I respectfully declined to answer. Anthony Fauci refused to incriminate himself. Based upon my rights under the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution. He did it more than 100 times, infuriating Paul and other Republicans who accuse Anthony Fauci of lying an earlier testimony about the virus's origins. Today will be the capstone to Anthony Fauci's 40 years of abuse of power at NIH. said it pained him to take the fifth, but he had no choice given what he called Paul's obsession with prosecuting him. Even though President Biden pardoned Anthony Fauci last year, some Republicans say he could still face charges for lying under oath, while the GOP's Josh Hawley mocked him. Well, nothing says honesty like taking the fifth. Democrat Maggie Hassan praised Anthony Fauci. And it must be enormously frustrating to know that this hearing is designed to ensure.

trap you. Sagar, Magani, Washington. Sunny today in the San Francisco Bay Area highs in the 70s and 80s, lows tonight in the 50s. In the Central Valley, sunny today and hot, highs around 100, lows tonight in the 60s. Those are the headlines. I'm Max Pringle on KPFA. Bit past 7.34 in the morning. The show is up front. My name is Brian Edwards Teaker. Continuing this morning's international focus, we are going to turn to Peru. We're on Tuesday. Keiko Fujimori was sworn in as the new president. She is part of a right-wing political dynasty. Her father was convicted on charges of corruption and human rights abuses during the government's conflict with the Shining Path guerrillas. This was her fourth run at office and her first success. running on law and order rhetoric, promising to bring the military into fighting crime. Standard right-wing fare, but the fact that the rights candidate has not changed, but their ability to succeed has seemed to be worth some discussion. Our guest is Jake Mike Johnston. He's director of international research at the Center for Economic and Policy Research, where he's focused predominantly on economic policy in Latin America, the International Monetary Fund, and U.S. foreign policy. Good morning. Good morning. Thanks for having me. Thanks for joining us. First of all, the significance of having a Fujimori back in office in Peru. Yeah, I mean, obviously significant. I mean, you know, for so long. stood for something, right? And I think throughout the hemisphere, right? And I think, you know, it is sort of maybe indicative of the changes that we're seeing and sort of this retrenchment more broadly beyond Peru and obviously led significantly by a very overtly interventionist United States in the hemisphere. Right. I guess. The question to me is what are the conditions that have made so many right-wing victories in South American elections possible? For her, the rhetoric was about crime and law and order. It was only the narrowest of victories against her left-wing competitors. Like, what's creating an opening for the kind of politics she practices? Yeah, I think, you know, of course, it's not just one thing, right? But I think there are two big dynamics here worth sort of exploring. I mean, the one is an anti-incomeancy bias, right? I mean, concerns over security, a feeling that the incumbent governments in Peru, but also in a number of other countries where we've seen right when governments take power over the last, you know, six months to a year, you know, there is a cyclical nature to this, right? And we've seen it go from one direction to the other.

