The U.S. is no stranger to interfering in the elections of other countries

Tsing Tao

Tsing Tao

Just posting this for context given the shrieking about Russian facebook posts "influencing" the election. It's an older article, but still relevant for this discussion.

---------------
The U.S. is no stranger to interfering in the elections of other countries

By NINA AGRAWAL
DEC 21, 2016 | 2:45 AM

Direct Link just for Piezoe:http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-us-intervention-foreign-elections-20161213-story.html

One professor's database cites 81 attempts by the United States to influence elections in other countries,notably in Iran, Guatemala and Chile.

Update: President Obama on Thursday slapped Russia with new penalties for meddling in the U.S. presidential election, kicking out dozens of suspected spies and imposing banking restrictions on five people and four organizations the administration says were involved.

The CIA has accused Russia of interfering in the 2016 presidential election by hacking into Democratic and Republican computer networks and selectively releasing emails. But critics might point out the U.S. has done similar things.

The U.S. has a long history of attempting to influence presidential elections in other countries – it's done so as many as 81 times between 1946 and 2000, according to a database amassed by political scientist Dov Levin of Carnegie Mellon University.

That number doesn't include military coups and regime change efforts following the election of candidates the U.S. didn't like, notably those in Iran, Guatemala and Chile. Nor does it include general assistance with the electoral process, such as election monitoring.

Levin defines intervention as "a costly act which is designed to determine the election results [in favor of] one of the two sides." These acts, carried out in secret two-thirds of the time, include funding the election campaigns of specific parties, disseminating misinformation or propaganda, training locals of only one side in various campaigning or get-out-the-vote techniques, helping one side design their campaign materials, making public pronouncements or threats in favor of or against a candidate, and providing or withdrawing foreign aid.

In 59% of these cases, the side that received assistance came to power, although Levin estimates the average effect of "partisan electoral interventions" to be only about a 3% increase in vote share.

The U.S. hasn't been the only one trying to interfere in other countries' elections, according to Levin's data. Russia attempted to sway 36 foreign elections from the end of World War II to the turn of the century – meaning that, in total, at least one of the two great powers of the 20th century intervened in about 1 of every 9 competitive, national-level executive elections in that time period.

Italy's 1948 general election is an early example of a race where U.S. actions probably influenced the outcome.

"We threw everything, including the kitchen sink" at helping the Christian Democrats beat the Communists in Italy, said Levin, including covertly delivering "bags of money" to cover campaign expenses, sending experts to help run the campaign, subsidizing "pork" projects like land reclamation, and threatening publicly to end U.S. aid to Italy if the Communists were elected.

Levin said that U.S. intervention probably played an important role in preventing a Communist Party victory, not just in 1948, but in seven subsequent Italian elections.

Throughout the Cold War, U.S. involvement in foreign elections was mainly motivated by the goal of containing communism, said Thomas Carothers, a foreign policy expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. "The U.S. didn't want to see left-wing governments elected, and so it did engage fairly often in trying to influence elections in other countries," Carothers said.

This approach carried over into the immediate post-Soviet period.

In the 1990 Nicaragua elections, the CIA leaked damaging information on alleged corruption by the Marxist Sandinistas to German newspapers, according to Levin. The opposition used those reports against the Sandinista candidate, Daniel Ortega. He lost to opposition candidate Violeta Chamorro.

In Czechoslovakia that same year, the U.S. provided training and campaign funding to Vaclav Havel's party and its Slovak affiliate as they planned for the country's first democratic election after its transition away from communism.

"The thinking was that we wanted to make sure communism was dead and buried," said Levin.

Even after that, the U.S. continued trying to influence elections in its favor.

In Haiti after the 1986 overthrow of dictator and U.S. ally Jean-Claude “Baby Doc” Duvalier, the CIA sought to support particular candidates and undermine Jean-Bertrande Aristide, a Roman Catholic priest and proponent of liberation theology. The New York Times reported in the 1990s that the CIA had on its payroll members of the military junta that would ultimately unseat Aristide after he was democratically elected in a landslide over Marc Bazin, a former World Bank official and finance minister favored by the U.S.

