William Blum
The Anti-Empire Report #156
By William Blum – Published March 15th, 2018
Share
66
Shakespeare said it best
Much ado about nothing.
That’s the “Russian interference” in the 2016 American election.
A group of Russians operating from a building in St. Petersburg, we are told in
a February 16 US government indictment, 1sent out tweets, Facebook and YouTube
postings, etc. to gain support for Trump and hurt Clinton even though most of
these messages did not even mention Trump or Clinton; and many were sent out
before Trump was even a candidate.
The Russian-interference indictment is predicated, apparently, on the idea that
the United States is a backward, Third-World, Banana Republic, easily
manipulated.
If the Democrats think it’s so easy and so effective to sway voters in the
United States why didn’t the party do better?
At times the indictment tells us that the online advertising campaign, led by
the shadowy Internet Research Agency of Russia, was meant to divide the
American people, not influence the 2016 election. The Russians supposedly
wished to cause “divisiveness” in the American people, particularly around
controversial issues such as immigration, politics, energy policy, climate
change, and race. “The indictment alleges that the Russian conspirators want to
promote discord in the United States and undermine public confidence in
democracy,” said Rod J. Rosenstein, the deputy attorney general overseeing the
inquiry. “We must not allow them to succeed.” 2
Imagine that – the American people, whom we all know are living in blissful
harmony and fraternity without any noticeable anger or hatred, would become
divided! Damn those Russkis!
After the election of Trump as president in November 2016, the defendants “used
false U.S. personas to organize and coordinate U.S. political rallies in
support of then president-elect Trump, while simultaneously using other false
U.S. personas to organize and coordinate U.S. political rallies protesting the
results of the 2016 U.S. presidential election.”
The indictment also states that defendants in New York organized a
demonstration designed to “show your support for President-Elect Donald Trump”
held on or about November 12, 2016. At the same time, defendants and their
co-conspirators, organized another rally in New York called “Trump is NOT my
President”.
Much of the indictment and the news reports of the past year are replete with
such contradictions, lending credence to the suggestion that what actually lay
behind the events was a “click-bait” scheme wherein certain individuals earned
money based on the number of times a particular website is accessed. The
mastermind behind this scheme is reported to be a Russian named Yevgeny
Prigozhin of the above-named Internet Research Agency, which is named in the
indictment. 3
The Russian operation began four years ago, well before Trump entered the
presidential race, a fact that he quickly seized on in his defense. “Russia
started their anti-US campaign in 2014, long before I announced that I would
run for President,” he wrote on Twitter. “The results of the election were not
impacted. The Trump campaign did nothing wrong – no collusion!”
Point 95 of the Indictment summarizes the “click-bait” scheme as follows:
Defendants and their co-conspirators also used the accounts to receive money
from real U.S. persons in exchange for posting promotions and advertisements on
the ORGANIZATION-controlled social media pages. Defendants and their
co-conspirators typically charged certain U.S. merchants and U.S. social media
sites between 25 and 50 U.S. dollars per post for promotional content on their
popular false U.S. persona accounts, including Being Patriotic, Defend the 2nd,
and Blacktivist.
Although there’s no doubt that the Kremlin favored Trump over Clinton, the
whole “Russian influence” storm may be based on a misunderstanding of
commercial activities of a Russian marketing company in US social networks.
Here’s some Real interference in election campaigns
[Slightly abridged version of chapter 18 in William Blum’s Rogue State: A Guide
to the World’s Only Superpower; see it for notes]
Philippines, 1950s:
Flagrant manipulation by the CIA of the nation’s political life, featuring
stage-managed elections with extensive disinformation campaigns, heavy
financing of candidates, writing their speeches, drugging the drinks of one of
the opponents of the CIA-supported candidate so he would appear incoherent;
plotting the assassination of another candidate. The oblivious New York
Timesdeclared that “It is not without reason that the Philippines has been
called “democracy’s showcase in Asia”.
Italy, 1948-1970s:
Multifarious campaigns to repeatedly sabotage the electoral chances of the
Communist Party and ensure the election of the Christian Democrats,
long-favored by Washington.
Lebanon, 1950s:
The CIA provided funds to support the campaigns of President Camille Chamoun
and selected parliamentary candidates; other funds were targeted against
candidates who had shown less than total enchantment with US interference in
Lebanese politics.
Indonesia, 1955:
A million dollars were dispensed by the CIA to a centrist coalition’s electoral
campaign in a bid to cut into the support for President Sukarno’s party and the
Indonesian Communist Party.
