The U.S. response to Russian meddling in the 2016 election has been extraordinarily weak. Not only that, it has been accompanied by an attitude of “whataboutism” on the part of some Americans—the relativistic view that the United States has little ground to complain about Russia’s actions given its own history of meddling in other countries’ political campaigns and elections. It is certainly essential to be honest and realistic about the considerable record of past U.S. electoral meddling, and the contrast between Russia and the United States in this domain is certainly not black and white. Yet neither is it one of indistinguishable shades of gray. The United States is simply not engaging in electoral meddling in a manner comparable to Russia’s approach.
THE PAST IS NOT THE PRESENT
Two key flaws underlie relativist accounts. First, such a position fails to distinguish adequately between the pattern of U.S. interventionism during the Cold War, on the one hand, and U.S. activity since the end of the Cold War on the other. During the former period, the United States did indeed illegitimately intervene in numerous foreign elections, trying to tilt outcomes in favor of candidates the United States preferred and in a smaller number of cases laboring to oust legitimately elected leaders Washington saw as hostile to its security and economic interests. The record is long and dark, marked by some especially well-known cases in Guatemala and Iran in the early 1950s and in Chile and Nicaragua in the 1970s and 1980s.
Since the end of the Cold War, however, such interventionism has decreased significantly because U.S. policymakers no longer view the world as enmeshed in a global ideological struggle in which every country, no matter how small, is a critical piece on a larger strategic chessboard. Washington has thus become much less concerned about the outcomes of most foreign elections and much less engaged in trying to tilt them in any particular direction.
Of course, one can identify a few cases over the past 25 years when the United States has tried to manipulate foreign elections with the aim of getting its preferred candidate into power. When Russian President Boris Yeltsin faced reelection in 1996, the Clinton administration mobilized some economic relief to Yeltsin, to try to help him win. In the Palestinian elections of 2006, the George W. Bush administration employed U.S. economic assistance to try to bolster Fatah in its contest with Hamas (with predictably counterproductive results). In the lead up to the 2005 Iraqi elections, the Bush administration formulated a plan to funnel covert funds to favored Iraqi candidates and parties but reportedly backed away from the plan after Congress objected. In 2009, according to former Defense Secretary Robert Gates’ memoir, the United States worked behind the scenes prior to the Afghanistan elections to push President Hamid Karzai aside and keep him from winning.
There have no doubt been other cases, known only to those with access to classified information. Yet on the whole, U.S. electoral meddling has decreased significantly since the Cold War years. This is true because of the change in U.S. interests and because of an evolution of norms in many parts of the U.S. policy establishment about the acceptability of such actions. The overall picture today is of a Russia actively expanding its covert electoral meddling in multiple regions as U.S. meddling continues to decline. Those convinced that Washington must still routinely use covert means to influence election outcomes all around the world should consider the available evidence: in the last few years the rising pattern of Russian efforts to manipulate the political life of countries in central Europe, western Europe, the Balkans, the United States, and Latin America has left many telltale fingerprints—it seems highly unlikely Washington could have carried out a similar pattern of activities and not leave behind at least some noticeable traces of them.
WHAT ABOUT ALL THAT DEMOCRACY PROMOTION?
A second problematic element of the relativist position is the charge that U.S. efforts to promote democracy abroad—which make use of diplomatic leverage, democracy aid, and cooperation with pro-democratic multilateral organizations—are just another, more covert form of electoral meddling akin to what the Russians are doing. Russian President Vladimir Putin is a strong subscriber to this viewpoint, convinced that U.S. and other Western democracy programs in his country represent efforts to manipulate its domestic political life against him. Many Western observers—acutely aware of the long record of U.S. interventionism—have their suspicions as well.
