3 ms·

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 fo

• 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.