The U.S. also attempted to sway Russian elections. In 1996, with the presidency of Boris Yeltsin and the Russian economy flailing, President Clinton endorsed a $10.2-billion loan from the International Monetary Fund linked to privatization, trade liberalization and other measures that would move Russia toward a capitalist economy. Yeltsin used the loan to bolster his popular support, telling voters that only he had the reformist credentials to secure such loans, according to media reports at the time. He used the money, in part, for social spending before the election, including payment of back wages and pensions.

In the Middle East, the U.S. has aimed to bolster candidates who could further the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. In 1996, seeking to fulfill the legacy of assassinated Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and the peace accords the U.S. brokered, Clinton openly supported Shimon Peres, convening a peace summit in the Egyptian resort of Sharm el Sheik to boost his popular support and inviting him to a meeting at the White House a month before the election.

“We were persuaded that if [Likud candidate Benjamin] Netanyahu were elected, the peace process would be closed for the season,” said Aaron David Miller, who worked at the State Department at the time.

In 1999, in a more subtle effort to sway the election, top Clinton strategists, including James Carville, were sent to advise Labor candidate Ehud Barak in the election against Netanyahu.

In Yugoslavia, the U.S. and NATO had long sought to cut off Serbian nationalist and Yugoslav leader Slobodan Milosevic from the international system through economic sanctions and military action. In 2000, the U.S. spent millions of dollars in aid for political parties, campaign costs and independent media. Funding and broadcast equipment provided to the media arms of the opposition were a decisive factor in electing opposition candidate Vojislav Kostunica as Yugoslav president, according to Levin. “If it wouldn’t have been for overt intervention … Milosevic would have been very likely to have won another term,” he said.

nina.agrawal@latimes.com
 
Here's another, with 6 examples of Obama meddling.

---------------------
Why such silence from the media that obsesses over alleged Russian interference in our elections?

While the media obsess over an alleged Russian conspiracy to collude with Donald Trump to affect America’s 2016 presidential election, what about Obama’s interference in the elections of other countries? Most Americans have no idea that President Obama meddled in elections all over the world. And apparently, the media decided there’s no reason for Americans to know about this illegal activity.

Indeed, in 2016, the Los Angeles Times did a story on how America has interfered with other nation’s elections in the past, but they stopped short of mentioning the various foreign elections Obama tried to influence. But the same article reports that Obama “slapped Russia with new penalties for meddling in the U.S. Presidential election… by hacking into Democratic and Republican computer networks and selectively releasing emails.” Hypocrisy check, anyone?

Since that article appeared last December, it has essentially become fake news. The Republican National Committee was never successfully hacked into and evidence is mounting that the DNC was not hacked by Russia. Not only has Wiki Leaks itself insisted Russia was not the source, but a number of cyber security experts, including McAfee antivirus developer John McAfee, disputes this. McAfee says the hack on the DNC “used a piece of malware a year and half old” and was “not an organized hack and certainly not a nation-state that did this.” Moreover, the DNC has never allowed the FBI or any government agency to analyze the computers in question.

Nevertheless, Obama, operating on unconfirmed evidence, abruptly imposed new sanctions on Russia. Many observers believe he did so in order to set the stage for the left to initiate its phony Russian-Trump collusion narrative to be used to remove Trump from office or to defeat him in 2020.

Meddling in other’s elections is a violation of international law. In 1965, the United Nations General Assembly reaffirmed this with a resolution stating: “No State has the right to intervene, directly or indirectly, for any reason whatever, in the internal […] affairs of any other State.” And the International Court of Justice also considers such intervention to be illegal. More importantly, U.S. law prohibits the use of tax dollars to influence foreign elections.

Nevertheless, the violation of both American and international law did not stop Obama from intervening repeatedly in the elections of other nations. Moreover, most of Obama’s meddling was known by many foreign correspondents and if it was reported at all, it was downplayed. Most certainly, the media did not condemn it nor drop hints about impeaching Obama.

So let’s get this straight. The media is hysterical about a flimsy conspiracy theory that Russia colluded with Trump to steal the 2016 election but was mostly silent about Obama’s efforts to control the outcome of elections in at least six countries during his tenure. Media bias, anyone? Let’s review the examples we know about:

Kenya

Investigative reporter Jerome Corsi of WorldNetDaily broke this story when he visited Kenya and was able to confirm that Obama, as a U.S. Senator, illegally used a taxpayer-financed trip to campaign for far-left presidential candidate Raila Odinga in Kenya’s 2006 elections.