But I think you sort of can't divorce it from the elephant in the room, the United States, right? I mean, you saw in Colombia, in Honduras, where the United States sort of openly intervened in endorsing a candidate, sort of breaking precedent and sort of openly threatening a country, you know, we won't. provide aid, you know, to sort of, you can imagine what you've seen what this administration has done to governments that it doesn't approve of, right? I mean, whether it be Venezuela, whether it be Cuba, you can see what's happening in Brazil and Colombia with Petro, right? And so there is an explicit sort of threat that's on the table and voters are not stupid. They can see that. Right. So I think that is certainly part of it. And you look at Peru is what's quite interesting is that unlike a number of those other elections. The U.S. actually didn't openly endorse Kiko or get that involved in the election, at least publicly. But I think you still can't really separate it. I mean, you look at the margin of victory for Kiko, extremely small. As you mentioned, it took weeks and weeks to count these votes and to even reach a final conclusion. You know, I don't think it's at all a leap to think that, you know, less than 1% of voters in Peru were somewhat swayed by the overtly interventionist policies of the United States in the hemisphere. I mean, that's interesting because you could imagine the overt interventionism by the U.S. prompting more backlash than serving the ends of helping the U.S.'s favorite candidates advance. Yeah, I think it cuts both ways, right? I mean, it certainly can tap into a certain nationalism, right? And when we've certainly seen that play out, I think we're seeing a bit of that play out in Brazil where, you know, the imposition of tariffs from the U.S. on Brazil seem to have actually helped Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva in the polls as opposed to lovable scenario as candidate and the U.S. back candidate, right? But I think, again, I mean, it cuts both ways because, you know, I think... People are also voting with their pocketbooks, right? And saying, hey, things are, things are tough. Things are getting more expensive. If the United States tariff puts tariffs on our country, that's going to make my life worse. If the U.S. is going to start dropping bombs here, that's going to make my life worse. And so, you know, there is a balance there. And I think, you know, it's obviously hard to disentangle and say, you know, what's the precise electoral impact, you know, in either direction, which one comes out, you know, ahead. But I think, you know, you can't sort of take it off the table as a big factor in the political changes that are happening in the atmosphere. In a prior era, the U.S. had a tremendous amount of impact on the economic fates of most countries in Latin America. But increasingly, their trade flows have started moving through China. What are the implications of that? Yeah, I think this is critically important, right? And I think, you know, we've seen this sort of the Trump corollary, right? This sort of revamp Monroe doctrine explicitly framed in terms of countering China in the region. Right. And that has been overt. And of course, while the U.S. didn't.

directly endorse in the candidate, they have been quite involved. Peru is one of the countries that has developed extremely close relations with China. There's the Chanse Port, which has greatly increased trade flows from the entire region, not just Peru to China in recent years. And the US has been very active in sort of trying to push back on that or gain a foothold and sort of contest that like we've seen them do with the Panama Canal. And so this is obviously a huge thing. I think what we've actually seen, though, is. that while the rhetoric is shifting, at least, you know, partially, we've seen, you know, sort of anti-China rhetoric from the Jair Bolsonaro's, from Millet, from a number of other leaders in the region that have sort of allied themselves with the Trump administration. But when you look at the economic reality, they're sort of coming up with, you know, a very different, different approach. Because the reality is that these countries have developed deep trade relations with China. And simply, you can't simply stop that overnight. I mean, this is a real thing. And so I think throughout the region, you're going to see that. you know, continue to play out where you'll see rhetoric and perhaps shifting a little bit more against China, but the actual trade flows are unlikely to drastically shift, at least in the short term. I think we kind of know with the benefit of hindsight, what being a subordinate part of a U.S. dominated world order looks like for a lot of these countries, being subjected to austerity programs imposed by the IMF. What is entering into an era where there's more Chinese hegemony look like? Yeah, I mean, I think that's a great, a great question, right? I mean, I think, you know, one of the big things that has been pointed out in regard to these relations is sort of the differing nature of those things, right? That China's relationship in the hemisphere and economic relationship in the hemisphere is much more built on these trade relations, right, and making these big investments into the region, which has been very different than what we've seen from the U.S. And I think that is one of the big things that's missing. Certainly many analysts have pointed this out. I mean, if the U.S. wants to really, you know, compete with China and the region. It's going to have to be more than threats because China is offering real economic development prospects for these countries. And that is something very different than what the U.S. has actually put on the table in the past. Now, the Trump administration is talking a big game. And there was a news report, I think, this week there was some plans that have been shared with Congress to greatly increase U.S. investment as a means to counter China. But what will that actually sort of look like? Will that play out? I mean, I think these are going to be big questions. But on a bigger sense, I mean, you're seeing some of the people, like some of these leaders and the right-wing leaders that are coming in. I mean, they don't always need pressure from outside actors or from the United States to pursue these sort of austerity efforts, right? I mean, this is also a long-held interest and belief of the elites in these countries, right? They want to see this happen as well.

