USA har olagligt och odemokratiskt påverkat valen i många länder

Som bekant påstår ledande kretsar och CIA att Ryssland har hackat sig in i demokraternas datorsystem och påverkat presidentvalet. Som vanligt har man inte presenterat några belägg för detta. Massmedia runtom i världen, och i Sverige presenterar som vanligt detta som en sanning. Som vanligt lyser kritiskt tänkande med sin frånvaro.

Ett led i demoniseringen av Ryssland och Putin. Nu är det så att det finns gott om belägg för att USA påverkat valen i många länder. Lögner från Putin fnyser kanske någon. Nej det är främst källor i USA.

Jag inleder med utdrag ur en artikel av Nina Agrawal i Los Angeles Times Los Angeles Times och fortsätter med andra uppgifter. Artikeln behandlar bara ett utdrag av USA:s demokratividriga insatser för att påverka viktiga val i andra länder – ofta med framgång.

”The CIA has accused Russia of interfering in the 2016 presidential election by hacking into Democratic and Republican computer networks and selectively releasing emails.

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. The Soviet Union 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, 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.
“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.

* 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. Var informationen sann, tror ni?

* 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.

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.

*Israel 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. “If it wouldn’t have been for overt intervention … Milosevic would have been very likely to have won another term,” Levin said.
The UNZ Review har ytterligare information. UNZ
* Starting in 1946, the US and the Vatican financed Italy’s right-wing Christian Democratic Party, helping it win three national elections against the Left even though it was heavy with former fascists and Sicilian bandits.

* Washington organized the overthrow of Syria’s government in 1949, och försökte störta president al-Assad år 2012.
* In 1953, the US and Britain colluded to overthrow Iran’s popular democratic government.
* In 1954, the US overthrew the government of Guatemala.
* There followed intervention in Lebanon in 1958.
* Three years later came the infamous Bay of Pigs invasion and over fifty attempts to assassinate Fidel Castro.

* In 1965, the US invaded the Dominican Republic and overthrew its regime.
* 1973 brought the US-backed coup against Chile’s government.
Allende 2 untitled

There are many more to mention: Bolivia, Brazil, Congo, Turkey, Indonesia, Azerbaijan, Russia under Yeltsin, Ukraine’s ‘Orange’ Revolution, Georgia, and the overthrow of Ukraine’s elected pro-Russian government.

* The US may even have tried to overthrow France’s president, Charles de Gaulle.
* Lately, the US helped put Egypt’s bloody dictator in power, overthrowing the democratic government in the process and tapped the phone of close ally, German Chancellor Angela Merkel.
* Honduras 2009. At the beginning of Clinton’s tenure as Secretary of State in 2009, the Honduran military ousted democratically elected President Manuel Zelaya in a coup d’etat. The United Nations condemned the military coup and the Organization of American States suspended Honduras from its membership, calling for Zelaya’s reinstatement. Instead of joining the international effort to isolate the new regime, Clinton’s State Department pushed for a new election and decided not to declare that a military coup had occurred. Clinton said that she didn’t want Zelaya returning to power. “Zelaya had friends and allies, not just in Honduras, but in some of the neighboring countries, like Nicaragua and that we could have had a terrible civil war that would have been just terrifying in its loss of life.”
Emails that have since surfaced show that Clinton and her team worked behind the scenes to fend off efforts by neighboring democracies through the Organization of American States to restore the elected president to power. Huffington Post

Congolese independence leader Patrice Lumumba led an anti-colonial campaign to oust the ruling Belgians from the Congo and he became the country’s first elected leader in 1960. The U.S. set about almost immediately to overthrow and assassinate him, perceiving Lumumba (incorrectly, it turned out) to be a pawn of the Soviet Union. The Belgians took the lead in the plot against Lumumba, but the U.S. was a willing participant. When he was finally captured, he was tortured and killed. So that the public wouldn’t learn of the crime, he was doused in acid to make his body disappear. The assassins ran out of the substance, so they crushed, hacked and ground his body to pieces, scattering the remains in an area that would later be named for Lumumba. More than 50 years of conflict has followed. His killing has been called “the most important political assassination of the 20th Century.”
Indonesia 1965
Another leader who resisted being pulled into the U.S.-Soviet Cold War was Sukarno of Indonesia. When the Communist Party finished fourth in an Indonesian election and Sukarno offered them proportional representation in his government, the U.S. panicked and secretly supported the brutal purging of suspected communists. Hundreds of thousands died and the military emerged the most powerful institution in the country. It quickly tossed Sukarno from power in 1967 and squashed democracy. Recently, a panel on an international tribunal at the Hague found the U.S., along with Australia and the United Kingdom, had been complicit in Indonesia’s crimes against humanity in 1965.
* Afghanistan 2014
The election in 2014 didn’t go as the U.S. intended (like the one in 2009, shot through with fraud that gave it to Hamid Karzai). So the U.S. declared it a tie and created a new position not in the Afghan constitution called Chief Executive Officer.
* Ukraina 2014 Stödet till statskuppen i Ukraina i februari 2014 mot en vald president, i val år 2010 som OSSE bedömde som exemplariska
Karzai och Obama images
* För en mer samlad framställning av försök till valpåverkan och statskupper läsa William Blums standardverk ”CIA & USA:s verkliga utrikespolitik” som delvis sammanfattats Globalresearch
Blum Boken  untitled Ukraina, , , , , , , , , , ,

5 svar till “USA har olagligt och odemokratiskt påverkat valen i många länder”

  1. USA är gangsterstaten som forcerar bankirvampyrernas vilja på världen, inklusive USAs befolkning. Den stat, det folk eller grupp som motsätter sig detta blir föremål för invasion, terroristkrig och sanktioner samt svartmålning och lögn i mediemonopol maffian. Allehanda experter och akademiker går att köpa för dussin ören. Samling NGO:s och allehanda aktivister är i själva verket betalda förtrupper som för fram bankirvampyrernas agenda. Inser man detta klarnar mycket av det som försiggår i världen, i vems intressen av vilka krafter och varför.