U.S. pro-democracy diplomacy and assistance do indeed seek to shape the political direction of other countries. And they are carried out with a strong sense of self-interest, not out of unalloyed idealism. They are driven by the belief that democratic outcomes abroad will generally be favorable to U.S. security and economic interests by producing stable governments amenable to deeper partnerships thanks to shared political values. But unlike Russian electoral meddling, U.S. democracy promotion does not seek to exacerbate sociopolitical divisions, systematically spread lies, favor particular candidates, or undercut the technical integrity of elections. On the whole, it seeks to help citizens exercise their basic political and civil rights in electoral processes, enhance the technical integrity of such processes, and increase electoral transparency.
Skeptics reluctant to accept the idea that democracy diplomacy and assistance are not about manipulating elections should look at some recent cases—such as U.S. efforts to support Tunisia’s democratic evolution, to help Gambia resolve the blockage that followed its 2016 elections, to encourage the Hungarian government to respect media freedom and civic space, and to push the Myanmar military at the start of this decade to make room for at least some democratic political life in the country.
Skeptics should also note that although the U.S. organizations engaged in democracy work are mostly funded by the U.S. government itself, they are regularly at odds with the preferences of U.S. diplomats, who often hold on to relationships with friendly autocrats, as they are wary of the strategic value of democratic change. In the mid-1990s, this was true in Indonesia under former President Suharto and in Kazakhstan under President Nursultan Nazarbayev. And in the first decade of this century, the same occurred in Egypt under former President Hosni Mubarak and in Azerbaijan under the Aliyev family. Skeptics should also bear in mind that in most cases where the United States is engaged in promoting democracy abroad, it is working alongside and sometimes in active partnership with other democracies not known for geopolitical interventionism, such as Denmark, the Netherlands, and Sweden.
GRAY AREAS
Although the overall case is strong for distinguishing U.S. democracy support abroad from the sort of political meddling that Russia is now making a habit of, there are several difficult issues that necessarily complicate the comparison. First, in a small but important number of cases, the United States does assist one side of a contested electoral campaign against the other. This occurs when a strongman leader of doubtful democratic fidelity is trying to legitimate himself and perpetuate his rule through elections. In various such cases, as with Chilean President Augusto Pinochet’s plebiscite in 1988, Slobodan Milosevic’s reelection campaign in 2000, and various Belarusian elections in the 2000s, the United States and a number of other Western actors offered assistance both to the opposition political forces challenging the strongman and to civic groups that were mobilizing get-out-the-vote campaigns. From the Western point of view, such actions are not interfering in a free and fair election but rather trying to help level the playing field in an election that is stacked unfairly against the challengers. From the point of view of the power holders, of course, the United States and its allies are trying to shape the outcome of the election in a partisan fashion.
Second, although U.S. and other Western assistance to civil society aims to aid civic actors in their advocacy of rights and democracy—not to take sides in partisan political struggles and campaigns—the line between political society and civil society is often blurry. What to Western providers are principled civic actors working to advance universally valid political and civil rights and democratic values such as transparency and accountability, are to local authorities political animals cloaked in civic garb challenging their hold on power. This is especially true in partially or fully closed political environments such as exist in Cambodia and Venezuela, where regimes have choked off the opposition and demonstrated an ability to undermine elections.
Third, despite the fact that most U.S. and Western democracy promotion is carried out in a transparent manner, some aid providers are becoming less transparent in their assistance in order to protect their recipients from being harassed or persecuted. As a result, a growing number of regimes have accused the West of engaging in clandestine political meddling. This scenario creates a vicious cycle in which undemocratic regimes charge democracy promoters of secretive meddling and persecute those they work with, thus driving such organizations to adopt less transparent methods. This in turn further reinforces the perception of secretive meddling. U.S. democracy assistance directed at Iran, for example, has become much less transparent over the past ten years as crackdowns by the Iranian government on recipients of foreign assistance have intensified.
