4 ms·

It’s a connected world, and the US being one of the centers means that nearly every country has a stake in the outcome. I don’t think it’s wrong of them to use

by dahdum 9y ago

It’s a connected world, and the US being one of the centers means that nearly every country has a stake in the outcome. I don’t think it’s wrong of them to use their influence, as we do. It bothers me, but then I think of what we should do if Turkey ever came up with a free election. In my opinion that would be doing everything we can to influence, the slide to dictatorship and oppression is more unpalatable to me.

stordoff 9y ago
I feel there's something rather ironic about countering "the slide to dictatorship and oppression" by using state power to interfere in foreign elections, particularly if it used covert or underhanded means rather than openly setting out the country's position.
- dahdum 9y ago
  My personal way around this is that a democracy using state power to interfere in a dictatorship, with the goal of bringing democratic reforms, is net better for humanity than doing nothing to oppose them. State power includes sanctions, embargoes, tariffs, and the promise of lifting those measures for the preferred candidate/party. I do suspect we only disagree on the degree of influence.
  - stordoff 9y ago
    > I do suspect we only disagree on the degree of influence. You are quite possibly correct. Much of "sanctions, embargoes, tariffs, and the promise of lifting those measures for the preferred candidate/party" would fall under what I meant by "openly setting out the country's position", and is qualitatively different from the (alleged) Russian interference and how the US (and others) have historically influenced elections. I think much of the difference comes down to attributability (giving the country/government's opinion and how they will deal with any particular winner is fine; making claims that appear to come from other/in-country sources, or misleading the population of that country is not) and whether you are directly taking actions within the country/working with a particular political party (what is a small amount of money to the US could very easily skew the election massively in some countries, and lead to the US de facto deciding the result).
    - dahdum 9y ago
      Agree, though a lot of those threats and promises made privately. I also assume CIA / NSA sourced intel on politicians (criminal and otherwise) is routinely leaked when in our interest to local sources through embassies and whatnot. Do you agree with that type of interference?
      - stordoff 9y ago
        I think it's very difficult to draw a firm line, as it's going to be so context-dependent (how in the information is gathered, the nature of the information, how it is released), but generally I'd say no. If it's just something private, you are damaging the electoral chances over something that is quite probably irrelevant. If it's something illegal, it should be _publicly_ exposed -- leaking through local sources runs the risk that it be used for bribery/manipulation, or to gain an advantage without revealing the criminal activity. Further, I'd also say the CIA/NSA monitoring of potential politicians is concerning in itself -- there is the potential that they will allow the election to go ahead normally, but then use that information for manipulation after the fact once they are in a position of power (of course this buts up against the more legitimate spying against foreign governments, but there they would expect some monitoring/scrutiny and be trained in OPSEC so irrelevant but blackmailable information is less likely to come up -- like I said, it's very hard to draw an actual line of what is legitimate activity and what is meddling in another country's internal affairs) I'd also said it grants disproportionate power to the US, as they have the greatest ability (not necessarily strictly greatest, but few other countries would come close) to find such information (through networks of people/global surveillance access and just raw resources).
  - petre 9y ago
    That's just a news narrative. The reality is that states interfere in other state's elections and sovereignity for their own advantage.
sgc 9y ago
To me there is a very clear moral line (and practically results vary from intentions): If your primary motivation is not to improve the life of those within a country, you must keep out of their politics. Much like I should not interfere in my neighbor's family life if my goal is to harm rather than heal. I see no goal from recent interference other than to destabilize, which is morally akin to a preemptive military strike. Edit: I also don't think just any improvement would morally justify interference in another country's sovereignty. There must be a significant evil that must be overcome so that the interference becomes the lesser evil - a hard test to pass.
- moduspol 9y ago
  > If your primary motivation is not to improve the life of those within a country, you must keep out of their politics. I don't think this is a clear moral line in international politics. If your primary motivation is to improve the life of those within your own country, it can be justifiable to get involved in another country's politics. And that's what is done. Ostensibly to prevent war, enhance regional stability, etc. Even just looking from Russia's perspective. If the world's leading country is so weak that a few phishing attacks can swing the election away from a less favorable candidate, is it really morally wrong to do that to benefit your people?
  - sgc 9y ago
    There is a big difference between interfering, which is covertly affecting the outcome, and influencing via direct diplomacy or perhaps even clearly identified advertisements etc. I was referring to the first and not the second, and could have been clearer on that. There is no such thing as "a little phishing" in another election. It is the equivalent of calling something a little hand gesture without mentioning you shoved your hand into someone's vagina first. The autarky of self-governance is sacred, and should be respected as such. The modern world has completely lost its moral compass on these issues, and I have previously denounced harder lines by the EU and the US interfering in smaller countries elections / forcing laws down their throats (Eastern European and Balkan) countries). But as I alluded to in the beginning of this thread: Just because everyone's doing something does not make it right.

