Out of curiosity: Do you have any evidence for France spying on Boing and passing it on to Airbus? I mean, where's France's equivalent of ECHELON? [1]
Especially in the context of US dominance of the social media sphere, it's hard to imagine any other country having similar access and capabilities to the US's.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frenchelon https://fr.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frenchelon
France v. US, 1993: http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=199...
The bungled outcome of the US tit-for-tat, 1995: http://articles.latimes.com/1995-10-11/news/mn-55816_1_cia-o...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salvador_Allende#US_involvemen...
Obviously, things require a more subtle strategy these days.
> The U.S. has executed at least 81 overt and covert known interventions in foreign elections during the period 1946–2000
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in...
Yes, undoubtedly. From postwar Operation Gladio to 2012's revelation that they were spying on elections[1], the CIA has maintained a hand in French elections.
Spying on all the candidates serves what purpose that doesn't involve interference? To maintain a nice database of their positions? At best, they didn't interfere as things were already going their way.
Regarding spying, of course that serves purposes other than interference. Think of insider trading - you get the insider info not so that you can change the outcome if you don't like it, but so that you can make a profit on that outcome when it actually occurs.
That doesn't stop it from being interference. Major events like terrorist actions change voter opinion, and someone in control of a party's platform and agenda has a massive influence on an election.
What information are they profiting on? Does it seem like politicians spend the election period preparing their policy for when they win?
If you really believe that spying is interference, then you also believe that there’s never been a fair election ever.
And no, I don't think many elections are overly fair.
"Do what we say, if you don't we'll punish you or you'll be forced to do what they say."
None of what you're describing particularly sounds like "free choice by the people." It's just been normalized so you don't see it as unusual or call it interference. As you say, the US is a super power. They aren't tasked with the burden of dealing with other super powers, they exert their power to maintain and further their position.
Oh, and when you look at the sheer volume of regime changes the CIA has been involved with, the blackmail becomes obvious. You know they're spying, you know what they're capable of and willing to do.
"Interference in its elections" is a new thing. It existed, of course, as a thing intelligence does. There was "Freedom Radio," for example. That was an old war time propoganda mission which continued after.
Obviously, there were more secretive versions of that. They may have involved info/intel landing on selected deaks, at select times, that promote one of the US' goals. Maybe there were even journalists/public figures recruited as "assets" in attempt to sway public opinion.
These days though... two big new things are on the agenda. The first is leaks. Leaks play a very big part of political journalism, and did so especially during the last US elections. This isn't just happening in the US, but it's a good example. The second, is social media. Social media is effectively wide open to manipulation. Social Media manipulation seems to have played a significant role in the last US elections. It also plays a big part in any sub-war conflict. Russia-ukraine, israeli-palestinian, basaue separatism... It works especially well during a frenzy (like an election) when there's a ton of buzz, many sources and information/misinformation spreads fast within various social media bubbles.
For example. Take Germany this week. There is an upcoming election. Germany's "alt right" is very active, expecting strong support. A recent murder of an ethnic German by a migrant has brought protesters out onto the street. Counterprotesters. Subsequent violent incidents. Think of Ferguson, for an American context.
Details, photos, political statements are all actively informing people's political stances. All this is happening on social media. Its not hard to impact this stream of information to an agency's benefit.
Maybe Trump would like to see the far right strengthened. Maybe Macron, Erdogan or May do... all NATO allies. I'd actually bet they all have specific dogs in this race.
These sorts of activities (as opposed to eg gaining detailed knowledge of Germany's air defence systems) are/were considered "soft" intelligence. How much damage could one CIA asset writing for Der Spiegel do? That's no longer the case. A a solid social media "operation" could really change political outcomes in 2018. There are no norms for this.
France spy on Boeing and pass it to Airbus, while the NSA do the same for Boeing, but would France tolerate CIA interference in its elections? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-32542140