Why Trump’s latest move in Iran could backfire, again

This week on two blocks from the White House. The Canada-U.S.-Mexico Agreement on Trade officially comes up for review on Canada Day. So we're asking, what happens after that July 1st deadline? Join me, Willie Lowry, and my fellow Washington correspondence, Paul Hunter and Peter Armstrong as we break down U.S. politics from a Canadian perspective. Find and follow two blocks from the White House wherever you get your podcasts. And watch us on YouTube. New episodes drop every Wednesday.

This is a CBC podcast. Hello, I'm Neil Kerksal. Good evening. I'm Chris Howden. This is as it happens.

Tonight. Chip off the old blockade. A former U.S. diplomat tells us Donald Trump is making yet another catastrophic miscalculation by blocking access to Iran's ports and that it could be just as destructive for the global economy as anything. Rondas. Spillover effects. A decade ago, a devastating oil spill wreaked havoc along the BC coast. The Helsuk nation says the damage was not limited to the environment, and it's taking that argument to the U.N. Wins of change. After 16 years, Viktor Orban's time leading Hungary is over. Michael Ignatyev tells us Viktor Orban's loss is a win for Hungarians, Europeans, and liberal democracy worldwide. The Apes of Wrath. Scientists find a once tightly connected group of chimpanzees

in Uganda now locked in lethal conflict. A researcher tells us what we can learn from their ugly war. And spoiler alert, it's not all bad. The voice of several generations will remember the Bollywood legend, Asha Bosley, with the leader of a band that paid tribute to her in a 90s hit. And back check. Montreal Canadiens defenseman David Reinebacker faces a classic rookie ritual, getting the local press corps to pronounce his name in both official languages.

As it happens, the Monday edition, radio that's not sure if that should have been back check, bach check or bach check.

The ceasefire between Iran and the U.S. The deal was conditional on Iran reopening the Strait of Hormuz, but so far only a few ships of, trickled through. Peace talks between the two countries have also ended in failure, although Donald Trump continues to claim that Iran, quote, wants to make a deal very badly, unquote. And today the U.S. began a total naval blockade of ports on the strait. It's an effort to starve Iran of much-needed oil revenue, but at the same time, it's extending the crisis, which has already led to a huge jump in global oil prices. David Satterfield is a former U.S. Special Envoy

for Middle East humanitarian issues. He's currently the director of Rice, U.S. University's Baker Institute for Public Policy. We reached him in Houston, Texas. David Satterfield, what in your view is the likelihood that this action by the Trump administration is actually going to lead to some sort of capitulation from Iran? I think, and this is both my analysis, it is also the consensus analysis, is that it will not produce the concessions, the agreements solicited from the Iranian. whether on nuclear enrichment program or on other critical issues. And the reason why is that Iran sees itself as the victor after this five-week campaign.

All they need to do is to survive, which they have done, and to be able to continue to inflict pain through the drones and the missiles, which they can do, to be successful. The Iranians think they have the upper hand here. So no, I think the chances are diminishing that this will produce what is sought. So what do you think is at the heart of what Donald Trump and his administration are saying and doing at this moment? Is this, we've certainly heard in many conversations on the show since this all began, that these are major miscalculations that the Trump administration is making when they're dealing with Iran and trying to get Iran to capitulate. Why do you think they're doing this? I think they have made major misjudgments, I believe the government of Israel, made significant misjudgments about the resilience, not just of the Iranian regime, which was and remains extraordinarily strong, but also Iran's capacity, drones, missiles, to be able to withstand what has been an extraordinary campaign and a successful one in terms of diminishment of these resources.

but to retain enough capacity to be able to continue, to be able to close that straight, and to inflict pain on the Gulf neighbors as well as on Israel itself. Misjudgments. Is this at this stage, I mean, I don't think anyone thought that after one day of ceasefire talks, that everything was going to be sewn up and solved and everyone's happy. Is this just a tactic? Is this all for show? but even if it is for show, it's such a dangerous moment. I don't think it's for show.

I think there is a genuine belief that by denying Iran the revenues that come from hydrocarbon exports through the Gulf or the receipt of goods coming in from outside, that they can sway the regime. But I think the Iranian agency here is great enough and their patience long enough that they will not yield. So the real question is, if that's the case, if the analysis is right that this won't move them, what next? And what do you see as coming next? How long can this continue? Well, it can certainly continue in terms of the physical ability to maintain this kind of embargo for a considerable period of time.

