In an interview with CNN’s Jack Tapper, Paul suggested that the electoral interference game was a buffet of reciprocal options: “they’re going to interfere in our elections. With such a glorious record, it is little wonder that Kentucky Senator Rand Paul, when asked about Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election, had little time for the fuss. As WikiLeaks describes it, “All major French political parties were targeted for infiltration by the CIA’s human (‘HUMINT’) and electronic (‘SIGINT’) spies in the seven months leading up to France’s 2012 presidential election.” Despite being seen as pro-American, President Nicolas Sarkozy was not exempt from Washington’s prying eyes. Available in the WikiLeaks CIA Vault 7 Series, a number of “tasking orders” were executed in an effort to infiltrate French political parties and conduct surveillance. The CIA did its bit in the lead-up to the French elections in 2012, though the effort was modest. Such behaviour shows that allies are not exempt from the practice. Benjamin Netanyahu prevailed, and Clinton conceded on Israel’s Channel 10 news that he “tried to do it in a way that didn’t overtly involve me.” When Netanyahu visited the White House as Israel’s prime minister, he “wanted me to know that he knew I wasn’t for him and he beat us anyway.” In 1996, President Bill Clinton had to admit to efforts assisting Shimon Peres as the preferred candidate in Israel’s general elections. Post-Cold War history has not been freed from the meddling hand of Washington. On the whole, it seeks to help citizens exercise their basic political and civil rights.” Carothers had obviously forgotten Chile in all of this, along with Secretary of State Henry Kissinger’s infamous remarks about correcting the democratic choice of Chile’s voters. “Unlike Russian electoral interference,” suggests Thomas Carothers of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, “US democracy promotion does not … favour particular candidates, or undercut the technical integrity of elections. Chat in the land of political inference, especially when appraising the US role, focuses on how considerably different the meddling tends to be. Hair splitting in these sorts of things is the order of the day. After De Gasperi’s victory, covert US aid to Italy’s centrist parties continued into the 1960s. Contingency plans were laid for the prospect of US military intervention in the event of civil strife. US intelligence officials got to work ensuring that the Italian Communist Party (PCI), allied with the Italian Socialist Party (PSI) were kept out of office in favour of Alcide De Gasperi. As Walter Dowling, Italian desk officer at the US State Department urged in a memorandum in November 1946, the US had to become increasingly involved with Italian affairs, making itself “so pro-damned Italian that even the dumbest wop would sense the drift.” Being so damnably pro-Italian naturally meant being anti-communist. It was the Central Intelligence Agency’s first covert operation, and it was ignominiously undemocratic. In 1948, the United States, still flushed with victory, made a punchy bid to interfere with the outcome of the Italian elections. The issue of electoral interference would certainly be at the fore it would also be fitting that a state so indifferent to the electoral sovereignty of others would now find itself constantly fearing large return servings. Were the US body politic capable of being examined on the clinician’s couch, historical fears, psychic disturbances, and a range of unsettling syndromes would be identified. It is all part of the delicious mess that any observer of US politics has come to expect. Share on WhatsApp Share on Facebook Share on X (Twitter) Share on Telegram Share on Reddit Share on Email
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |