POL The long history of the U.S. interfering with elections elsewhere - Wash. Post

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
Interesting that the Washington Post would publish this article considering what's going on even with the "spin" they put on it....

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...the-u-s-interfering-with-elections-elsewhere/

World Views | Analysis

The long history of the U.S. interfering with elections elsewhere

By Ishaan Tharoor
October 13 at 7:00 AM
Comments 10

One of the more alarming narratives of the 2016 U.S. election campaign is that of the Kremlin's apparent meddling. Last week, the United States formally accused the Russian government of stealing and disclosing emails from the Democratic National Committee and the individual accounts of prominent Washington insiders.

The hacks, in part leaked by WikiLeaks, have led to loud declarations that Moscow is eager for the victory of Republican nominee Donald Trump, whose rhetoric has unsettled Washington's traditional European allies and even thrown the future of NATO — Russia's bête noire — into doubt.

Leading Russian officials have balked at the Obama administration's claim. In an interview with CNN on Wednesday, Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov dismissed the suggestion of interference as “ridiculous,” though he said it was “flattering” that Washington would point the finger at Moscow. At a time of pronounced regional tensions in the Middle East and elsewhere, there's no love lost between Kremlin officials and their American counterparts.

To be sure, there's a much larger context behind today's bluster. As my colleague Andrew Roth notes, whatever their government's alleged actions in 2016, Russia's leaders enjoy casting aspersions on the American democratic process. And, in recent years, they have also bristled at perceived U.S. meddling in the politics of countries on Russia's borders, most notably in Ukraine.

While the days of its worst behavior are long behind it, the United States does have a well-documented history of interfering and sometimes interrupting the workings of democracies elsewhere. It has occupied and intervened militarily in a whole swath of countries in the Caribbean and Latin America and fomented coups against democratically elected populists.

The most infamous episodes include the ousting of Iranian Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh in 1953 — whose government was replaced by an authoritarian monarchy favorable to Washington — the removal and assassination of Congolese leader Patrice Lumumba in 1961, and the violent toppling of socialist Chilean President Salvador Allende, whose government was swept aside in 1973 by a military coup led by the ruthless Gen. Augusto Pinochet.

For decades, these actions were considered imperatives of the Cold War, part of a global struggle against the Soviet Union and its supposed leftist proxies. Its key participants included scheming diplomats like John Foster Dulles and Henry Kissinger, who advocated aggressive, covert policies to stanch the supposedly expanding threat of communism. Sometimes that agenda also explicitly converged with the interests of U.S. business: In 1954, Washington unseated Guatemala's left-wing president, Jacobo Arbenz, who had had the temerity to challenge the vast control of the United Fruit Co., a U.S. corporation, with agrarian laws that would be fairer to Guatemalan farmers. The CIA went on to install and back a series of right-wing dictatorships that brutalized the impoverished nation for almost half a century.

A young Che Guevara, who happened to be traveling through Guatemala in 1954, was deeply affected by Arbenz's overthrow. He later wrote to his mother that the events prompted him to leave “the path of reason” and would ground his conviction in the need for radical revolution over gradual political reform.

Aside from its instigation of coups and alliances with right-wing juntas, Washington sought to more subtly influence elections in all corners of the world. And so did Moscow. Political scientist Dov Levin calculates that the “two powers intervened in 117 elections around the world from 1946 to 2000 — an average of once in every nine competitive elections.”

In the late 1940s, the newly established CIA cut its teeth in Western Europe, pushing back against some of the continent's most influential leftist parties and labor unions. In 1948, the United States propped up Italy's centrist Christian Democrats and helped ensure their electoral victory against a leftist coalition, anchored by one of the most powerful communist parties in Europe. CIA operatives gave millions of dollars to their Italian allies and helped orchestrate what was then an unprecedented, clandestine propaganda campaign: This included forging documents to besmirch communist leaders via fabricated sex scandals, starting a mass letter-writing campaign from Italian Americans to their compatriots, and spreading hysteria about a Russian takeover and the undermining of the Catholic Church.

“We had bags of money that we delivered to selected politicians, to defray their political expenses, their campaign expenses, for posters, for pamphlets,” recounted F. Mark Wyatt, the CIA officer who handled the mission and later participated in more than 2½ decades of direct support to the Christian Democrats.