  2. Vad sker i vårt eget land? Att massmedia far med osanning, b]Lüge/b, som tyskarna säger, eller utlämnar viktiga fakta, b]Lücke/b, som samma tyskar säger, är en sak, men det som förvånat mig länge är hur samtrimmad desinformationen är. Det är som om krigstidens i]Informationsstyrelse/i återuppstått i hemlighet, den som skickade ut små grå lappar till tidningarna om vad de borde eller inte borde skriva. Sitter det ”amerikanska troll” i Stockholm?

  3. En intervju från 2007 med Michael Meadowcroft, en fd brittisk MP (bevakat 48 val i 35 länder), som för OSSE räkning bevakade Rysslands val 1996.

    Av Alexander Zaitchik and Mark Ames, Moscow

    “A Victory for Russian Democracy”
    —Title of a New York Times editorial, days after the ODIHR-approved 1996 presidential election

    “A Victory for Russian Democracy”
    —Title of a New York Times editorial, days after the ODIHR-approved 1996 presidential election

    “Up to the last minute I was being pressured by [the OSCE higher-ups in] Warsaw to change what I wanted to say,” said Meadowcroft. “In terms of what the OSCE was prepared to say publicly about the election, they were very opposed to any suggestion that the election had been manipulated.”

    In fact, he says, the OSCE and the West had made its mind up about how wonderfully free and fair Boris Yeltsin’s election was before voting even started.

    “The OSCE parliamentary assembly had a separate mission who were passionately pro-Yeltsin,” he said. “So you had two OSCE missions for the election, one of which arrived predisposed to say things were good.” The other was pressured to agree.

    Evidence of fraud, such as entire towns in Chechnya voting overwhelmingly for Yeltsin, caused Meadowcroft to liken the 1996 election to those held in African dictatorships. “In Chechnya they’d been bombed out of existence, and there they were all supposedly voting for Yeltsin. It’s like what happens in Cameroon,” he said.

    While the Western media portrays the Russia-OSCE spat as a simple battle between bright democracy and dark autocracy, the Russian elite has a deeply cynical view of the OSCE based on personal experience. As Meadowcroft was not allowed to say at the time, Yeltsin’s victory in 1996 was rife with fraud. Most important to the outcome was the months-long blanket television support Yeltsin received and a “black PR” campaign against his Communist foe, Gennady Zyuganov; Russia’s print media was almost as bad. The election was not a “victory for optimists,” as the Hoover Institute’s notorious Yeltsin-cheerleader Michael McFaul wrote at the time. Rather, the technology of the fraudulent election, blessed by the West, served as the template for future Russian elections. But if few in the West know about this, it’s because the OSCE and the Western media only began to emphasize Russia’s systemic electoral fraud and media manipulation in 2003.

    The OSCE continued pumping out glass-half-full reports into the Putin era. In 2000, it was quick to sign off on Putin’s first-round victory, despite widespread evidence of fraud, some of it uncovered by the Moscow Times. “The OSCE should not have approved [the 2000 elections],” the Yabloko party spokesman, Sergei Loktyonov, told the eXile after Putin’s 2003 reelection. “It’s hard to say why they did that.”

    But is it? In 2000, Putin was still seen as a “reformer”, as the West’s guy. He had not yet begun to cross Western oil interests or to reassert an independent and muscular foreign policy. Fast forward to 2003 and the OSCE was singing a different tune.

    The OSCE hasn’t just destroyed its credibility with its strange criteria for judging some Russian elections fair and others not. As the world considers Moscow’s charge of undue American influence on the organization, it’s worth pulling an OSCE “greatest hit” out of the memory hole. In the run up to the Kosovo war, the organization was used a front for the CIA to deliver communications equipment to the Kosovo Liberation Army, and to gather targeting information for an expected upcoming NATO bombing campaign.

    En annan läsvärd artikel (1998) från ”Yeltsin era”

    Det här är en lång artikel om den nyliberala shockterapin som drabbade Ryssland under 1990-taket. Artikeln blev resultatet av ett besök i Ryssland som jag och den övrga ETC-redaktionen gjorde 1998. Artikeln citeras på ett par ställen i Naomi Kleins bok Chockdoktrinen” och detta fick mig att se till så att den blir upplagd på nätet. (Det finns även på engelska!)
    (Med lite professionell hjälp från Sverige)

    En artikel av Dan Josefsson
    Research: Stefan Lindgren

    Experimentet inleddes 1991. Idag, sju år senare, visar statistiken att det blev betydligt mer chock än terapi. Faktum är att terapin nästan slagit ihjäl patienten.
    Låt oss titta på några siffor.