And so sort of dismantling some of the social programs in Colombia, for example, has been a big part of the Abelardo de Espria campaign in Colombia, which is backed by the United States. You're going to see that, you know, as well in a number of other countries where you see in Honduras, for example, as well. So, you know, again, it's going to be a mixed bag, but I think the realities of these economic relationships are going to run up against the rhetoric pretty quickly. One of the kind of conceits of left-wing politics is that when you create social democratic programs that deliver material benefits to people, they generate their own support and become hard to take away. What's the track record of these right-wing governments actually rolling back the clock on social supports? Well, look, I mean, I think a lot of this is sort of playing out as we speak, right? I mean, certainly Argentina has done, you know, significant reforms to sort of roll back state involvement in the economies, labor protections, things like that. Speaking of Peru, you know, again, I mean, Kiko is just recently inaugurated this week and has already sort of proposed to, you know, emergency decrees that would greatly reduce, you know, or increase the ability. for employees to be fired and things like this. So, you know, I think the reality is that, you know, you can, they can do quite a bit, right? And we've already seen that happen and these rollbacks happening. And I think this is also a key part where the force comes into play, right? I mean, look at Ecuador, for example, where they've significantly deepened the security relationship between Ecuador and the United States. You know, this is framed in terms of this sort of fight against narco terrorism. I think the reality is that this is about politics and power. And when these right-wing governments can sort of integrate there and sort of have this deep cooperation with U.S. security, it gives them some sort of domestic protection, right, against the sort of pushback that they might get from. from these sorts of things. And so we're, you know, seeing, for example, you know, states of emergency, suspending rights, right, getting the military more involved in domestic policing issues and things like this, which are all going to feed into, you know, an ability to, to sort of repress any potential things. We've seen this already happened in Bolivia, for example, where there were months of roadblocks and protests and the Bolivian government newly sort of allied with the United States and with the strong backing of the U.S. sort of. crack down and send it in the military to respond to that. So, you know, again, I mean, that that cover from the United States, that political support from the United States and that security support from the United States is, you know, I would sort of argue is far more about ensuring those sorts of reforms and the ability to maintain power through them than, you know, a real genuine effort to combat narco-terrorism or anything of the sort. What U.S. interests are making money off the neoliberal reforms you're describing? Yeah, again, I mean, I think this is going to be different in every situation, right? I mean, obviously, when you're looking at Venezuela and the U.S.,

you know, sort of intervention there, right? It's obviously heavily dominated by oil, right? And these oil companies, both majors and minors that are connected. But it's different. You know, you have former Trump, you know, from the first Trump administration officials, you have. private investment funds right that are operating in in many of these countries where we've seen right wing shifts and you got a whole sort of cottage industry of lobbyists and influence makers who are now stepping into this to try and sort of uh you know connect right wing leaders to to washington and and benefiting from it in that way uh so again i think you're sort of seeing this sort of ecosystem develop and i think it's worth pointing out right this is not really new um you know you sort of started with sort of bring back to Fujimorismo in Peru. And I think that's sort of similar what we've seen in the hemisphere, right? This is a return, now maybe a deepening from that return, but that a lot of these connections and influences and the people who are benefiting from this benefited from US policy and hemisphere 20, 30 years ago, right? And have sort of been on the outside of that and now have their opportunity to sort of dig their claws in once again. The two big holdouts that have kept elected left-wing governments in place, center-left governments in place, are the two biggest economies in Latin America, the two most populous countries in Latin America, Mexico and Brazil. What is different there? Why have they held out against the right wave? Yeah, it's a good question. And I think it probably stems from a number of things. I mean, one is, I think. Both those countries are large enough to resist certain forms of U.S. pressure. Right. And to actually be able to pursue some independence there? And I think that that makes a difference. I also think you have to look at the track records of these governments and that have actually done, you know, a pretty decent job in terms of lower in poverty, increasing wages, you know, and doing those things and maintaining, you know, at least reasonable economic growth. And that obviously has played a big role. It remains to be seen. I mean, I think especially in Brazil, we've already seen the United States, you know, sort of laying this groundwork for intervening in the upcoming election. I think we're likely to see as much more of that as it gets closer. You know, and we'll see how these countries are able to resist that. You know, obviously in Mexico's case, you know the united states relies on mexico with there's a huge border there there's a lot of interests and and so there are you know there's perhaps less ability to to totally press right or totally use your leverage because these countries also have some leverage in in that relationship more so than than some others for example right honduras you know bolivia ecuador where we've seen the sort of the u.s ability to really really carry a heavy stick