But the real question that has to be raised is, what will the Iranian response be over time? That is, at what point will Iran seek not just to passively absorb the embargo, the blockage, but to take actions which increase the price of maintaining the embargo, and of course the most likely targets there are the Gulf states and their infrastructures themselves. But I think for the near term, unless we are very surprised, Iran will adopt an approach of it doesn't matter. What will this mean for ceasefire talks? We know Iranian officials have said a blockade of this type would in their view constitute violation of the ceasefire. Where do you think things dead?

The whole purpose of the blockade is to try to induce Iran through pressure, denial of those exports and imports, to come back to the talks in a more forthcoming position. This is a tactic designed to elicit a specific response from Iran to come back to negotiations. But your question about the ceasefire, where does that go? That's a very good and a quite open question. Iran was not going to, you know, in that first day of ceasefire talks, give the U.S. what it wants in terms of its nuclear program, which is to give up everything. What do you think, how do you think it will end ultimately? What will they give up, if anything?

Let's be clear here about what we don't know. and the we is a big collective we. We don't know what the details were of what the United States proposed with respect to the nuclear enrichment program. There are many nuances for an enrichment program, a domestic civil nuclear program, which I think would be quite viable to present in a negotiation. Was that what, in fact, the U.S. asked for, or was it something else? was the sticking point the delivery out of Iran under IAEA auspices of the highly enriched uranium stock? I think that's an absolutely essential part of any agreement. Did the Iranians say no? We don't know the answers here.

I don't know if you've ever, if you ever imagine yourself trying to advise this president and this administration. But if you were doing that, what would you tell him? To understand, first of all, that no one, No one is arguing the case that this regime in Iran is not as threatening, challenging a regime, perhaps, as can be found anywhere. That they have murdered their own people. They have murdered Americans. They have killed Israelis. They have killed Jews.

It is a horrific terrorist regime. Fine. We all understand that. And it should pass into history as rapidly as possible. But this is a regime that possesses enormous agency, enormous security resources. It has not been changed in any positive direction through leadership decapitation. That was unrealistic from the beginning. You have got to deal with it on that basis.

Choose what your priorities are. Is it the enrichment program? What do you mean by that? Is it turning over the highly enriched stock? Focus on that. is it the missile program, security of the Gulf, security of Israel. You need to know what your strategic objectives are first. Then you have to settle in for what are complex, detailed, long negotiations. The Iranians are pros at doing all of this. You cannot do it with a team of a

couple of people who are in and out. It just doesn't work. It never did. David Satterfield, I appreciate your time. Thank you. Thank you. David Satterfield is the director of Rice University's Baker Institute for Public Policy and a former U.S. Special Envoy for Middle East humanitarian issues. We reached him in Houston, Texas.

He's one of Europe's longest standing strongman and a personal favorite of Donald Trump. But yesterday, Viktor Orban's 16-year reign as Prime Minister of Hungary came to an end. During his time in power, Mr. Viktor Orban transformed the country, stripping away democratic checks and balances and taking control of institutions to establish what he openly referred to as a, quote, illiberal democracy. Internationally, he pulled the small Eastern European country away from Europe and toward Vladimir Putin's Russia and became a role model for other far-right politicians. But yesterday, he conceded the Hungarian elections to opposition.

leader and former Viktor Orban loyalist Peter Péter Magyar, who has promised to rebuild ties with the EU. Michael Ignatyev is a former leader of Canada's Liberal Party. He's also a professor at the Central European University. He was the rector there when Viktor Orban's government expelled the university from Budapest, forcing it to move its headquarters to Vienna. We reached Mr. Ignatyev today in Balaton-Furid, Hungary. Michael Ignatyev, given what you and your colleagues experienced during Viktor Orban's time, in office. Is today cause for celebration? Oh, no question. We felt bitter and bruised by being

expelled from a country where we had been. We were proud to think we were the best university in the place and to be thrown out and sent to Vienna was tough. So it's a great morning. My wife is Hungarian and we did a bit of drinking last night when the result became clear. You returned to Hungary just last week, as I understand it. What struck you upon your return? Well, we went to a Péter Magyar rally in our little town, which is kind of where my wife was born, and it's kind of 10,000 people, and the forecourt of the railway station was completely packed. The mood was electric.