Odinga, according to the BBC, was distantly related to Obama and both families belonged to the Luo tribe. Indeed, both of their fathers served in the administration of Jomo Kenyatta in the 1960s. According to a document obtained by Corsi, Odinga promised Kenya’s growing Islamic movement that if elected, he would “rewrite the constitution of Kenya to recognize Sharia as the only true law sanctioned by the Holy Quran for Muslim declared religions.” The secret agreement also called for the creation of Muslim “madrassa classes,” a crackdown on Christian evangelical events and gospel programs, and legal protections for Muslims suspected of terrorism, even international terrorism.

Obama’s cheerleading for anti-American Odinga (who named his son after Fidel Castro) “was more than reckless,” wrote former U.S. attorney Andrew McCarthy, “it was borderline criminal (and that’s being generous).” McCarthy also said Obama’s intervention was an “outrageous contravention of U.S. policy and, [referring to the Logan Act] probably, federal law.”

By 2010, this tribal connection resulted in President Obama quietly transferring millions of U.S. tax dollars to Odinga’s government, including $2 million to convince Kenyan voters to vote for a new constitution. According to the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, the new constitution would force Kenyans to be “subjected to these [Islamic] tribunals merely by virtue of what religious community they were born into…” Some members of Congress actually called for an investigation but, typically, nothing ever came of it. By the end of 2010, hundreds of millions of dollars flowed to Kenya from a myriad of U.S. agencies such as USAID, all with the likely intent of boosting the popularity of the Odinga regime.

Israel

During Israel’s 2015 elections, the Obama administration — led by Secretary of State John Kerry — illegally intervened when they attempted to defeat the reelection of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu by covertly funneling State Department grants to opposition groups. The Obama administration detested Netanyahu due to his refusal to cave into Palestinian demands, a group that even refused to recognize the existence of Israel.

Obama’s State Department gave $350,000 to a group called the “One Voice Movement (OVM),” for supporting “peace negotiations between Israel and Palestine.” However, the State Department then used leftover funds to organize an effort against Netanyahu’s reelection. OVM contracted out a group called “V15,” which in turned hired five campaign experts from the U.S., including Obama’s field director from his last presidential campaign. As the Weekly Standard’s Jim Swift wrote, “once the infrastructure was built, it was used in an attempt to topple the government of one of America’s closest allies.”

An investigation by the U.S. Senate found that the “State Department failed to adequately guard against the risk that resources built with government grants would be deployed for political purposes.” As with most investigations of Obama scandals, emails documenting this illegal election activity were destroyed. And, as usual, no one was held accountable.

Macedonia

The government watchdog group, Judicial Watch, obtained government documents that “show the U.S. government has quietly spent millions of taxpayer dollars to destabilize the democratically elected, center-right government in Macedonia by colluding with leftwing, billionaire philanthropist George Soros.” Indeed, Obama’s ambassador to Macedonia, Jeff Baily, worked to funnel millions of dollars from the State Department and USAID to groups created by Soros which were, according to JW, working to overthrow the conservative government.

More details about this intervention were exposed by Victor Gaetan in a series of exposés in The American Spectator. Gaetan has confirmed that Soros, in conjuction with the Obama administration, “financed a left-wing agenda to divide the nation and bring a socialist-Muslim coalition to power.” Incredibly, Obama’s USAID “selected Soros’ Foundation Open Society Macedonia (FOSM) to manage $2.5 million in taxpayers’ dollars earmarked for oxymoronic ‘democracy building,’ an amount increased to $4.8 million two years later.”

This funding was directed to a coalition of socialist groups that work in conjunction with the Social Democrat Union of Macedonia (SDSM), a socialist party with close ties to Soros. The intervention is, incredibly, still ongoing with the result being chaos and disruptive street demonstrations. Gaetan’s investigative work also indicates that Obama’s agencies intervened politically with a number of other Balkan counties, including Bosnia, Kosovo, Albania and Greece. It appears the Trump administration knows little about such interventions since many leftist Obama-appointed ambassadors continue to hold on to their positions. And USAID funds continue to pour into leftist political groups in the Balkans as if Trump never came to power. Indeed, as one Macedonia Member of Parliament quoted by Gaetan said, “Under Obama’s ideological programs, it [USAID] became the super crack of the left.”

