Not a week passes by without a new outcry about what Donald Trump, president of the U.S., has done or said. The latest outcry is about Trump’s defense of Russia’s Vladimir Putin about meddling in the 2016 U.S. presidential elections. A well-timed indictment against 12 Russian intelligence agents, just before Trump was to meet Putin in Helsinki on July 16th, by Trump’s archenemy Robert Mueller, the special counsel that is investigating the alleged Russian interference in the elections, provided detailed evidence of hacking originating from Russia. However, Mr. Trump dismissed the evidence of his own intelligence officials after being assured by Putin that Russia has nothing to do with this. Mr. Putin even made, in the words of Trump (and for once he was right), an “incredible” offer to send Russian investigators to work on the case. A chorus of upholders of democracy came out to denounce Trump, led by senator John McCain, who called the news conference “one of the most disgraceful performances by an American president in memory”. Given Trump’s track record, Mr. McCain must have a short memory… (remember the unreal show with Kim Jong-un?).
Unbelievable! According to my interpreter he just said he believes me…
Taking Putin’s word over detailed intelligence from your own guys is rather disturbing (or “stupid” in Trump’s words). It is also not entirely clear why Trump went down this path. Why not just acknowledge that it happened? Possibly he thinks that admitting to Russian hacking takes off the shine of his glorious defeat of crooked Hillary and of the legitimacy of his presidency. Or maybe it is because of his fascination for strong leaders (he being one of them?) who are willing to bend rules to achieve their goals. However, the fact that the Russians interfered in the elections should not come as a surprise. The U.S. itself has done this many times in the past. For example, the U.S. State Department, amongst other agencies, financed the opposition against Slobodan Milošević in the Serbian elections of 2000. The operation was dressed up as a spontaneous revolution but in reality was carefully prepared by consultants paid for by the U.S. In a direct appeal to the electorate, the U.S. even promised to lift sanctions if Milošević lost power. In more recent years, the U.S. also meddled in elections in Afghanistan (a failed attempt to oust Karzai in 2009) and Iraq (al-Maliki), of course all in the name of upholding democracy.
Indeed, the U.S. even tried its hand to steer the elections in Russia. Bill Clinton ordered his White House staffers to support Boris Yeltsin’s re-election as president in 1996 for fear that a communist (Gennady Zyuganov) would win. Campaign strategists including George Gorton, a strategist for California’s governor Pete Wilson, used all the dirty tricks in the book to get the desired result. No mean feat given that Yeltsin’s popularity sank by the day as poverty and unemployment surged whilst life expectancy dropped by a few years during Boris’ reign. Just over US$ 10 billion of IMF money, brokered by Clinton, was used to prop up the economy, only 4 months before voting. Reportedly, the money was used to buy booze and votes (e.g. by paying overdue wages to government employees). Oligarchs, eager to protect their privileged position to loot the country, funded the remaining amount to safeguard the desired outcome. Vladimir Putin may remember that the National Endowment of Democracy (NED), a NGO funded by U.S. Congress, indirectly supported Aleksei Navalny as well as organizations in Russia that foster democracy, despite complaints from Mr. Putin. Although the NED’s objectives may be noble, getting involved in “democratizing” the world often means that you end up taking sides. And not everybody likes or believes in democracy in any case (ask the Chinese, in particular Xi Jinping).
In the name of democracy…
Obviously, we disapprove of interference in elections by one country (in this case, Russia) in another (U.S.). Trump should tweet that he is utterly disappointed by Putin’s dishonesty. Political interference is difficult to stop, however, as history shows (for the interested reader, Dov Levin of Carnegie-Mellon University has done in-depth research on the topic). The best defense, probably, is to refrain from divisive political tactics, to build strong counterweights (establishing a gerrymandering-free electoral process, applying state-of the-art cybercrime intelligence, using hack-free voting machines, etc.) and to support an independent, inquisitive press at home (of which both CNN and Fox, by the way, are not good examples). In a truly vibrant democracy, fake news will not determine electoral outcomes.