In the case of Mexico, like hydrocarbon independence, Mexico has big oil holdings. So couldn't be pressured by. Yeah, and Brazil as well. So couldn't as easily be pressured through trade policy as some smaller countries. Yeah, though, of course, with Mexico, it is more challenging given the integration of the economies. But certainly that's been the case with Brazil. And so, yes, the U.S. has, Brazil is one of the most tariff countries in the world by the United States behind China, I think maybe second or third with Turkey. In either way, though, Brazil has deep trade relations with China, which is their largest trade partner. And trade with China is... rapidly increasing, even as trade with the United States is decreasing. And so their ability to sort of withstand that pressure is going to be different than a number of other countries in the region. Are there any signs of the demonstration effect of the U.S. abduction of Nicolas Maduro in Venezuela impacting politics in other countries? Are there heads of state kind of visibly looking over their shoulders worrying about special ops forces coming in to change who's in charge? Well, I think there's no doubt. Right. I mean, you've seen Brazil state this openly, you know, saying we need to start investing more in our defense, right? That if this is the world we're living in, then we need to be prepared to exist in it, right? And protect ourselves in it. But I think countries throughout the region, and I'd say that that includes countries that are even allied with the Trump administration. You know, they're not blind to this dynamic. They know that U.S. you know, relationships can turn on a dime, right? And so I think it's a concern, even for countries that are currently allied with the Trump administration, yeah, you're going to be looking over your shoulder. That is going to be the new reality in the hemisphere. Let's speak we saw a new report by the State Department, purportedly the brainchild of Marco Rubio, basically blaming Cuba for being the sponsor of all left-wing activity in the hemisphere and of fifth column activities by leftists in the United States, which was frankly astonishing seeing the level of... desperation and emiseration in Cuba under U.S. sanctions right now. But there was a time when, symbolically at least, Cuba and the Cuban Revolution were kind of a north star for left-wing movements across Latin America. To what extent does that hold up today?

Yeah, it was the first thing I'd say on the report. I mean, I think one of the things that shows is sort of this relationship between foreign and domestic policy, right, and that these are not sort of distinct tracks, but they're very much interrelated, certainly with this administration and using its foreign policy to advance its domestic agenda, eroding the rule of law, right? You see these extra-ditional executions. and sort of normalizing this and then sort of transferring it back home right this fits a long pattern of u.s imperialism and i think we're seeing it play out this report being good evidence in terms of cuba's role in the region i think you know certainly it's been different i mean for one reason because the costs have been raised right and you certainly saw sort of mexico and the shine bomb administration try and navigate this with their oil deliveries to Cuba and sort of trying to avoid U.S. tariffs while at the same time continuing to sort of stand in solidarity and support Cuba. But as the U.S. increases the cost of that stance, you've certainly seen the region. shift some. I think still in the Caribbean, you've seen Caracom push back on some things like this, and there's so many sort of deep connections, people who've studied in Cuba and are now prime ministers of country X or Y, right? So there are these relationships and the sort of deep ties that still exist, but because I think the cost has become so much greater, you know, you're perhaps seeing less of that, at least sort of overtly. But like Cuba's principal export to a lot of its neighbors is, Doctors. No one's offering to replace Cuban doctors with doctors of another nationality in poor countries. Yeah, of course. I mean, this is a policy from the Trump administration pursued, you know, obviously primarily by Marco Rubio to sort of. suffocate the island to prevent any sort of form of foreign exchange from getting to the island. And, you know, again, you've seen these countries that have relied upon this, where forming a really important service, predominantly in rural and impoverished areas, that are going to have huge gaps in their health systems. And yet, still, many have sort of agreed to end this cooperation out of fear of greater repercussions from the United States. But that's not... You know, that's not the totality. There are still other countries that have maintained that relationship. But you saw just recently the United States impose additional sanctions related to the sort of medical internationalism of Cuba. And so, you know, we'll see our country is going to be able to resist that. Which country, you know, is it the absence of those doctors that will cause more problems or the imposition of more draconian penalties from the United States? And these are the sort of... you know, balancing acts that these governments are going to have to face. So at the very beginning of our interview, you described the right-wing wave in Latin America as partly just a pendulum effect, a backlash against incumbents. And for much of Latin America, that was incumbent left-wing governments after the so-called pink waves earlier in the century. My question is with the repressive measures that you outlined.