Libya

In 2011, Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, not only interfered politically in Libya but militarily as well, by orchestrating a series of policies designed to remove Muammar Gaddafi from power. While it would be a stretch to call Gaddafi a U.S. ally, he was cooperating with the U.S.A. in fighting Islamic extremists and had turned over all his WMDs to American officials. Western investment was flowing into Libya, the country was becoming more westernized and, most certainly, it was no longer a threat to the USA.

As NR wrote, “all that vanished when Hillary Clinton, Samantha Power, and Susan Rice ordered the bombings that turned Libya into a terrorist paradise.” One explanation for the abrupt attack on Libya was that Gaddafi was a rival to the Saudis over the leadership of the Islamic faith and since the Saudis had contributed at least $10 million to the Clinton Foundation, Secretary Clinton had, as usual, a money motive to intervene in Libya.

The opposition to Gaddafi’s regime was led by the Libyan Transitional National Council, whose leaders include many radical Muslims such as Abdel Hakim Belhaj. Belhaj also headed an al-Qaeda affiliate called the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG), which was designated a terrorist organization by the State Department.

Nevertheless, Obama spent at least $1 billion to fund a military operation to topple Gaddafi, with American soldiers actually fighting alongside jihadist-dominated rebel groups. Moreover, the Washington Times reported that the “CIA was providing covert assistance to elements of the Transitional National Council,” again, a group dominated by radical jihadists. Under Obama, Libya was transformed from a moderate Islamic regime which posed no threat to the USA, to a violent wasteland dominated by various ISIS and al-Qaeda linked militias.

Honduras

Shortly after Obama was elected, leftist Honduran president Manual Zelaya attempted to illegally amend the Honduran Constitution so as to allow himself to serve as President longer than one term. Incredibly, Zelaya and a mob broke into a military installation where blank ballots were stored and tried to hold a constitutional referendum without the support of the election authorities. As a result, on orders from the Honduran Supreme Court, he was forcefully removed from office as Honduran law calls for.

Obama attacked Zelaya’s removal, falsely calling it a “coup d’état” and a WikiLeaks cable revealed that Obama backed Zelaya’s reinstatement in order to please Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez, who, like Fidel Castro, was an ally of Zelaya. Instead of supporting the right of Hondurans to remove their president for unconstitutional actions, Obama tried to pressure Honduras into reinstating Zelaya by freezing all non-humanitarian aid. That didn’t happen and Zelaya went into exile.

Eventually, new elections were held and a new president elected, but there’s little doubt that the Obama administration meddled in the Honduran political process in an effort to support the hard left in that country. Indeed, when Obama announced that he supported the return of Zelaya from exile, Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen announced “Now that everything is in place for Zelaya’s return, there are no more false reasons for the Obama administration to continue its pressure tactics against those in Honduras who opposed Zelaya’s attacks on their country’s constitution and the rule of law.”

Egypt

Like Libya, the Obama administration encouraged opposition to President Hosni Mubarak and intervened in elections to ensure that a radical Muslim Brotherhood leader, Mohammed Morsi, was elected president. Obama’s State Department even gave political training to MB leaders. Again, similar to Gadhafi, Mubarak was relatively secular and Egypt was becoming increasingly westernized. He was an ally of the U.S.A. and an opponent of radical jihadists.

And the Obama administration was open about its efforts. The Los Angeles Times reported that the “Obama administration said for the first time that it supports a role for groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood, a banned islamist organization…” The MB’s mission statement states, “Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope.” Sounds like a group Obama would support. Indeed, one of the Egyptian MB leaders, Gehad el-Haddad, was actually on the Clinton Foundation payroll while working to help bring the MB to power. Once Morsi appeared to win what was likely a rigged election, Obama poured in $1.5 billion in foreign aid.