This template spread everywhere: CIA operative Edward G. Lansdale, notorious for his efforts to bring down the North Vietnamese government, is said to have run the successful 1953 campaign of Philippines President Ramon Magsaysay. Japan's center-right Liberal Democratic Party was backed with secret American funds through the 1950s and the 1960s. The U.S. government and American oil corporations helped Christian parties in Lebanon win crucial elections in 1957 with briefcases full of cash.

In Chile, the United States prevented Allende from winning an election in 1964. “A total of nearly four million dollars was spent on some fifteen covert action projects, ranging from organizing slum dwellers to passing funds to political parties,” detailed a Senate inquiry in the mid-1970s that started to expose the role of the CIA in overseas elections. When it couldn't defeat Allende at the ballot box in 1970, Washington decided to remove him anyway.

“I don’t see why we need to stand by and watch a country go communist due to the irresponsibility of its own people,” Kissinger is said to have quipped. Pinochet's regime presided over years of torture, disappearances and targeted assassinations. (In a recent op-ed, Chilean-American novelist Ariel Dorfman called on Hillary Clinton to repudiate Kissinger if she wins the presidential election.)

After the end of the Cold War, the United States has largely brought its covert actions into the open with organizations like the more benign National Endowment for Democracy, which seeks to bolster civil society and democratic institutions around the world through grants and other assistance. Still, U.S. critics see the American hand in a range of more recent elections, from Honduras to Venezuela to Ukraine.

Meanwhile, the threat of foreign meddling in U.S. elections is not restricted to fears of Russian plots. In the late 1990s, the specter of illicit Chinese funds dominated concerns about Democratic campaign financing. But some observers cautioned others not to be too indignant.

“If the Chinese indeed tried to influence the election here . . . the United States is only getting a taste of its own medicine,” Peter Kornbluh, director of the National Security Archive, which is affiliated with George Washington University, said in a 1997 interview with the New York Times. “China has done little more than emulate a long pattern of U.S. manipulation, bribery and covert operations to influence the political trajectory of countless countries around the world.”

--

All Comments
Newest First
Pause live updates
EdFladung
1:53 PM PDT
So here's the list of US invasions of sovereign nations since 1776:

http://www.countercurrents.org/polya050713.htm
LikeReplyShare
HenryAbroad
1:46 PM PDT
"Naive" and "short-sighted" is the red thread.
LikeReplyShare
Marilyn Miller
10:53 AM PDT
This is so interesting, because wikileaks has just come out and said........... that the Clinton political camp knew all about the emails links, months before they came out to the public. According to Wikileaks the Clinton camp decided to use this theft on who ever was Hillary's political rival . Poor Trump he never saw it coming.

Please also : that Hillary was originally going to run against J. Bush. It was set in stone by the special interest groups that own America. Since both political parties knew about this theft ( This group also owns both political parties) it was really no big deal. IF this theft information had to be used.....it would be fruitless. Hillary was going to have a easy breezy run and, then become president. Bush would then go back to his wealthy lifestyle and life would go on. They did not expect Trump to get as far as he did this election. So the big theft would have to be blamed on him.

According to Hillary.......Donald Trump is UNFIT to become president:

Because he has NO EXPERIENCE making people pay for access to government officials!

Because He has NO BACKROUND in leaking intelligence that gets our people killed abroad!

Because he couldn't wipe a server with both hands!
LikeReplyShare
Palika
8:06 AM PDT
Am I reading this right? An honest piece about American hypocrisy and brutal imperialistic tendencies?
Gotta have a nap and read it again later.
I'd only change one word, right at the beginning of the piece referencing Russian involvement in the current election campaign.
The first letter is correct ('a') but instead of 'apparent' the author should have used 'alleged'.
That's all.
LikeReplyShare
groovygroves
6:31 AM PDT
The corrupt of our government is wide spread and WE THE PEOPLE MUST PUT AN END TO IT ASAP!

The CAI, NSA and the FBI all must go! Along with all other covert groups created by our corrupt government over the years!
LikeReplyShare2
groovygroves
6:29 AM PDT
But wapo claimed we didn't create the coup in Ukraine, LOL!