Vietnam, 1955:
The US was instrumental in South Vietnam canceling the elections scheduled to
unify North and South because of the certainty that the North Vietnamese
communist leader, Ho Chi Minh, would easily win.
British Guiana/Guyana, 1953-64:
For 11 years, two of the oldest democracies in the world, Great Britain and the
United States, went to great lengths to prevent Cheddi Jagan – three times the
democratically elected leader – from occupying his office. Using a wide variety
of tactics – from general strikes and disinformation to terrorism and British
legalisms – the US and Britain forced Jagan out of office twice during this
period.
Japan, 1958-1970s:
The CIA emptied the US treasury of millions to finance the conservative Liberal
Democratic Party in parliamentary elections, “on a seat-by-seat basis”, while
doing what it could to weaken and undermine its opposition, the Japanese
Socialist Party. The 1961-63 edition of the State Department’s annual Foreign
Relations of the United States, published in 1996, includes an unprecedented
disclaimer that, because of material left out, a committee of distinguished
historians thinks “this published compilation does not constitute a ‘thorough,
accurate, and reliable documentary record of major United States foreign policy
decisions’” as required by law. The deleted material involved US actions from
1958-1960 in Japan, according to the State Department’s historian.
Nepal, 1959:
By the CIA’s own admission, it carried out an unspecified “covert action” on
behalf of B.P. Koirala to help his Nepali Congress Party win the national
parliamentary election. It was Nepal’s first national election ever, and the
CIA was there to initiate them into the wonderful workings of democracy.
Laos, 1960:
CIA agents stuffed ballot boxes to help a hand-picked strongman, Phoumi
Nosavan, set up a pro-American government.
Brazil, 1962:
The CIA and the Agency for International Development expended millions of
dollars in federal and state elections in support of candidates opposed to
leftist President João Goulart, who won anyway.
Dominican Republic, 1962:
In October 1962, two months before election day, US Ambassador John Bartlow
Martin got together with the candidates of the two major parties and handed
them a written notice, in Spanish and English, which he had prepared. It read
in part: “The loser in the forthcoming election will, as soon as the election
result is known, publicly congratulate the winner, publicly recognize him as
the President of all the Dominican people, and publicly call upon his own
supporters to so recognize him. … Before taking office, the winner will offer
Cabinet seats to members of the loser’s party. (They may decline).”
As matters turned out, the winner, Juan Bosch, was ousted in a military coup
seven months later, a slap in the face of democracy which neither Martin nor
any other American official did anything about.
Guatemala, 1963:
The US overthrew the regime of General Miguel Ydigoras because he was planning
to step down in 1964, leaving the door open to an election; an election that
Washington feared would be won by the former president, liberal reformer and
critic of US foreign policy, Juan José Arévalo. Ydigoras’s replacement made no
mention of elections.
Bolivia, 1966:
The CIA bestowed $600,000 upon President René Barrientos and lesser sums to
several right-wing parties in a successful effort to influence the outcome of
national elections. Gulf Oil contributed two hundred thousand more to
Barrientos.
Chile, 1964-70:
Major US interventions into national elections in 1964 and 1970, and
congressional elections in the intervening years. Socialist Salvador Allende
fell victim in 1964, but won in 1970 despite a multimillion-dollar CIA
operation against him. The Agency then orchestrated his downfall in a 1973
military coup.
Portugal, 1974-5:
In the years following the coup in 1974 by military officers who talked like
socialists, the CIA revved up its propaganda machine while funneling many
millions of dollars to support “moderate” candidates, in particular Mario
Soares and his (so-called) Socialist Party. At the same time, the Agency
enlisted social-democratic parties of Western Europe to provide further funds
and support to Soares. It worked. The Socialist Party became the dominant power.
Australia, 1974-75:
Despite providing considerable support for the opposition, the United States
failed to defeat the Labor Party, which was strongly against the US war in
Vietnam and CIA meddling in Australia. The CIA then used “legal” methods to
unseat the man who won the election, Edward Gough Whitlam.
Jamaica, 1976:
A CIA campaign to defeat social democrat Michael Manley’s bid for reelection,
featuring disinformation, arms shipments, labor unrest, economic
destabilization, financial support for the opposition, and attempts upon
Manley’s life. Despite it all, he was victorious.
Panama, 1984, 1989:
In 1984, the CIA helped finance a highly questionable presidential electoral
victory for one of Manuel Noriega’s men. The opposition cried “fraud”, but the
new president was welcomed at the White House. By 1989, Noriega was no longer a
Washington favorite, so the CIA provided more than $10 million dollars to his
electoral opponents.
