According to an internal directive delivered on Thursday and signed by Secretary of State Marco Rubio, the Department of State will no longer be assessing the fairness of foreign elections to ensure fairness. The Department will also cease publicly commenting on foreign elections, citing the Trump Administration's emphasis on respecting national sovereignty.
The order, as analyzed by the Wall Street Journal, said that any messaging on foreign elections should focus on congratulating the victorious candidate, and “should avoid opining on the fairness or integrity of an electoral process, its legitimacy, or the democratic values of the country in question.”
The order stated that “The President made clear that the United States will pursue partnerships with countries wherever our strategic interests align.” This includes partnerships with countries that may not share the United States' democratic values.
Historically, the United States has commented on the integrity of foreign democratic elections, in an effort to exert influence and guide countries worldwide toward democratic values. Both current and former diplomats say when the U.S. weighs in on a foreign election, it can tip the scales, especially in smaller or developing countries. Opposition leaders and human rights groups treat those statements like ammunition, using them as leverage on ruling regimes, dictators, and tyrants.
Nicole Widdersheim of the Human Rights Watch criticized the decisions, stating:
Stifling the observation and truth at the embassy level will only leave the U.S. government in the dark on the nature of the leadership they are dealing with. Lastly, often it is the public in these situations that risk life and limb to speak out against unfair and credible elections, whereas the U.S. embassy may be the only entity able to shine a light on the bad and unfair processes.
President Trump, in a speech in Saudi Arabia during his visit in May, spoke out against America's historic policy of judging internal foreign affairs like elections, citing nation builders as a chief argument against continuing along that path.
The so-called nation-builders wrecked far more nations than they built, and the interventionalists were intervening in complex societies that they didn’t even understand themselves. They told you how to do it, but they had no idea how to do it themselves.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member