The crowd was young. I had a strong sense of momentum, but there was at that point, this is three, four days before the election, a lot of tension. The country is very, very divided. It was a very bitter campaign with the Viktor Orban team throwing a lot of kind of fantastic allegations out that, you know, if Magyar won, he would lure the Hungarian people into war in Ukraine. Nobody could figure out what that could possibly mean, but the scare tactic was out there. And so we had a feeling that Maiger had the momentum, but I think no one anticipated a victory of this size right across the country. You brought up Ukraine. He has said just today that everyone knows Ukraine is the victim in the war with Russia and that he hopes Vladimir Putin will be forced to end it.

and our listeners heard a little bit about that last week. Is he really going to be that different? Well, his campaigning was different. He spent two years kind of showing up in small villages and small towns on the back of a truck and talking first to 10 people, then to 20, then 40, then last Thursday it was 500. So he's built a movement from the bottom up and he's made some promises that I think he's really going to be forced to hold to. He's promised, for example, to run only two terms and then quit. You know, he's promising a relief from permanent rule. He's made some promises about restoring the independence of the judiciary, making the media free,

and crucially for us, leaving universities alone. I think it's going to be pretty easy for his electorate to hold him to those promises. It is true that he's a center-right politician. He's not a liberal. He's very clear that he's a conservative, but he's a constitutional conservative with a sense that Viktor Orban took the Hungarian political system almost out of constitutional decency. And he wants to restore the country back to kind of right conservative constitutional decency. And I don't think that's too hard to do. and I trust him to do that.

In the publication prospect, you said that Viktor Orban is, quote, a chameleon opportunist, unquote. Can that label apply to Majer as well? I think he's an opportunist, yes. I don't think he's a chameleon. I think he's a conservative politician formed within the Fides movement,

but I saw enough of these campaigns of his campaigning over the last two years to be impressed by his steadiness, impressed by his unwillingness to say anything to anybody to get a vote. He stuck to a few simple lines. And I ended up, though he's not in my political family, he's not my kind of guy,

I ended up being kind of impressed by him. And just finally, you mentioned Canadian politics or earlier in our conversation. As you well know, Prime Minister Mark Carney is very close to a majority government now, those five floor crossings, a big part of that. His critics say that this is undemocratic, as you know. We've spoken to some of those floor crossers as well. What's your take on what's unfolding here?

I think what's unfolding is a national emergency, basically. I don't think people floor cross unless they think the times require. unusual political behavior. I understand the discomfort about floor crossing, but the context is all here. We're looking at the immediate prospect very quickly of a completely new economic regime of the United States if our existing free trade arrangements collapse.

And I think in that sense of not panic, but deep existential concern, politics as usual changes. And I'm not surprised that there are people drawn to Carney's kind of center-right politics. I think they feel at home with Carney, and Carney feels at home with them. And so it's a new day in Canadian politics as a result with what I think will happen, which will be a majority government that will give the country stable government

for, you know, four years. And that is, I think, what the country actually wants at the moment. Michael Ignatyev, a pleasure having you on the show. Thank you. Pleasure. Michael Ignatyev is a former Liberal Party leader who's now a professor at the Central European University.

He was in Ballot-Furid, Hungary. This is the unmistakable voice of the legendary Indian singer Asha Bosley, who died yesterday at the age of 92. Thousands of people gathered in Mumbai today to pay tribute at the state funeral of the Queen of Playback singers. Asha Bosley provided the recorded singing voice. lip-sinking movie stars in countless Bollywood films and holds the Guinness record for the most songs recorded by a single artist. Working with her husband, composer R. D. Berman, she pushed the envelope of Indian pop music, incorporating jazz, funk, rock, and psychedelia into the mix. Even late in life, she collaborated with the likes of Nellie Furtado, Michael Stipe, and Gorillas.

But some first heard Asha Bozley's name from the Britpop era rock band Corner Shop, whose 1997 hit Brimful of Asha was a love letter to the Bollywood star. remember the moment or the time that Asha Bosley's music first entered your life or you became aware of her? Well, because I'm so old, I don't think that was a very defined time. It would have been whilst listening to records or cassettes. It was a very special voice and it really brought an astonishment of heart. whether that was something that was upbeat and sunshiny and flowery or whether it was something rather dark, whether it was to do with death or loss in some way. She was able to convey many

different emotions very deeply and obviously she worked in different languages and different dialects. I'm not totally into classical musicianship, but I think in her case, she absolutely used the classical training to be able to work in so many different areas, different genres, and different decades. And how do you think that versatility, that reach, ended up coming in and influencing the kind of music you would end up making? Well, I think the variety of that music certainly had an impact because I think Hindi music, Hindi films looked upon America in particular for ideas. There was a phase when every film coming out of India basically had an Elvis character. But there were so many genres that were sort of stolen. Everyone

steals from everyone else. But those genres are sort of stolen and pastished. whether it's the hippie or the female 60s singer. So that variety has always influenced us because we've always liked a record collection. That started to have a journey into just everything and anything. So it does have a reflection in terms of what she did because she did everything and anything as well. She once told an interviewer that she was recognised by a bank time, her in Scotland, if I'm not mistaken, because they recognized her name from your song. Did you ever meet her? Did you speak to her to find out what this song ended up meaning to her?