Nicaragua, 1984, 1990:
In 1984, the United States, trying to discredit the legitimacy of the
Sandinista government’s scheduled election, covertly persuaded the leading
opposition coalition to not take part. A few days before election day, some
other rightist parties on the ballot revealed that US diplomats had been
pressing them to drop out of the race as well. The CIA also tried to split the
Sandinista leadership by placing phoney full-page ads in neighboring countries.
But the Sandinistas won handily in a very fair election monitored by hundreds
of international observers.
Six years later, the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), Washington’s
specially created stand-in for the CIA, poured in millions of dollars to defeat
Daniel Ortega and the Sandinistas in the February elections. NED helped
organize the Nicaraguan opposition, UNO, building up the parties and
organizations that formed and supported this coalition.
Perhaps most telling of all, the Nicaraguan people were made painfully aware
that a victory by the Sandinistas would mean a continuation of the relentlessly
devastating war being waged against them by Washington through their proxy
army, the Contras.
Haiti, 1987-1988:
After the Duvalier dictatorship came to an end in 1986, the country prepared
for its first free elections ever. However, Haiti’s main trade union leader
declared that Washington was working to undermine the left. US aid
organizations, he said, were encouraging people in the countryside to identify
and reject the entire left as “communist”. Meanwhile, the CIA was involved in a
range of support for selected candidates until the US Senate Intelligence
Committee ordered the Agency to cease its covert electoral action.
Bulgaria, 1990-1991 and Albania, 1991-1992:
With no regard for the fragility of these nascent democracies, the US
interfered broadly in their elections and orchestrated the ousting of their
elected socialist governments.
Russia, 1996:
For four months (March-June), a group of veteran American political consultants
worked secretly in Moscow in support of Boris Yeltsin’s presidential campaign.
Boris Yeltsin was being counted on to run with the globalized-free market ball
and it was imperative that he cross the goal line. The Americans emphasized
sophisticated methods of message development, polling, focus groups, crowd
staging, direct-mailing, etc., and advised against public debates with the
Communists. Most of all they encouraged the Yeltsin campaign to “go negative”
against the Communists, painting frightening pictures of what the Communists
would do if they took power, including much civic upheaval and violence, and,
of course, a return to the worst of Stalinism. Before the Americans came on
board, Yeltsin was favored by only six percent of the electorate. In the first
round of voting, he edged the Communists 35 percent to 32, and was victorious
in the second round 54 to 40 percent.
Mongolia, 1996:
The National Endowment for Democracy worked for several years with the
opposition to the governing Mongolian People’s Revolutionary Party (MPRR, the
former Communists) who had won the 1992 election to achieve a very surprising
electoral victory. In the six-year period leading up to the 1996 elections, NED
spent close to a million dollars in a country with a population of some 2.5
million, the most significant result of which was to unite the opposition into
a new coalition, the National Democratic Union. Borrowing from Newt Gingrich’s
Contract With America, the NED drafted a “Contract With the Mongolian Voter”,
which called for private property rights, a free press and the encouragement of
foreign investment. The MPRR had already instituted Western-style economic
reforms, which had led to widespread poverty and wiped out much of the
communist social safety net. But the new government promised to accelerate the
reforms, including the privatization of housing. By 1998 it was reported that
the US National Security Agency had set up electronic listening posts in Outer
Mongolia to intercept Chinese army communications, and the Mongolian
intelligence service was using nomads to gather intelligence in China itself.
Bosnia, 1998:
Effectively an American protectorate, with Carlos Westendorp – the Spanish
diplomat appointed to enforce Washington’s offspring: the 1995 Dayton peace
accords – as the colonial Governor-General. Before the September elections for
a host of offices, Westendorp removed 14 Croatian candidates from the ballot
because of alleged biased coverage aired in Bosnia by neighboring Croatia’s
state television and politicking by ethnic Croat army soldiers. After the
election, Westendorp fired the elected president of the Bosnian Serb Republic,
accusing him of creating instability. In this scenario those who appeared to
support what the US and other Western powers wished were called “moderates”,
and allowed to run for and remain in office. Those who had other thoughts were
labeled “hard-liners”, and ran the risk of a different fate. When Westendorp
was chosen to assume this position of “high representative” in Bosnia in May
1997, The Guardianof London wrote that “The US secretary of state, Madeleine
Albright, praised the choice. But some critics already fear that Mr. Westendorp
will prove too lightweight and end up as a cipher in American hands.”