Fourth, U.S. democracy policy is markedly inconsistent, even though U.S. efforts to promote democracy in other countries are generally driven by genuine pro-democracy motives. The U.S. government makes more funds available for democracy programs in countries that the United States views as strategic enemies, such as Iran and Cuba, than it does in nondemocratic countries the United States views as strategic partners, such as Saudi Arabia and Ethiopia. The inconsistency is not absolute. Washington does make some efforts to promote democracy and rights in states ruled by “friendly tyrants.” The Trump administration’s decision last year to withhold some U.S. assistance to Egypt as a means of expressing dissatisfaction with President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi’s antidemocratic policies is just one example. And the fact that one is inconsistent in applying the principle does not render meaningless the applications that are made. Nevertheless, the inconsistency hurts the larger case that democracy promotion has real roots in principle.
DIVERGENT PATHS
It is not yet clear what it will take for the United States to move forward in putting together an effective response to Russian electoral meddling, but dispensing with the argument that Washington has no moral standing for objecting to such actions is certainly one necessary step. The arguments over “whataboutism” merit some careful reflection and assessment given that the facts are not simple and not all the facts are available. The United States does have a past record of electoral meddling, particularly during the Cold War. Yet the trends of U.S. and Russian behavior are divergent, not convergent—with Russia on the negative side of the divide. And although the domain of U.S. democracy promotion is hardly free of flaws and serious past mistakes, it is not the dark twin of the illicit, covert election meddling that Russia seems intent on making one of its defining signatures abroad.
Comments(21)
This is a strange article. It disproves its own thesis in the course of trying to prove it. Given the US has the benefit of printing dollars and is far wealthier than Russia, US democracy manipulation dwarfs that of Russia measured in financial terms. And recent US interventions in Honduras and Ukraine are an order of magnitude worse in character than those of Russia. All democracy intervention is troubling, but Russian and US democratic interventions have different motives. Russia is a declining authoritarian country with encirclement fears and its democracy interventions are defensive. The US is a dominant imperial power and its democracy interventions are aggressive. Moreover, democracy intervention is a tactic that is paired with foreign military interventions and foreign military garrisons. On that count, the US makes Russia look like a peacenik (of course, Russia is a horror internally, but that is different from its international posture). If we were serious about our own democracy, we would recognize the real threat is from within the US - fake domestically produced news, the power of money and corporations in our political system, gerrymandering of congressional districts, voter suppression, the built-in electoral college and Senate biases, and the obstruction of change by our first-past-the post electoral system that blocks emergence of new political parties. Compared to those problems, Russia's small time interventions are a total side-show. The obsession with Russia’s interventions is circus aimed to distract the US public from domestic problems and to create national security paranoia that supports more military spending and more domestic surveillance. It is easy to make our voting systems secure, and there is so much we could readily do to make our democracy competitive and educated. But that would terrify US elites. So instead, let's wage a fake campaign in defense of democracy that actually weakens our democracy by taking our eye off the ball, while continuing along the path that has already so weakened our democracy.
To quote the author: "U.S. democracy promotion does not seek to exacerbate sociopolitical divisions, systematically spread lies, favour particular candidates, or undercut the technical integrity of elections." Wrong on all counts. Let's review just one recent example - the 2014 Maidan revolt in Kiev. All along the US worked hard to divide two large social groups in Ukraine: those who supported the "pro-European" political orientation against those who felt the country needed to keep its close historic ties with Russia, continually favouring the former versus the latter (the issue of NATO membership is a good case in point). Then the US propaganda machine went out of its way to spread lies about the cruelty of the Yanukovich regime killing the peaceful Maidan protesters, even though it became quite clear already in February 2014 that the violence was started by the radical opposition groups and that the mass killings of both the protesters and the police were the work of the same snipers sponsored by the extreme opposition leaders. Then the US most definitely supported particular preferred candidates even among the temporarily united opposition (remember Victoria Nuland’s “f**ck the EU” conversation with ambassador Pyatt?) Finally, once the US decided which candidates suited them the most, the technical integrity of elections was undermined in the most brutal and cynical way (e.g. the results of the new Opposition Bloc in the (tightly supervised by the US) national vote fell consistently way below its candidate’s showings in the regional elections in the respective regions, which the US lacks resources or interest to control. All in all, the author’s argument of the US somehow holding the high moral ground in meddling in foreign elections is truly cynical and ludicrous. It reminds of an old Soviet-time joke about the elementary school kids asking their teacher whether Lenin had ever used the toilet. “Yes, he did, answers the teacher, but in a kinder, more honest, sincere way.”