I didn't. I know that she found it very fondly. There's stories of her being able to get through customs a lot easier in those days. And I think it also was a means of setting her up for the social media age because people wanted pictures of her when they realized who she was. But I was offered to go and see her when she played at Wembley in London, but I elected not to go. Yes. Why? Well, I'd met Lou Reed and that was a mistake. And I just thought I'd better leave it at that.

Oh, no. Do you ever regret not going? No, not really. No.

No, I think, you know, my relationship with her is through the music, and that's good enough for me. You wrote on social media after her death was announced, The World and All India grieved today. We don't know whether a candle has gone out or has been lit. Such was the stature of Asha Bolse. What do you want new generations, you know, as they hear some of your song and some of her music, What do you want them to take away from what she accomplished? Well, we've heard that there are a lot of people that have happened upon her because of the songs, which is very nice.

It's a wonderful thing. I think she had a great feeling to what she sang. She gave it a lot of heart. People can feel that. There is a huge catalogue. I know 12,000 songs, if I read correctly. If you could leave our listeners with one, Is there a song you'd like us to play?

Well, I would say Osatirae, which was very much part of a soundtrack for us in the 90s. And it means, oh, soul mate. And quite fitting, one of the lines is that living life without you has no value. And so it's an excellent song. And I think it's a great example of when people hear songs like that, that they're immediately turned on. To Jinder, I'm so glad we could speak. Thank you for this.

Thank you. Thank you for having me. We're going to take a short break now when we return leaders of a BC First Nationer in the UK to lobby international maritime officials. The chief tells us they're there to change how communities are compensated in the aftermath of oil spills. So the depth of cultural losses sustained are taken into account. And let the chimps fall where they may. A once friendly group of chimpanzees in Uganda is now locked in a lethal civil war. Our guest says that has been hard to watch, but it's fascinating too.

Stay tuned. I'm Chris Howden. And I'm Neil Kerkzal. This week on two blocks from the White House. The Canada-U-S-Mexico Agreement on Trade officially comes up for review on Canada Day. So we're asking what happens after that July 1st deadline. Join me, Willie Lowry, and my fellow Washington correspondence, Paul Hunter and Peter Armstrong as we break down U.S. politics from a Canadian perspective. Find and follow two blocks from the White House wherever you get your podcasts. And watch us on YouTube. New episodes drop every Wednesday.

It's almost been 10 years now since the Nathan E. Stewart sank on Helsuk territory in northern British Columbia. And the effects of that disaster are still being felt today. The resulting oil spill released 110,000 liters of diesel fuel, heavy oils, and other toxic pollutants onto the seafloor, disrupting the livelihoods of hundreds of people on Helsuk lands. Marilyn Sled is the chief counselor of the Helsuk Tribal Council. And she says that spill also caused major cultural losses that have never been accounted for. That's why she and other delegates are in London, England today, lobbying the UN's International Maritime Organization to change how communities are compensated in the wake of shipping. shipping disasters. We reached Chief Slat in London, England.

Chiefslet, does it feel like nearly a decade since the sinking of the Stewart? No, it doesn't. We've been so busy since the spill back in October 2016, and it's, it doesn't feel like it, but, you know, certainly the energy put to it and the fight for justice, you know, is something that, you know, we'll continue to do until it's resolved. As you have these conversations in the UK, you're talking to folks about the, quote, cultural losses that your community has been dealing with since the sinking of that ship. How are you describing what those cultural losses are? Well, cultural losses for Helsic.

Our culture comes alive on our lands and waters. And each generation of our young people learn about what it means to live healthic values and to apply healthic law through harvesting with our elders. So we talk about knowledge transmission. We talk about sustenance for food. We talk about having a healthy ocean that, you know, a large percentage of our population rely on that ocean for food to carry them through the, you know, throughout the year. And, you know, some people harvest 60% of their food comes from the ocean.