The Egyptian people were so upset with Obama’s intervention, they forcefully removed Morsi and installed a pro-American moderate Muslim named Abdel Fattah al-Sisi as president. Morsi was then arrested by the Egyptian military for treason. But even after that, as reported by Western Journalism, Obama’s “State Department hosts Muslim Brotherhood-aligned leaders” in order to “work against this world-be reformer’s government.”


So there you have it. Surprisingly, a group of Senators led by Mike Lee (R-Utah) has sent a letter to Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, demanding that he conduct a full scale investigation into the use of taxpayer funds to support leftist political movements around the world. As reported in the Washington Free Beacon, Senator Lee said the letter was written because “over the past few months, elected officials and political leaders of foreign nations have been coming to me with disappointing news and reports of U.S. activity in their respective countries” which included “diplomats playing political favorites, USAID funds supporting extreme and sometimes violent political activity, and the U.S. Government working to marginalize the moderates and conservatives in leadership roles.”

On the House side, a group of Congressmen led by Republican Bob Goodlatte (R-VA), visited the Balkans last month to investigate such blatant political manipulation but have yet to report on their findings.

Tillerson needs to clean house and expedite the appointment of new Ambassadors before Obama holdovers do any further damage. At the very least, he should cut off all funds to foreign political groups and seriously consider prosecuting State Department/USAID employees found to be involved with illegal political activity.
 
Syria, for example. Literally trying to take out the duly elected president by military force. In favor of unknown Islamist extremists. For a pipeline?
 
Here4money said:
Duly elected..... You're funny
More...

There is this thing called google, been around a while. Ignoramuses like Good1 don't feel shame when they are wrong about something, they are just fountains of pigshit really.

Rise to power: 1994–2000
Soon after the death of Bassel, Hafez al-Assad made the decision to make Bashar the new heir apparent.[41] Over the next six and half years, until his death in 2000, Hafez prepared Bashar for taking over power. Preparations for a smooth transition were made on three levels. First, support was built up for Bashar in the military and security apparatus. Second, Bashar's image was established with the public. And lastly, Bashar was familiarised with the mechanisms of running the country.[42]

To establish his credentials in the military, Bashar entered the military academy at Homs in 1994, and was propelled through the ranks to become a colonel of the elite Syrian Republican Guard in January 1999.[35][43][44] To establish a power base for Bashar in the military, old divisional commanders were pushed into retirement, and new, young, Alawite officers with loyalties to him took their place.[45]

In 1998, Bashar took charge of Syria's Lebanon file, which had since the 1970s been handled by Vice President Abdul Halim Khaddam, who had until then been a potential contender for president.[45] By taking charge of Syrian affairs in Lebanon, Bashar was able to push Khaddam aside and establish his own power base in Lebanon.[46] In the same year, after minor consultation with Lebanese politicians, Bashar installed Emile Lahoud, a loyal ally of his, as the President of Lebanon and pushed former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafic Hariri aside, by not placing his political weight behind his nomination as prime minister.[47] To further weaken the old Syrian order in Lebanon, Bashar replaced the long serving de facto Syrian High Commissioner of Lebanon, Ghazi Kanaan, with Rustum Ghazaleh.[48]

Parallel to his military career, Bashar was engaged in public affairs. He was granted wide powers and became head of the bureau to receive complaints and appeals of citizens, and led a campaign against corruption. As a result of this campaign, many of Bashar's potential rivals for president were put on trial for corruption.[35] Bashar also became the President of the Syrian Computer Society and helped to introduce the internet in Syria, which aided his image as a moderniser and reformer.[49]

Unless he means the one man, one vote system.
 
The behavior of the US in South America in the 50s is just incredible. It is very likely that we assasinated people we regarded as bad actors when other methods did not give the desired results. No way we can ever claim the high ground so far as interference with other countries.
 
Slartibartfast said:
There is this thing called google, been around a while. Ignoramuses like Good1 don't feel shame when they are wrong about something, they are just fountains of pigshit really.
More...

You could always put him on ignore like you have with everyone else.
 
Snarkhund said:
The behavior of the US in South America in the 50s is just incredible. It is very likely that we assasinated people we regarded as bad actors when other methods did not give the desired results. No way we can ever claim the high ground so far as interference with other countries.
More...

About the only legitimate moral equivalency is when we messed with legitimate elections to keep commies from power, I agree.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top