Nicaragua, 2001
Sandinista leader Daniel Ortega was once again a marked man. US State
Department officials tried their best to publicly associate him with terrorism,
including just after September 11 had taken place, and to shamelessly accuse
Sandinista leaders of all manner of violations of human rights, civil rights,
and democracy. The US ambassador literally campaigned for Ortega’s opponent,
Enrique Bolaños. A senior analyst in Nicaragua for Gallup, the international
pollsters, was moved to declare: “Never in my whole life have I seen a sitting
ambassador get publicly involved in a sovereign country’s electoral process,
nor have I ever heard of it.”
At the close of the campaign, Bolaños announced: “If Ortega comes to power,
that would provoke a closing of aid and investment, difficulties with exports,
visas and family remittances. I’m not just saying this. The United States says
this, too. We cannot close our eyes and risk our well-being and work. Say yes
to Nicaragua, say no to terrorism.”
In the end, the Sandinistas lost the election by about ten percentage points
after steadily leading in the polls during much of the campaign.
Bolivia, 2002
The American bête noirehere was Evo Morales, Amerindian, former member of
Congress, socialist, running on an anti-neoliberal, anti-big business, and
anti-coca eradication campaign. The US Ambassador declared: “The Bolivian
electorate must consider the consequences of choosing leaders somehow connected
with drug trafficking and terrorism.” Following September 11, painting
Officially Designated Enemies with the terrorist brush was de rigueurUS foreign
policy rhetoric.
The US Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs warned that
American aid to the country would be in danger if Mr. Morales was chosen. Then
the ambassador and other US officials met with key figures from Bolivia’s main
political parties in an effort to shore up support for Morales’s opponent,
Sanchez de Lozada. Morales lost the vote.
Slovakia, 2002
To defeat Vladimir Meciar, former prime minister, a man who did not share
Washington’s weltanschauungabout globalization, the US ambassador explicitly
warned the Slovakian people that electing him would hurt their chances of entry
into the European Union and NATO. The US ambassador to NATO then arrived and
issued his own warning. The National Endowment for Democracy was also on hand
to influence the election. Meciar lost.
El Salvador, 2004
Washington’s target in this election was Schafik Handal, candidate of the FMLN,
the leftist former guerrilla group. He said he would withdraw El Salvador’s 380
troops from Iraq as well as reviewing other pro-US policies; he would also take
another look at the privatizations of Salvadoran industries, and would
reinstate diplomatic relations with Cuba. His opponent was Tony Saca of the
incumbent Arena Party, a pro-US, pro-free market organization of the extreme
right, which in the bloody civil war days had featured death squads and the
infamous assassination of Archbishop Oscar Romero.
During a February visit to the country, the US Assistant Secretary of State for
Western Hemisphere Affairs, met with all the presidential candidates except
Handal. He warned of possible repercussions in US-Salvadoran relations if
Handal were elected. Three Republican congressmen threatened to block the
renewal of annual work visas for some 300,000 Salvadorans in the United States
if El Salvador opted for the FMLN. And Congressman Thomas Tancredo of Colorado
stated that if the FMLN won, “it could mean a radical change” in US policy on
remittances to El Salvador.
Washington’s attitude was exploited by Arena and the generally conservative
Salvadoran press, who mounted a scare campaign, and it became widely believed
that a Handal victory could result in mass deportations of Salvadorans from the
United States and a drop in remittances. Arena won the election with about 57
percent of the vote to some 36 percent for the FMLN.
After the election, the US ambassador declared that Washington’s policies
concerning immigration and remittances had nothing to do with any election in
El Salvador. There appears to be no record of such a statement being made in
public beforethe election when it might have had a profound positive effect for
the FMLN.
Afghanistan, 2004
The US ambassador to Afghanistan, Zalmay Khalilzad, went around putting great
pressure on one candidate after another to withdraw from the presidential race
so as to insure the victory for Washington’s man, the incumbent, Hamid Karzai
in the October election. There was nothing particularly subtle about it.
Khalilzad told each one what he wanted and then asked them what they needed.
Karzai, a long-time resident in the United States, was described by the
Washington Postas “a known and respected figure at the State Department and
National Security Council and on Capitol Hill.”
“Our hearts have been broken because we thought we could have beaten Mr. Karzai
if this had been a true election,” said Sayed Mustafa Sadat Ophyani, campaign
manager for Younis Qanooni, Karzai’s leading rival. “But it is not. Mr.