It certainly impacted our culture, our economy, our spiritual, you know, way of life. Gale Pass is an ancient village site of the Helsic Nation, very important to us. It's where families would go in camp and prepare for ceremony. here in the community. It's where people would go and isolate before ceremony in the big house. It was one of our most productive clam harvesting clam beds in our territory. And we have been able to harvest their sins. And that was a very important winter economy for our people.

How are people managing to cope? How have they for all of these years, given how significant what we're talking about? about it. It was a very traumatic experience for our community. It kind of raised that today as we were showing a film here at the International Maritime Organization because we thought it was important for people to see Helsic territory and see the land and see the water, see the impacts. And part of that film had an elder doing a washing ceremony, a healing ceremony. And when we, she phoned me the day of this bill and she said it was like a person had died. We're a community in mourning for a passing, you know, and she likened it to a relative.

The effects are clearly so powerful, devastating even as you describe that. But they could be, I would imagine, abstract to try to tell a body like the IMO about, you know, what that impact has meant. How can they determine actual value for these consequences? kinds of losses and then potentially enforce compensation. Yeah, that's really important and that's, you know, why we're here. The IMO has a major role in how shipping regimes operate globally and certainly in Canada. And without having indigenous people at the table and having input into what this policy

and regime looks like, it will never be addressed. So that's why we're here to raise that awareness, to bringing it to, and then this committee is the legal committee for the IMO. We have meetings set up with member countries. And you've been to the organization's legal committee meetings in the past, 2024, I believe you were there. What's your sense at this early stage of these meetings, of this trip, that it's different than the past?

Definitely, you know, raising that awareness. People came out. We hosted some side events and they were very receptive. A lot of the, you know, countries there talking about the losses and understanding that it has to be broader than just economy, that it has to also support the communities that live, you know, adjacent to water and, you know, have a lot of. livelihood connected to the ocean. Do you feel that you're being heard, that there's improvement each time you meet with officials in this capacity? What would it take to feel like this has moved things forward for you? Well, certainly changes to the shipping regime where they do recognize cultural losses would be, you know, the clear signal that, you know, they hurt us. We do understand that it is going to be a process.

and we are going to have to continue to advocate and come here and make sure that our voices are being heard. Canada is also a member of this committee, so we are going to be meeting with the members of the committee this week as well, and asking them, you know, they need to support indigenous communities. They need to be supporting us and standing with us when we're making these declarations and interventions at the IMO level. Chief Slet, I appreciate this. Thank you. Giacsica, thank you very much. Marilyn Slet is the chief counselor of the Heltzuk Tribal Council. We reached her in London.

For decades, the wild chimpanzees that primatologist John Mitani studied in Uganda, lived and collaborated together harmoniously. And then in 2015, he spotted something ominous, and not long thereafter, the group started coming apart. Now Mr. Mitani and his colleagues have published a study in the journal Science in which they describe a decade-long, ongoing civil war between two groups of chimps. We reached John Mitani in Phoenix, Arizona. John, 11 years ago, what was it that you saw that you and your colleagues realized

that something was not right? Well, we saw the first real sign of the group that we had been studying for 20 years, splitting. This actually occurred in June of 2015 when members of the two sides started to fight quite violently instead of coming together peacefully as they had before. And what did that fighting look and sound like? Well, chimps from one side started to chase those from the other side. members of both started to scream and shout. They gave calls that they only give during intergroup encounters.

So that was quite shocking. The collaboration, the living together that you saw before, can you just describe what that was like before that day in 2015? Well, during the first 20 years of the study, these chimps lived together quite happily together, peaceably. They actually thrived as members of a single large group. They were able to dominate their neighbors. They actually collaborated to kill many of their neighbors by doing so. They were able to take over areas previously inhabited by those neighbors. They obtained more food.

And as a result of this, they started to reproduce much more frequently than before. Some of the early coverage of your work suggests that the population size of this group of chimpanzees may be a factor in all of this. I think that's true. And in reality, we don't have a definitive answer for why the group split. I think it's a combination of factors. And first and foremost, I do think that the group simply became too large. It grew to an unusually large size with over 200 individuals. This is, four times larger than most other chimpanzee groups. And because of this, within group feeding competition and reproductive competition intensified, and I think those are two key factors that likely contributed to the split. The violence has been deadly. It's also been one group attacking the other, the Western group of chimps attacking the central group.