How much organizational infrastructure is left for left-wing parties and left-wing organizations when the pendulum is ready to swing back the other way? Well, I think that's precisely the fight we're seeing, right? I mean, I think that that explains. Like, there is a, you know, we've seen this shift, and I think there's obviously an interest in being able to consolidate it. And that's the fight that we will see play out in the coming years, right? As to what extent these new right-wing movements and repressive apparatus can actually sort of, you know, erode that power. But I think, you know, it is largely a losing game, right? I mean, you sort of... We've seen how this has played out in the past. Now, Latin America has gone through many a dark period, right? And so we've seen that repression, the dictatorships, the military back dictatorships from the United States. How far was this going to go before that pendulum swings, right? And I think some of it depends upon local factors and some of it depends on the political factors here in the United States, right? I mean, what is the successor to Trump? How does this go on in the future? I think there's a bit of buying time right now. Is this all going to change? And, you know, after the midterms, after the next presidential elections, or is this going to be deepened? But I think that is precisely the fight and that is going to be playing out. All right. Jake Mike Johnston, we'll leave it there. Thank you so much. Thanks for having me. Jake Mike Johnston is Director of International Research at the Center for Economic and Policy Research, where he focuses predominantly on economic policy in Latin America, the International Monetary Fund, and U.S. foreign policy. Before we let you go, just for a second time, an enormous thank you to everyone who gave early and generously and helped us end our summer fund drive early. We were very committed to the early part. So we ended a little over $5,000 short of our goal, which is not enormous, but is still a shortfall and one that we still have a chance to wipe off our books with trailing donations. So if you didn't give a chance to give or you are just as elated as we are that KPFA has sliced almost three days off its normal summer fundraising duration, chip in at kpFA.org. We'll have our thank you guests from the Fund Drive available for a few more days. It is $5,445 left to go to be exactly on target for that Fund Drive.

KPFA.org. All right, that does it for Upfront this morning. We are weekdays at 7 a.m. We post information about our topics and guests at KPFA.org, where you can also dig through archives of our past programs. If you'd like to give us feedback on something you heard or suggest something for us to cover or someone to interview, send an email to Upfront at KPFA.org. To get in a question for Monday's Corona Calls with Dr. Swartzberg, send that email to Corona Calls at KPFA.org. A big thanks to our producer, Kimya Akbari. Our engineer, Kirsten Thomas. My name is Brian Edwards-Tieker. Thanks as well to Max Pringle for the news headlines. Stay up and stay tuned. Law and Disorder with Kat Brooks is coming your way in two minutes at 8. Thanks for helping us keep this fund draft short and get KPFA back to regular programming. If you didn't get a chance to donate, there's still time. Our Fund Drive thank you gifts will remain available through Sunday, August 9th. Support Independent, Listener-powered radio at KBFA.org.

The stakes are high as the U.S. speeds toward midterm elections. KPFA brings you the latest on election suppression. Insurgent and pro-Palestine candidates challenging the democratic establishment. Ballot measures to tax billionaires, regulate dark money, and more. Join KPFA's Election Watch program, The Stakes, airing every Thursday at 10 a.m. and online anytime at kpFA.org and wherever you get your podcasts. On the next Bioners. And what happens when a conversation about affordability is just about reducing prices and not about raising wages? We are not recognizing the value of people. Labor organizer Saroo J. Aramaan's clarion call to action. Addressing inequality worse than the infamous Gilded Age requires ensuring living wages for all. On the Bioners, here on KPFA 94.1 FM, next Monday at 2.30 p.m. KPFA paid staff is associated with the communications workers of America CWA Local 9415. This is 94.1 KPFA and 89.3, KPFB in Berkeley, 88.1, KFCF in Fresno, and online everywhere at kpFA.org.