How dumb can people be? Dimwits and neocons both to this day claim we had NOTHING TO DO WITH THE COUP THAT FORCED UKRAINE INTO CIVIL WAR!
LikeReplyShare1
davidhoffman6692
5:24 AM PDT
Yes, we did a lot of dumb things. Iran and Chile top the list for me.
LikeReplyShare3
bhadram
6:00 AM PDT
Dumb? You mean "intentionally criminal", don't you?
LikeReply2
groovygroves
6:33 AM PDT
And in most cases crimes against humanity for the complete disasters that resulted in the slaughter of unknown numbers of peoples in those nations!
Like
Palika
8:08 AM PDT
How about Ronald Reagan's heroic intervention in Grenada?
Or the US' non-intervention in Hungary in 1956, East Germany in 1961, or Czechoslovakia in 1968?
Seems to me, that the United States is bravely attacking or undermining only minnows.
 

Dobbin

Faithful Steed
Given the content of the article, Mr. Tharoor can be examined to his origins - which are surprisingly similar to Hillary Clinton's

Rich, Ivy League, Left-leaning, condescending to associates, and "activist."

And cloistered, sheltered, probably never sweats, and despite his employment would be challenged even to sharpen a pencil.

Read for yourselves how Yale has pictured him.

http://yaledailynews.com/blog/2012/...ational-correspondent-blogger-global-citizen/

Ishaan Tharoor: International correspondent, blogger, global citizen

Jan 27, 2012

After a Yale career defined by an involvement in left-wing political activism, Ishaan Tharoor ’06 joined TIME magazine as a Hong Kong-based correspondent writing on Asian geopolitics. He now works out of TIME’s New York headquarters and edits Global Spin, the magazine’s foreign affairs blog. WEEKEND met with the busy journo before a Masters’s tea he gave Tuesday to discuss careerist Yalies, journalistic commitment and how he got heads of state to take him seriously.

Q. What role has Yale played in the success you’ve had as a journalist and your life post-graduation?

A. I studied a fair amount of Asia in my schoolwork, so I felt well prepared to engage with various issues I was reporting on.

The first thing that really blows you away, though, is the number of Yalies everywhere. I arrived in Hong Kong and already had a network of Yale friends. [I had] Ivy League friends, journalist friends, and a sort of Venn diagram with Ivy League journalists in the middle.

It’s also the exposure to various people and debates in society that you get at Yale that gives you a real sense of confidence when approaching writing for a real publication. You have a spring in your step. So, I had a cover story in Time International when I was 23. There’s a kind of hubris you get from being at Yale. It’s not necessarily always a good thing, but I definitely had a kind of confidence my peers did not. An environment full of striving, competitive people gives you that.

Q. What parts of your Yale experience made joining Time seem like the right choice for you?

A. I joined Yale in the fall of 2002, just before the Iraq War. I grew up in New York and went to an international school. I don’t think I was really prepared to be in an American institution. [Yale] was a bit of a culture shock. My way of entering Yale was to be a bit politicized. I fell into the antiwar movement and built my identity around what were, at that time, my left-wing politics. Sophomore year, I founded, along with some friends, a magazine called “Hippolytic.” It was a smart, informed, center-left paper to combat the fact that there were two or three right-wing journals [on campus] with outside funding and such. That was my entry into really being a committed journalist.

Q. What do you make of the Yale political environment?

A. Everyone here has liberal politics, but there’s a great deal of apathy as well, and I don’t fault them for this. They’re more careerist about what they are doing. When I was here, there were a lot of divisive issues: Kerry vs. Bush, the labor strike. A segment of the population was working with unions, and lots of kids were activists, helping Yale employees push for better contracts. You felt like you were in a polarized space.

Yale is very much the halls of power. It sends its best and brightest to all sorts of prominent institutions. I just hope kids going into them are going in with a consciousness about these issues.

Q. Do you think that spirit of student activism is still alive at Yale?

A. You know, it’s a difficult time for a lot of people. I completely understand why students would want to focus on putting themselves in places that would guarantee them good jobs. I wouldn’t expect Yale students to hang around Zucotti Park for half a semester — nor is that a good idea. But when I was at Yale, there was a lot of civic engagement, not just a careerist approach. I hope there’s that similar wanderlust that I had and my peers had.

Q. Would you send your kids to Yale?

A. Sure, if I could afford it.

Q. How should journalists approach current global events like the Arab Spring?

A. They should bring [to reporting] the rigor they’re taught at Yale in their academic studies. Even though a blog post might, at the time, seem flippant and a little fluffy, you have to bring that same sort of rigor.