What kind of impact has all of this had? Well, after they split, what was surprising, is that individuals from one of the sides started to kill members from the other side. And what's surprising about that to me is that, you know, how does yesterday's friend become today's foe? And why did they turn on each other like this? That's something we don't do. So that's been hard to come to, that's been hard to come to grips with for me. I think people might hear that and think about what's happening in the world

and think we're not that different at all. Well, actually, I think that one of the lessons that we can learn from all this is that we aren't chimps. You know, we've known for a very long time that chimps will kill and attack their neighbors. The surprising finding here is that chimps will do this even when those neighbors are former friends and allies. And I don't think humans behave this way all the time. In fact, one stark difference that exists between them and us is, that we're an unusually pro-social and cooperative species. We go out of the way to help and aid our neighbors. Sometimes those neighbors are complete strangers. And this ability to get along with others, I think,

is unusual, if not unique. So while aggression and wars break out among humans from time to time, for the most part, we were able to live peacefully side by side with others. And now we're living in the world with over 8 billion people. So at the end of the day, I think, you know, know there's a hopeful message in all this. It's good to remember that. So much of the science, you know, we have lots of conversations on the show about chimps in particular. And it's always fascinating. It's always quite positive.

So this will be upsetting for a lot of people, just as it was, as you and your colleagues observed it. There was an observation in the 70s by Jane Goodall. How does this compare to what happened then? Well, in many ways, it is quite similar there. The story is Jane was observing a single group of chants. It's split into two. And after that, members of one community started to kill members of the other community. The difference there was that the victims, the group within which the victims resided, that group dissolved quite quickly. Here we have two groups that started. still exist. There was concern at that time and some criticism, you know, people were speculating whether her presence might have had something to do to precipitate that fighting. Where do things stand now? Well, part of that criticism laying the fact that Jane was feeding her chimps at the time, provisioning them. And we've learned since then not to do this. This is no criticism

of her. We simply just didn't know how to go about studying chimpanzee. and she started to feed them as a means to facilitate observations. We've learned a lesson from that, however, not to do this. And we've always maintained a strict policy of non-intervention with our chimps. So you're not worried that the research you and your colleagues were doing, your presence could have somehow contributed to what is unfolding now? I really don't think one of the surprising things, if you were to come to visit and see the chimps,

I think you'll be amazed at how little they pay attention to us. we just seem to blend into their worlds. And truth being known, it's always been clear to me that they're still a lot more scared of us than we are of them. So 28 deaths among these apes, 19 of them infants. How does this end, do you think? Well, I take no joy in reporting this story. And, you know, these are chimps that I've studied for over 30 years. I know many of them quite intimately.

I love, I love some of them, not all of them. They don't like me either universally. So it's really been hard to watch. And that's a question for the future. We don't know. John, thank you for this. Thank you. John Mitani is a primate behavioral ecologist and professor emeritus at the University of Michigan.

We reached him in Phoenix, Arizona. Neil and I really try our best to pronounce people's names correctly. Names are important, so we like to get as close as possible to how our guests say their names no matter the language of origin or the number of syllables. So I can sympathize with the journalist who just want to know how to pronounce the name of the Montreal Canadian's newest call-up, a 21-year-old man with an Austrian last name spelled R-E-I-N-B-A-C-H-E-R. If he has anglicized it fully, could be David Reinbacker. If not, it could be Reinbacher or Reinhacher.

But it seems that journalists might actually care more than David does. What would be the correct question? I don't know, actually, Reinbacher, probably? Probably? You should know more than... If you say Reinebacher is going to be Rheinbecker until the end of your career. Are you comfortable with it?

Yeah, I'm comfortable with it. All right. Is it Bacher? Sorry? It's not Rheinbacher? Yeah, it is, but I don't know if you can pronounce it in German that well. So what do you prefer?

So it's Rhein Bacher. Yeah, you can, but not so. What do you prefer? It's up to you. You can decide. If you introduce yourself at home to someone and say, I'm David, what do you say? I'm David.

Your last name, how do you say? Reinbacher. That's too hard. That was our only question. David Reinhacher, or Reinebacher, in his first post-game locker room scrum.

The general feeling about the general election in Peru was already equal parts anticipation and apprehension. Peru has had eight presidents in the past 10 years. Not a single one of them has served a full term. Corruption scandals, impeachments, and resignations have made for a decade of deep political instability. So many Peruvians were hoping against hope that this latest, trip to the polls might lead to a positive and more enduring changing of the guard. But tens of thousands of people who showed up to vote in the Capitol yesterday weren't able to because of technical and logistical failures at polling stations.