by dahdum 9y ago

stordoff 9y ago

I feel there's something rather ironic about countering "the slide to dictatorship and oppression" by using state power to interfere in foreign elections, particularly if it used covert or underhanded means rather than openly setting out the country's position.

dahdum 9y ago
My personal way around this is that a democracy using state power to interfere in a dictatorship, with the goal of bringing democratic reforms, is net better for humanity than doing nothing to oppose them. State power includes sanctions, embargoes, tariffs, and the promise of lifting those measures for the preferred candidate/party. I do suspect we only disagree on the degree of influence.
- stordoff 9y ago
  > I do suspect we only disagree on the degree of influence. You are quite possibly correct. Much of "sanctions, embargoes, tariffs, and the promise of lifting those measures for the preferred candidate/party" would fall under what I meant by "openly setting out the country's position", and is qualitatively different from the (alleged) Russian interference and how the US (and others) have historically influenced elections. I think much of the difference comes down to attributability (giving the country/government's opinion and how they will deal with any particular winner is fine; making claims that appear to come from other/in-country sources, or misleading the population of that country is not) and whether you are directly taking actions within the country/working with a particular political party (what is a small amount of money to the US could very easily skew the election massively in some countries, and lead to the US de facto deciding the result).
  - dahdum 9y ago
    Agree, though a lot of those threats and promises made privately. I also assume CIA / NSA sourced intel on politicians (criminal and otherwise) is routinely leaked when in our interest to local sources through embassies and whatnot. Do you agree with that type of interference?
    - stordoff 9y ago
      I think it's very difficult to draw a firm line, as it's going to be so context-dependent (how in the information is gathered, the nature of the information, how it is released), but generally I'd say no. If it's just something private, you are damaging the electoral chances over something that is quite probably irrelevant. If it's something illegal, it should be _publicly_ exposed -- leaking through local sources runs the risk that it be used for bribery/manipulation, or to gain an advantage without revealing the criminal activity. Further, I'd also say the CIA/NSA monitoring of potential politicians is concerning in itself -- there is the potential that they will allow the election to go ahead normally, but then use that information for manipulation after the fact once they are in a position of power (of course this buts up against the more legitimate spying against foreign governments, but there they would expect some monitoring/scrutiny and be trained in OPSEC so irrelevant but blackmailable information is less likely to come up -- like I said, it's very hard to draw an actual line of what is legitimate activity and what is meddling in another country's internal affairs) I'd also said it grants disproportionate power to the US, as they have the greatest ability (not necessarily strictly greatest, but few other countries would come close) to find such information (through networks of people/global surveillance access and just raw resources).
- petre 9y ago
  That's just a news narrative. The reality is that states interfere in other state's elections and sovereignity for their own advantage.

sgc 9y ago

To me there is a very clear moral line (and practically results vary from intentions): If your primary motivation is not to improve the life of those within a country, you must keep out of their politics. Much like I should not interfere in my neighbor's family life if my goal is to harm rather than heal. I see no goal from recent interference other than to destabilize, which is morally akin to a preemptive military strike. Edit: I also don't think just any improvement would morally justify interference in another country's sovereignty. There must be a significant evil that must be overcome so that the interference becomes the lesser evil - a hard test to pass.

moduspol 9y ago
> If your primary motivation is not to improve the life of those within a country, you must keep out of their politics. I don't think this is a clear moral line in international politics. If your primary motivation is to improve the life of those within your own country, it can be justifiable to get involved in another country's politics. And that's what is done. Ostensibly to prevent war, enhance regional stability, etc. Even just looking from Russia's perspective. If the world's leading country is so weak that a few phishing attacks can swing the election away from a less favorable candidate, is it really morally wrong to do that to benefit your people?
- sgc 9y ago
  There is a big difference between interfering, which is covertly affecting the outcome, and influencing via direct diplomacy or perhaps even clearly identified advertisements etc. I was referring to the first and not the second, and could have been clearer on that. There is no such thing as "a little phishing" in another election. It is the equivalent of calling something a little hand gesture without mentioning you shoved your hand into someone's vagina first. The autarky of self-governance is sacred, and should be respected as such. The modern world has completely lost its moral compass on these issues, and I have previously denounced harder lines by the EU and the US interfering in smaller countries elections / forcing laws down their throats (Eastern European and Balkan) countries). But as I alluded to in the beginning of this thread: Just because everyone's doing something does not make it right.