Mr. Speaker, last year CNN reported that the U.S. had interfered or attempted to influence presidential elections in other countries at least 81 times. This is probably a very conservative estimate. This report came from a study by…
Mr. Speaker, last year CNN reported that the U.S. had interfered or attempted to influence presidential elections in other countries at least 81 times. This is probably a very conservative estimate.
This report came from a study by Professor Dov H. Levin of Carnegie Mellon University and apparently was just the tip of the iceberg. His study covered just years up to 2000, and these activities may have increased since that time.
Professor Levin defined an intervention as ``a costly act which is designed to determine the election results in favor of one of the two sides.'' He said these acts were carried out in secret two-thirds of the time and included ``funding the election campaigns of specific parties, disseminating misinformation or propaganda, training locals of only one side in various campaigning or public announcements on threats in favor of or against a candidate, and providing or withdrawing foreign aid.'' He reported that in 59 percent of these cases the side that received assistance came to power.
In a December 21, 2016, article, the Los Angeles Times said: ``The U.S. has a long history of attempting to influence presidential elections in other countries.''
The newspaper reported, that ``the CIA has accused Russia of interfering in the 2016 Presidential election by hacking into Democratic and Republican computer networks and selectively releasing emails.'' But the Times added: ``But critics might point out that the U.S. has done similar things.''
I am not criticizing our government's activities in this regard. Some of it has been good, designed to fight communism and promote freedom around the world. However, some of it has probably been wasteful, and, at times, has increased hatred for the U.S. We are involved, in many ways, in almost every country around the world through our State Department, Agency for International Development, the CIA, the Defense Department, and just about every Federal department and agency. Most countries take an active interest and involvement in U.S. Presidential elections through their citizens and former citizens who now live in this country.
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record this article from the Los Angeles Times.
[From the Los Angeles Times, Dec. 21, 2016]
The U.S. Is No Stranger to Interfering in the Elections of Other
Countries
(By Nina Agrawal)
Update: President Obama on Thursday slapped Russia with new
penalties for meddling in the U.S. presidential election,
kicking out dozens of suspected spies and imposing banking
restrictions on five people and four organizations the
administration says were involved.
The CIA has accused Russia of interfering in the 2016
presidential election by hacking into Democratic and
Republican computer networks and selectively releasing
emails. But critics might point out the U.S. has done similar
things.
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 percent 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 percent 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. Russia
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, including the kitchen sink'' 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.
Throughout the Cold War, U.S. involvement in foreign
elections was mainly motivated by the goal of containing
communism, said Thomas Carothers, a foreign policy expert at
the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. ``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.
This approach carried over into the immediate post-Soviet
period.
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.
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.
``The thinking was that we wanted to make sure communism
was dead and buried,'' said Levin.
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.
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. Funding and broadcast equipment provided to the media
arms of the opposition were a decisive factor in electing
opposition candidate Vojislav Kostunica as Yugoslav
president, according to Levin. ``If it wouldn't have been for
overt intervention . . . Milosevic would have been very
likely to have won another term,'' he said.
Supporting Congressman Jim Jordan
Mr. Speaker, there is greater turnover in elective offices today than ever before. And in my 30 years in Congress, I have now served with almost 1,500 other Members. Almost all have been good, kind men and women. But one of the best, one of the kindest is my friend, Jim Jordan.
Now, Congressman Jordan has been attacked with one of the dirtiest, most low-down political hit jobs that I have ever seen. He has been accused of knowing about, but failing to report, sexual abuse that occurred 25 to 30 years ago. This alleged abuse was done not by Mr. Jordan but by another man, a team doctor, who has been dead for 13 years. And this abuse was not done to little boys or girls. It was supposedly done to grown adult men, Ohio State wrestlers, none of whom reported it at the time.
The timing is so suspicious coming out now when Mr. Jordan may be seeking a leadership post. He is supposed to have known about this because of locker-room banter.
All the coaches and many of his players have defended Mr. Jordan, calling him one of the most honest men they know. Surely, Mr. Speaker, even though politics of hatred is prevalent today, surely we are not going to stoop to convicting people based on locker-room banter or gossip.