Khalilzad is putting a lot of pressure on us and does not allow us to fight a
good election campaign.”.
None of the major candidates actually withdrew from the election, which Karzai
won with about 56 percent of the votes.
The Cold War Forever
On March 7 British police said that a former Russian double agent, Sergei
Skripal, and his daughter Yulia were found unconscious on a bench in Salisbury,
a city southwest of London. The police said that Skripal had been “targeted
specifically” with a nerve agent. Skripal was jailed in Russia in 2006 for
passing state secrets to Britain. He was released in 2010 as part of a spy swap.
Because nerve agents are complex to make, they are typically not made by
individuals, but rather by states. British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson has
said that the Skripal case had “echoes” of what happened to Alexander
Litvinenko, a former KGB Operative who British officials believe was poisoned
in London by Russian agents in 2006, becoming the first victim of lethal
polonium-210-induced acute radiation syndrome. Before he died, he spoke about
the misdeeds of the Russian secret service and delivered public deathbed
accusations that Russian president Vladimir Putin was behind his unusual malady.
Because of this the Skripal poisoning looks like an open-and-shut case.
But hold on. Skripal was sent to Britain by the Russian government eight years
ago in an exchange of spies. Why would they want to kill him now, and with
Putin’s election coming up? And with the quadrennial football (soccer) World
Cup coming up soon to be played in Russia. Moscow is very proud of this,
publicizing it every day on their international television stations (RT in the
US). A murder like this could surely put a serious damper on the Moscow
festivities. Boris Johnson has already dropped a threat: “Thinking ahead to the
World Cup this July, this summer, I think it would be very difficult to imagine
that UK representation at that event could go ahead in the normal way and we
would certainly have to consider that.” 4It was totally predictable.
Because political opposition is weak, and no obvious threat to the ruling
United Russia Party, what would the government gain by an assassination of an
opposition figure?
So if Russia is not responsible for Skripal’s poisoning, who is? Well I have an
idea. I can’t give you the full name of the guilty party, but its initials are
CIA. US-Russian Cold Wars produce unmitigated animosity. As but one example,
the United States boycotted the Olympics that were held in the Soviet Union in
1980, because of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. The Soviet Union then
boycotted the 1984 Olympics in Los Angeles.
Ideology and Evolution
New York Timeseditorial page editor James Bennet recently declared: “I think we
are pro-capitalism. The New York Timesis in favor of capitalism because it has
been the greatest engine of, it’s been the greatest anti-poverty program and
engine of progress that we’ve seen.” 5The man is correct as far as he goes. But
there are two historical factors that enter into this discussion that he fails
to consider:
1.Socialism may well have surpassed capitalism as an anti-poverty program and
engine of progress if the United States and other capitalist powers had not
subverted, destabilized, invaded, and/or overthrown every halfway serious
attempt at socialism in the world. Not one socialist-oriented government, from
Cuba and Vietnam in the 1960s, to Nicaragua and Chile in the 1970s, to Bulgaria
and Yugoslavia in the 1990s, to Haiti and Venezuela in the 2000s has been
allowed to rise or fall based on its own merits or lack of same, or allowed to
relax its guard against the ever-threatening capital imperialists.
2.Evolution: Social and economic systems have evolved along with human beings.
Humankind has roughly gone from slavery to feudalism to capitalism. There’s no
reason to assume that this evolution has come to a grinding halt, particularly
given the deep-seated needs of the world in the face of one overwhelming
problem after another, most caused by putting profit before people.
Share
66
Notes
1.U.S. Grand Jury Indictment, February 16, 2018
2.New York Times, February 16, 2018
3.“Mueller Indictment - The “Russian Influence” Is A Commercial Marketing
Scheme,” Moon of Alabama, February 17, 2018
4.The Independent(London), March 6, 2018
5.Huffington Post, February 27, 2018
Any part of this report may be disseminated without permission, provided
attribution to William Blum as author and a link to williamblum.orgis provided.
← Issue #155
.
Books
The Anti-Empire Report
Essays and Speeches
About the Author
Browse the Anti-Empire Report by year2018 Reports2017 Reports2016 Reports2015
Reports2014 Reports2013 Reports2012 Reports2011 Reports2010 Reports2009
Reports2008 Reports2007 Reports2006 Reports2005 Reports2004 Reports2003 Reports
William Blum is an author, historian, and U.S. foreign policy critic. He is the
author of Killing Hope: U.S. Military and CIA Interventions Since World War
IIand Rogue State: A Guide to the World’s Only Superpower, among others. Read
more →