I agree with your comment in general terms. The author gets lost trying to prove it's point, but I disagree on the Maidan issue. Yanukovich wasn't Saddam Hussein nor Osama Bin Laden, but if you review carefully how the repression started, you'll see that it was the actions of theUkranian government that caused the violence among protesters. Students and workers were initially manifesting in a very civilized and pacific manner, untill the government sent the Berkut in order to repress them. Even with the interference of those snipers, and without the deployment of military force, the Berkut caused a tremendous ammount of damage to unnarmed civilians. There are many videos and statements that assert all of this.
I agree with your comment in general terms. The author gets lost trying to prove it's point, but I disagree on the Maidan issue. Yanukovich wasn't Saddam Hussein nor Osama Bin Laden, but if you review carefully how the repression started, you'll see that it was the actions of theUkranian government that caused the violence among protesters. Students and workers were initially manifesting in a very civilized and pacific manner, untill the government sent the Berkut in order to repress them. Even with the interference of those snipers, and without the deployment of military force, the Berkut caused a tremendous ammount of damage to unnarmed civilians. There are many videos and statements that assert all of this.
True, what the US has done in various countries to try "fixing" election results does not compare with what we are told Russia did. But it is a matter of degree not of kind. Of course, international politics is not "beanbag," and if we are being a bit hypocritical, so what? We have outcomes we want and Russia has its own desired outcomes. We have the advantage in that we often weigh realpolitik versus morality, while Russia obviously doesn't. But there are a lot of people -- notably in he Middle East -- where the distinction cuts no ice as they note our continued preference for the unelected and undemocratic in some Arab states and our efforts to help said regimes keep power.
- Марьиванна, а Ленин какал? - Хм-м-м...да, дети, какал... Но как-то добрее, честнее что ли... "U.S. democracy promotion does not seek to exacerbate sociopolitical divisions, systematically spread lies, favour particular candidates, or undercut the technical integrity of elections." Wrong on all counts. Let's review just one recent example - the 2014 Maidan revolt in Kiev. All along the US worked hard to divide two large social groups in Ukraine: those who supported the "pro-European" political orientation against those who felt the country needed to keep its close historic ties with Russia, continually favouring the former versus the latter (the issue of NATO membership is a good case in point). Then the US propaganda machine went out of its way to spread lies about the cruelty of the Yanukovich regime killing the peaceful Maidan protesters, even though it became quite clear already in February 2014 that the violence was started by the radical opposition groups and that the mass killings of both the protesters and the police were the work of the same snipers sponsored by the extreme opposition leaders. Then the US most definitely supported particular preferred candidates even among the temporarily united opposition (remember Victoria Nuland’s conversation with ambassador Pyatt?) Finally, once the US decided which candidates suited them the most, the technical integrity of elections was undermined in the most brutal and cynical way (e.g. the results of the new Opposition Bloc in the (tightly supervised by the US) national vote fell consistently way below its candidate’s showings in the regional elections in the respective regions, which the US lacks resources or interest to control. All in all, the argument of the US somehow holding the high moral ground in meddling in foreign elections is truly cynical and ludicrous.
The writer(s) of this are either ignorant or deliberately trying to mislead others.