So the election has dragged into today, and its outcome remains far from certain. Omar Awapara works with Transparencia Peru, a non-partisan nonprofit group that advocates for transparent elections. We reached him in Lima, Peru earlier today. Omar, what kinds of malfunctions and irregularities are voters dealing with? It was mostly logistical issues. It was about the delivery of electoral material to very specific locations in Lima, mostly. In several places, polls were not able to open in time.

They were supposed to be opening at 7 a.m. And we started to get reports of large queues, large lines. in polling stations. Eventually in these places, in some of these places, material started to arrive at around 9, 10, 11 a.m. But unfortunately, in some places it didn't. So we know that in three districts in Lima, 15 public schools where we usually have these polling stations where material never arrived and the people there were not allowed to vote. How is that possible? I mean, were you prepared at all for this level of disruption?

Not really. Not really. We work closely with electoral authorities and with the institutions in charge of these. We know they are being doing this very well for the last 20 years, at least, 25 years. We have conducted elections during the COVID era, and even in those cases, things went pretty well. So we were really surprised to learn about these. Sometimes this can happen outside of Lima in places where geography represents a major challenge.

But we were not expecting it to happen in this degree, to this degree. And in Lima, where it's the capital city. Yeah. What explanation are you getting so far about how it was so chaotic, about why it was so chaotic, It's not clear. Yes, it's not clear yet. Apparently, it had to be with some specific contractor that was supposed to pick up the material from Ompé headquarters and deliver it to these schools in Lima and they just were not able to do it. We're expecting further explanations from Ompé, from the electoral authority. I hope that this is just a, something that cannot happen again, really. And your volunteers, what were they reporting back to you about how all those people,

all those voters lined up, were reacting? Yes, they were not happy. We are here in the end of the summer. It was a very hot day. People were making long lines. And there was some cases even where, I'm guessing, people just left, even if those polling stations may be opened at some point. and at the same time some expression of like a willingness to vote and chance of I want to vote.

And I think we had some expectation coming up that this was going to be a very complex election, the most complex probably in our history because of the number of candidates running and the number of elections that we had at the same time was a very large ballot that we were prepared that we thought was the main challenge. And at the same time, we were facing this unforeseen circumstance that was one of the main results, right? One of the main incidents in the election. 35 candidates on the ballot.

None of them are, you know, reaching heights of popularity. The recent leaders mired in scandal and corruption. What's your sense of how people are feeling, yes, they're frustrated and want to be able to vote. But are they sick of elections at this point frustrated by where their country is at? Yes, there's a little frustration, distrust in the system. But at the same time, one of the, and in this context of democratic decline and erosion, the electoral process always remained as a point where Peruvians can think of of changing. in the trajectory of our democracy.

So I think there was some degree of expectation. Of course, no public candidates, nobody, we can see already on preliminary results, nobody above 20% or 17%. But at the same time, some expectation that an election can represent a turning point in our democratic trajectory. So it's a mixture of feelings. Overall, the election went pretty well in the sense of turnout. We had turnouts higher than the previous years.

And however, with this reports that we got that people were at the end of the day unable to vote, right? 27 million eligible voters for this election. The issues we were talking about, about people not being able to vote, ballot issues, 50,000 people, voters affected from what we've been reading. Are things going more smoothly today? Yes, yes. There were still some delays, unfortunately, in a couple of places.

But overall, we know that this additional day that was allowed for people in those specific places to vote is going normally. It's, you know, 50,000 people. and it should put an end to a very long, long day of, well, two days of elections in Peru. And Peruvians can be prepared for, we already know we're going for a runoff, right, for a second round. You mentioned elections, of course, can be a turning point for a country. Do you personally feel that this is going to be that, a turning point? Well, right now we don't know. We just released a quick count that we prepared ourselves, that we have,

recover from all our election observers last night. So right now it's too soon to call the runner-up, the one who's running with Keiko Foumori on the second round. So it's uncertain, but I think it's like having a new opportunity every election and a new president, whoever it is that can turn things on the right direction, right? Omar, I appreciate this. Thank you. You're welcome. Nice to talk to you. Omar Awapara

as the Secretary General of Transparencia Peru. We reached him in Lima. of peace will be installed in a Korean cultural garden in Auckland is unclear, but one thing is very clear. Japan's ambassador to New Zealand does not want it there. The bronze statue was gifted to New Zealand by a South Korean organization that honors the thousands of women forced into sexual slavery by Japan's military regime before and during the Second World War. There are copies of the same statue in cities all over the world. But in a recent submission to Auckland City Council, Ambassador Makoto Osawa said, installing that statue there could strain

diplomatic relations with New Zealand and fuel acrimony with Japan rather than reconciliation with Korea. Rebecca Jung is the chairperson of the Aoucheroa New Zealand Statue of Peace Committee, an organization of Korean New Zealanders who have been working on getting that statue for years. We reached her in Auckland. Rebecca, what does this statue look like? So the statue represents two chairs. One chair has a young girl wearing an old fashion. traditional Korean dress, an old style of Hamburg. Her feet are bare and just lifting off the ground and she has a little bird on her shoulder. The second chair is empty, which is both an invitation to the viewer and also a memory of all the people who didn't make it home.

And at the base of a statue is a mosaic with the shadow of an old woman, which represents how much time has passed since what happened and the the moment the survivors have been waiting for, which is when they finally get justice, which of course still hasn't happened yet. What do you feel, Rebecca, when you see that sculpture? For me, the statue reminds me of the amazing survivors that I've had the honor of meeting, not only their trauma, but their legacy of peace and human rights activism. And it reminds me of all the women who have done this work across the decades, but also those that we've lost as we continue this struggle for justice and dignity for them. How many women are we talking about here historically? What were they dealing with?

The records vary, but I think a often quoted number is 20,000 girls and women across the Asia-Pacific region. And this is one of the most clearly documented cases of systemic sexual slavery in modern history. What have the survivors you've met with told you about what this kind of endeavor, this way of honoring their history, means to them? The Statue of Peace was actually first unveiled at a weekly protest led by the survivors that is held outside the Japanese Embassy in Sol. career. There are many photos of survivors sitting in that empty chair holding the statue's hand, and I

think that is a relationship. It's kind of for them, like, holding hands with their past self, but also that show of solidarity, where all of us can also be that other person sitting in the empty chair. There were public

consultations about this. We'll speak about, and our listeners heard a little bit about the Japanese ambassador's response, but But broadly speaking, how are people in New Zealand, specifically Auckland, reacting to this statue? From like a personal perspective, everyone that I've spoken to in my life about it, who often hasn't known about the issue before, they're very puzzled why there's any opposition at all because it's not kind of controversial or offensive in any way. It's a very beautiful piece of art. And of course, we honour people who went through horrible things with artworks all the time.

Like there are so many memorials to world wars and soldiers, you know, through every city. And no one from the other side of those conflicts is ever like this is offensive to our community. We have the support of women's shelters, the refugee Women's Council of New Zealand, survivors of institutional sexual abuse locally as well as kind of broader peace in human rights organizations so like a broad base of local support so what did you make of the Japanese ambassador to New Zealand's statements that the government isn't denying what happened to the women but the statues such as this one represent quote a symbol of criticism against Japan all over the world unquote also the ambassador talked about that this quote is needlessly stirring up in

in this issue, unquote. What do you make of what they're saying there? This is a local proposal by a community group to have a piece of public art in a community garden, and another country's government is coming in and trying to block it. To me, into the group, it seems like this is kind of contravening local democratic processes. I don't really think that the Japanese government's view on this should play into local decision-making at all. And of course, as a group, we stand with the survivors and their wishes, which is that their memory and this history is commemorated in the form of the statue as well as other activities. And that is our guiding principle on this issue. So what's your sense at this stage?

Could those objections raised by Japan's ambassador actually stop this installation from going ahead at the cultural garden in Auckland? I think that is a possibility. In the case of a statue in Manila Philippines, one was actually unveiled and then very in the middle of the night taken away. A similar thing has happened with the statue in Berlin, which has now been moved to a different location. So local governments do cave to that pressure, but there are also dozens of local government bodies that have stood up to that opposition and decided to stand with the survivors. And of course, that is our hope. What would justice ultimately mean for survivors now?

The three things that they've always asked for is official apology from the Japanese government. legal reparations and memorial activities, including within Japan. But at last count, I think there's maybe three known survivors living in Korea. You know, time is passing, and it's been a long time. Rebecca, I thank you for this. Thank you for having me. Rebecca Jung is the chairperson of the Aoucho Roa, New Zealand Statue of Peace Committee. We reached her in Auckland.

You've been listening to the As It Happens podcast. Our show can be heard Monday to Friday on CBC Radio 1 after your world tonight. And you can, of course, also listen to our show online at cbc.ca.ca. Or on the CBC Listen app, or of course, wherever you get your podcasts. I'm Neil Keogsala. And I'm Chris Howden.

For more CBC podcasts, go to CBC.ca.com slash podcasts.