For an international journalist, the old platform would be interning at one of the old traditional media houses, working your way up and getting sent around the world to different bureaus. Those don’t exist anymore. Increasingly, the people doing the best work are freelancers, or those on Fulbright [fellowships] in different places, like the writers in Egypt who knew the language, the country, the politics — they had a degree of understanding that an earlier generation of foreign correspondents didn’t.

Q. What else do you think young people going into journalism need to know?

A. It’s not Goldman Sachs money — it’s not a fraction of it. You have to work really, really hard, often without a reward. But, at its height, I’ll be, say, doing a story I would pay to do. You have to have a degree of wanderlust and a real empathy for the world. You have to care.

Q. You run a news blog. How can journalists keep themselves competitive in an increasingly online environment?

A. I’m hardly the one to give sage advice — in my entire career, everything happened by accident! But yes, you just have to be prepared to be adaptable. For journalists now, being skilled with, for example, a video camera is more essential. You have to be a wide array of things — a good blogger, a good pundit — because news organizations are increasingly trying to make brands out of every one of their reporters.

Q. Does the idea of brand-name journalists affect the news value and quality of the stories produced today?

A. I don’t think it’s ideal. It’s just that the industry is trying to refashion itself into something more nimble and more able to deal with the abundance of information people have. Still, a lot of people out there are doing good work that isn’t self-promoting. For anybody, even in an earlier era or any young person, you still need to be a good reporter, a good writer, an agile thinker.

Q. You’re at Yale to talk about “Journalism in the Year of the Protester.” What do you think is behind that phenomenon and where do you think these movements are going?

A. Time made “the protester” the person of the year for 2011, and it was, in many ways, with the risk of being hyperbolic, an incredible year in human history in terms of the scale of upheaval that we saw. It was also unprecedented in the depth of information and exposure these uprisings got. In the past, it’d have been easier for authoritarian governments to hide these things. But the rise of the Internet and information sharing enabled these uprisings to gain exposure.

What was curious is how upstaged the Western media was by other forms of information. We had to react to it. Thanks to Al Jazeera in particular, and the liberal bloggers in Egypt and Tunisia with their clips and images of the people killed, we were made to experience revolutions real-time. So what was unique about 2011 was that the events were global in their scale and global in their reception. They had resonance elsewhere — they fed into a summer of protest in Europe, and were invoked for months by Occupy Wall Street. It was a kind of fascinating global moment of dissent.

Q. What’s fueling all this dissent?

A. Rates of inequality are higher than they’ve ever been, especially in G20 countries. There’s a sense that, in the US, and more and more vehemently in Europe, and with Anna Hazare in India as well, there’s a worrying disenchantment in the belief that democratic politics can deliver. People are dissatisfied all over with kleptocratic elites.

There are even very marked right-wing xenophobic backlashes in Eastern Europe, that are, in part, a response to just a complete disillusionment with the liberal European project.

In the Arab world, people who were living under authoritarian regimes that many in the US thought would never change showed that they want what we all want: a stake in society and who rules it. That’s true for the Occupy protests too, and the protests in London, Chile, India — there’s a political crisis in the world that’s as profound as the economic crisis.

Q. Where do you see that crisis going?

A. A lot of the cognoscenti and various smart people meeting at forums like Davos need to face some hard questions about the structures of society and the way inequality has grown, and slowly figure out ways that are both national and more global to redress this.

Q. What new approaches do you think will be espoused?

A. We can see the worrying continued success of the Chinese model. The Economist’s Davos coverage is all about the rise of state capitalism and the sense that democratic politics is in crisis around the world.

Q. It’s possible that this kind of upheaval will lead to more volatile situations. What sort of challenges have you faced when covering such crises, like the rise of Maoism in Nepal?

A. When you’re a young guy going out in the field, people get a bit amused by you. I’ve interviewed heads of state and they’ve giggled at me, but when they have to sit down and answer my questions, they realize that [I can be] tough and engaging.

Q. Going forward, what do you think your journalistic focus will be?

A. A lot of editing and writing about myriad subjects, e.g. South Asia — I just wrote about Pakistan. I love reporting news about the world and certain kinds of politics, and I also feel a responsibility to engage certain issues, like multiculturalism, the health of democracies and human rights. Luckily, I have a platform where I can do that.
Obtw, this one of those humans who has "evolved" beyond their humanity, and congratulates self grandly on the accomplishment. A total surrender of falliability and total agreement of knowing what is best for YOU.

A dangerous human. Don't let him near domesticated or other animals as he may get hurt.

Dobbin
 
Top