The argument about the moral superiority of USA election meddling vs Russian election meddling seems lacking. The examples given show the USA using its large diplomatic, political, intelligence and economic resources to actually influence or overturn electoral ourtcomes. Russia appeared to buy some info bots on the USA internet that any US interest could have done and with absolutely no effect on the outcome. There is no commentary on US efforts against Russia, but of course Russia is more isolated from these attacks than the more open USA system. These sanctions do not seem to be a very effective way to respond, but guess there was no choice.
The U.S. does not meddle in the elections of established democracies. That is a qualitative difference.
The U.S. is hard pressed to realize any principles of democracy with a straight face. "Meddle vs "regime change" or lets try "overthrown government" based on your absolute knowledge of all overt and covert operations involving the U.S. no doubt. Bottom line if you insist on following this made up logic of its okay to pillage murder and maim in order to impose our ideologies/form of government on other nations then you have hit the trifecta of Justification, rationalization and minimization. Qualitate that! (yes I made up my own word)
"Since the end of the Cold War, however, such interventionism has decreased significantly because U.S. policymakers no longer view the world as enmeshed in a global ideological struggle in which every country, no matter how small, is a critical piece on a larger strategic chessboard." That's because the u.s. and it's 'allies' have thwarted every attempt at non-westernized socialist experiments. To say that we've 'backed off' since the 'end of the cold war' is absurd.
If te Russian meddling can be identified and is considered illegal, then it should be countered through normal legal means. US meddling can be countered in the same way. Still, there are probably more examples of US meddling having reversed and heavily influenced outcomes than Russian meddling.. What is of much greater concern is the disproportionate role of money in the US election system and this may also ressemble the recent Russian experience. Basically, they should refrain from such inappropriate election influence peddling.
THE MIGRANTS NOBODY WANT. For centuries Latino-american countries, have been chanting Yankees go home, but to no avail. The US State Department has continued meddling in the political and economic lives of these countries, installing puppets to control governments, strengthening brutal military armies, and protecting Local corrupt politicians. Central Americans are examples of how wrong US foreign policies can threaten the livelihood of millions of people. Transnational companies in this region own the best agricultural lands and deforestation has robbed the fertility to the lands in the mountains where poor people had been pushed to live. Now the ghosts of IMPERIALISM is coming to roost and most Americans are crying wolf. The Europeans are having their own reckoning. For some time now, the ghosts of COLONIALISM have been coming the roost at the EU shores and Europeans are rising hell. To address migration in Europe, Messrs. Macron and Merkel are talking about the creation of “Regional landing platforms”, and economic development aid to deal with the roots of the migration problem. There is some similarity to the program created by US President John Kennedy (1961) “The Alliance For Progress”. He simply stated among other things...” Let us once again awaken our American revolution until it guides the struggles of people everywhere-NOT with an IMPERIALISM OF FORCE or fear but the rule of courage and freedom and hope for the future of man”. The EU talking points should be food for thought for members of the US Congress who have no idea how to solve their own migration problem.
Massively biased sugar coated one eyed "our good is the greater good" patronisation. You actually claim that just because the US hasn't used [extreme] interference lately everything is fine and dandy. The US aided and abetted an illegal armed coup of a democratically elected government in Ukraine and people died just a few years ago. John McCain even rallied armed rioters during this illegal coup, they went on to kill policemen and each other (in provocateur acts). How is this not an outrage of interference? This article is a prime example of American exceptionalism.
Hypocrite.
Not sure you have made your point in that what is being discussed is clandestine election influencing through computer hacking and the distribution of fake news and propoganda through social media and the internet - the two malign offensive activities covered by Donald Trumps executive oders. Can you really say that the USA or many other countries engage in these activities both openly and in clandestine classified activities. I think not.
Is the U.S. Hypocritical to Criticize Russian Election Meddling? Answer: DUH
"I come, I see, I conquer" Beautiful description of human nature. If you can sway results my way, you will do it. Result is all it matters. Nobody scrutinizes the 'real'process.
