Since November,
the United States has been consumed with the idea that Russia tried to
influence the recent presidential election.
How dare they? Free and fair
elections are the cornerstone of democracy.
Only occasionally has the press whispered hints about an awful
secret: Why shouldn’t our enemies do
what we have been doing for years?
Yes, America has
been hip deep in the political process of other countries. We have funded and endorsed candidates,
denounced political parties, and sent electoral advisors all over the globe. James Carville, the campaign manager for Bill
Clinton, has worked—often on the suggestion of President Clinton—in political
campaigns in England, Israel, Canada, Bolivia, Colombia, Afghanistan, Brazil,
and Argentina.
There are dozens
of elections all over the world that American has tried to sway, but let’s just
look at two in depth.
Don’t Cry for
Ballots, Argentina
During World War
II, America began to see democracy as synonymous with freedom and that the
Allied victory would validate the American way of life. The idea that other governments might
also see the victory as validation of their way of life evidently
escaped our leaders. This thinking
certainly colored our relationship with Latin America.
In 1946, as Juan
Peron ran for the presidency of Argentina, the American Ambassador to
Argentina, Spruille Braden, became obsessed with the idea that Peron was trying
to build a Fourth Reich and start a third world war. Braden, the former ambassador to Colombia and
Cuba, was employed by, or was a major stockholder in, some of the more
notorious international corporations doing business in Latin America. These included the Braden Copper Company,
Anaconda Copper, United Fruit Company, and Standard Oil. Not for nothing was the very first act of
President Somoza his conferring of Nicaragua’s highest decoration on the
ultra-conservative diplomat.
Leaving
Argentina to become the new Assistant Secretary of State, Braden stepped up his
activities against Juan Peron. Just days
before the election, the United States released the 130-page “Blue Book” about
Peron’s alleged ties to Nazis and his plans for a fascist South America. Ambassadors from all over Latin America were
given special copies of the book bound with blue covers, and the entire book
was published in the pages of a Buenos Aires newspaper.
Undeterred,
Peron published his own 130-page book, the “Blue and White Book”. The name not only mocks the American “Blue
Book”, but references the colors of the Argentine flag. From its very first paragraph, Peron's book
attacks the United States as having “intervened in our domestic policy”. Argentine citizens were outraged by the
American attempt to influence their election.
Peron, who ran
on a slogan of “Braden or Peron”,
won the election by 350,000 votes.
Several Argentine historians have suggested that Peron would have lost the election without Braden.
After the
election, Braden soon left the State Department. Working for United Fruit, he was the point
man for the CIA overthrow of the Arbenz government in Guatemala and eventually went on to be one of the founders of the John
Birch Society.
Free
Elections, Vietnamese Style
In the early
1950s, as the French began advancing in an alternate direction—one that would take them out of
Southeast Asia—America began slowly taking their place there. At the 1954 Geneva conference, it was agreed
to divide Vietnam in half at the 17th parallel. The communists would go north while the
French and their allies would go south until free elections could be held in
two years.
Now the US had
no intention of allowing those free elections to take place for the simple
reason that the side we supported—and this meant anybody but the
Communists—would have lost. In the
meantime, we proposed that the South be ruled by the hereditary leader—Emperor
Bao Dai—with Ngo Dinh
Diem, as his Prime Minister.
For America,
Diem may well have been the worst possible choice to lead South Vietnam. A Roman Catholic and a former minister in the
French Colonial Government, he was hated by the Vietnamese people, who saw him
as corrupt and ruthless. Though the
French warned the Eisenhower government that the man could not be trusted, we
decided to back Diem. (To be fair, Eisenhower, with his extensive European
experience, can be forgiven for rejecting any French advice not involving
cheese or wine.)
Since America
knew that the scheduled 1956 election would almost certainly result in a
victory for the Communists in the North, we held an early election in 1955, in
which only those in South Vietnam were allowed to choose between Bao Dai and
Diem. The CIA’s Colonel Edward Lansdale
helped organize the election. Since a
lot of the voters were illiterate, colored ballots were used. Red ballots were for Diem and green ballots
were for Bao Dai.
The fact that
the superstitious Vietnamese believed that red signified good luck while green
forecast bad luck was not a coincidence. The red ballots showed a smiling Diem in
modern dress standing with young people while the green ballots showed a
confused Bao Dai wearing old style robes.
The CIA really
didn’t need to bother, since Diem controlled the ballot counting. Despite warnings from Washington, Diem
reported that he received 98.2% of the total vote, with an astounding 133% of
the votes from Saigon. Lansdale, who had
cautioned Diem to pick a plausible number somewhere between 60—70%, left Vietnam in disgust. (He promptly became involved in the
ridiculous Operation Mongoose—the absurd attempts to assassinate Fidel Castro
with exploding cigars.)
Within days of
the election—on November 1, 1955—the United States established MAAG (the
Military Assistance Advisory Group) to train the South Vietnamese Army and that
date is now recognized as the beginning of the Vietnam War.
The choice of
Diem quickly proved to be a mistake. At
times the staunch Roman Catholic seemed to be more at war with his country’s
Buddhists than with the Vietminh.
Despite the US's giving Diem $200 million a year, Diem could not seem to
bring reforms to South Vietnam. (This
was probably because he spent his time putting over 100,000 of his own people
in prison camps, some of whom were children convicted for the horrendous crime
of writing anti-Diem graffiti.)
Eventually,
President Kennedy commissioned a study on how to handle the Diem problem. The report, called for the introduction of
large scale military intervention, more money, and “advisers” to help stabilize
the Diem government. Unfortunately, it
was probably too late.
On June 11,
1963, Thich Quang Duc, a sixty-six year old Buddhist monk, sat down in the
middle of a busy Saigon road. He was then surrounded by a group of Buddhist
monks and nuns who poured gasoline over his head and then set fire to him. One eyewitness later commented: "As he burned he never moved a muscle,
never uttered a sound, his outward composure in sharp contrast to the wailing
people around him." While Thich
Quang Duc was burning to death, the monks and nuns gave out leaflets calling
for Diem's government to show "charity and compassion " to all religions.
The government's
response to this suicide was to arrest thousands of Buddhist monks. Many of
those jailed were never seen again. By
August another five monks had committed suicide by setting fire to themselves. One member of the South Vietnamese government
responded to these self-immolations by telling a newspaper reporter: "Let
them burn and we shall clap our hands."
Another offered to supply Buddhists who wanted to commit suicide with
the necessary gasoline.
In 1963, Diem
was assassinated (with the approval of the CIA). This probably would have caused a lot of
Americans to wonder just what the hell was going on in Vietnam, if President
Kennedy had not been assassinated just three weeks later.
There are more
examples of US "participation" in foreign elections, but you get the
idea. If the United States really wants
to stop foreign intervention in elections, perhaps we should lead by example.