portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article commentary united states

election fraud

Blowback: Did US techniques for undermining Eastern Europe Elections Find Their Way Back t

The Ukrainian revolt against a corrupt election is for real and legit, but it has also been aided by an overt/covert destablization campaign by the U.S.--and the techniquest used may well have been applied here at home too.

An interesting and disturbing aspect of the post-election uprising in Ukraine is that it is not entirely a spontaneous event.

Although the election outcome was clearly manipulated by the government of outgoing president Leonid Kuchma, a corrupt and dictatorial Soviet-era autocrat, whose supporters in and out of the government's secret service apparatus have not shied away even from killing opponents, and although much of the movement that took to the streets in Kiev to protest and overturn the results, which had given victory to Kuchma's handpicked successor, Viktor Yanukovich, has been indigenous and heartfelt, there is also clear evidence that the U.S.--the CIA and various American "pro-democracy" front groups--is playing a crucial hand in destabilizing the pro-Russian regime.

Several excellent pieces in the British paper the Guardian have highlighted the role of U.S. agencies and NGO's, in helping, for example, to finance the very exit polls that have raised doubts about the outcome of the election, and in helping to pay for Yushchenko's campaign itself.

As the Guardian observes, it is more common than not that elections in the former Soviet republics have been manipulated by government authorities, who control most of the media, and especially television, as in Ukraine, and have often been stolen. The interesting question is why this time, in Ukraine, the U.S. government has taken such a strong position on behalf of the opposition.

The opposition candidate, Victor Yushchenko, is not, after all, some iconic democrat. Himself for a time a prime minister under Kuchma, he played a central role in the privatization of Ukrainian state enterprises that corruptly benefited old Communist Party apparatchiks, as happened also in Russia. Yushchenko's main calling card in terms of Western European and U.S. support has been his more pro-western stance, where Kuchma and Yanukovich have been more pro-Russian, to the point of Yanukovich favoring a merging of the two neighboring nation's economies and an opening of their shared border.

American interference with Ukraine's election would not be anything new. Such techniques were already employed in the Yugoslavian election that ousted Slobodan Milosovich and in the Georgian election that ended up ousting Eduard Shevardnadze, and were also attempted (unsuccessfully) in the last election in Byelorus. The U.S. ambassador to Byelorus, Michael Kozak, has a long sordid history of subverting elections in Central America--most notably Nicaragua.

It is worth speculating whether all this tampering with the democratic process in Eastern Europe, and Central America, may have resulted in a kind of blowback, with the anti-democratic techniques perfected for use in those fledgling democracies now being applied back home in the U.S.

No wonder the same government that is so quick to decry electoral abuses in Ukraine has been so silent about the exact same practices when its partisans employed them earlier this month at home.

For the rest of this column, please go (at no charge) to This Can't Be Happening! .

homepage: homepage: http://www.thiscantbehappening.net

Umm... YEah 27.Nov.2004 22:15

Dr. Dude

[For those who read the whole thing...] They'de probably say that all this was a fault of demacracy itself. Actually in Jefferson's case, he'd say that it was becuase of the lack of education of the people. Our media now serves effectively as our education system. Perhaps the reason its got so rediculis that the US people don't revolt in such obvious cases of coruption is becuase the UNited States has failed to keep its democracy up with technology. Japan may serve as an example of a state that half-way-sorta has. Debates there are open to all candidates and issues on a public access-style TV channel with aloted time slots. We have a sort of "who ever has the money can share their side" kind of deal. I fear that Tocqueville's warning of demagoguery winning the despotic masses and taking control of the government has gone unheeded and come to pass. Too bad he doesn't offer some sort of after-the-fact suggestion. Democracy is dead. Does that mean that all hope is lost? Are we at a point which requires us to transend above this systemizing of our existance? Does anyone even understand me?

It's time now for a real democracy 27.Nov.2004 23:30


Democracy cannot be dead because it never lived. DEMO=people;cracy=power; a truly democratic society never existed. Politicians once elected served those who funded their campaigns and paid lip service to their constituents.
Everybody knows that the dice is loaded. Yet the State apparatus and its propaganda machine (media,hollywood, schools...) continue to make sure that a mind set is created which believes that no other type of democracy is possible.

People power would mean a more just society, a democratic socialist society where the resources and the wealth of the country would be in the service of the many and not the few. Corporations would be dismantled because they are fascistic structures who prey on the people. Public ownership of the resources, of the national wealth are an intergral part of a true democracy.

Bourgeois democracy is this phony democracy that has finally dropped its mask in the US. Now the enemy of the people is out in the open and not hiding behind a liberal mask.

Maybe sometimes things have to get worst in order to get better.