The u.s. mass murdered hundreds of thousands of people in Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, and who knows where else, and engineered elections all over the world.
Do as I say not as I do. Just another case of mistaken intelligence as has become the norm of many so called leading authorities. The most striking and quite frankly hilarious part of all is the base of reason from which effects smart people to abandon all sense of logic and seemingly posit against their own aptitude. There should be no real question as to the origin from whence this came. Simply put; Trump is President and I don't like it (what else could cause such a leading authority to spouse such nonsense) If not, then the following list should be dumped in favor of just one word...oxymoron. "Leading authority on international support for democracy, human rights, governance, the rule of law, and civil society" So why not just say " I hate Trump is president" and hey so be it...instead of demeaning your own theory of thought and the impressive list under your name thereby eroding in plain sight your ability to sustain your intellect over your emotions. The reasoning put forth in support of these thoughts is so laughable, I honestly don't believe it to be your true thoughts devoid of Trump won. Finally to your forced points: Social Media didn't exist in the forms that it does today (which is why it was used now) and not during the cold war. To relegate the "pot calling the kettle black" to past history doesn't matter equates to a Priest Molesting little kids 10 years ago and then sitting in judgement of others who have done the same. You are right about one thing...you can't compare murder, overthrowing governments, attempted murder (we missed Castro), war, arming rebels, etc to twitter and Facebook which basically was the posting of stolen facts about Clinton. If you think anyone who was going to vote for Clinton beforehand had a change of heart because the Russians hacked/stole then released information and posted it on Facebook and twitter... gleaned from her own words then they must have had their head in the sand for the past 20 years or her supporters didn't have that education advantage they purported over Trump voter's. Yes this was an article by you on who won the election and nothing more... other than we got outsmarted at our own game. If any meddling by us is transparent enough to be realized then it obviously isn't all we are doing. Too bad they didn't post a disclaimer at the bottom saying "these posts/adds are truths about Clinton stolen by the Russians"
Having worked with non state actors I find this assessment as a bias view of the level of influence they have had on regional sovereignties, and thus democratic processes in which real representation is felt. The fact that this article mentions the role of non state actors seems to be yet another attempt to own certain narratives. While most NGO’s help bridge gaps between military applications and humanitarian needs, there is also the more shady NGO and foundation work that I would absolutely classify with meddling in the trajectory of the society’s view to affect the number of votes for the cultivated, or lobbied candidate. The populist push back we are seeing today I believe to be the result of a massive uptick in a game of whose NGO’s out influence and lobby whose. The influence begins to feel un native to the target society. Those non state actors cultivate politicians and involve in media influence campaigns that not only feel un organic to the region -but often times the lobbied policies do not represent the local society. When holistic objectives are scaled up to a macro level in geopolitical terms the local region is left feeling betrayed or mis represented and the state’s bureaucracy views the NGO with skepticism and ultimately as if they have meddled in their affairs. I would argue that financing media outlets, orchestrating and financing activism and wrestling for narrative control in a game of exploiting advocacy is meddling in elections. Years of a multiple lobbying strategies and other financed projects with media collaboration is meddling in a long progressive manner. The term of globalization is becoming more and more synonymous with NGO’s and “non state actors”...tribalism is the counter..this ties back to the idea of election meddling. I think many Americans feel “non state actors” are meddling in their idea of sovereignty more so than Russia is. And then when they dive deeper into the situation, they see a correlation in the telegraphs of NGO activities in their nation as the ones in ours. At this point the terms “civil society, democracy, philanthropy, Open Society or Karl Popper ideology” , are all met with skepticism. The very idea of progress should mean individual sovereignty..not macro applied ideology. Yes- we’ve meddled all over the place. Thank you.
Comment Policy
Comments that include profanity, personal attacks, or other inappropriate material will be removed. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, steps will be taken to block users who violate any of the posting standards, terms of use, privacy policies, or any other policies governing this site. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.