THERE has been unanimous confirmation by at least 14 United States’ (U.S.) intelligence institutions, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), that the Russian Government had engaged in cyber-attacks on the Democratic Party and some of its leaders to influence the outcome of the 2016 presidential election. The U.S., notwithstanding existing political differences among its leaders and a less than perfect electoral system, has over the years demonstrated a high level of cohesiveness in protecting its sovereignty. The challenge to this sovereignty by any external force, be it an individual, agency or country, has always aroused that sense of nationalism in defence of what is seen as American. On Thursday, December 29, President Barack Obama issued an Executive Order in response to the attacks, ejecting 35 suspected Russian intelligence operatives and their families from the U.S.; imposing sanctions on Russia’s two leading intelligence services; ordering closed two waterfront estates in New York and Maryland used for Russian intelligence activities, and de-classified intelligence relating to Russia’s hacking.
Obama’s reaction has triggered bi-partisan support from the Republican-controlled Congress (i.e. House and Senate). On the same day of this announcement, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said, “As the next Congress reviews Russian actions against networks associated with the U.S. election, we must also work to ensure that any attack against the United States is met with an overwhelming response.”
Instructively, President-elect Donald Trump reacted to the sanctions saying it is time to move on. This response is uncharacteristic of what people have come to expect from Americans, more particularly its leaders, whenever there is any threat to its sovereignty or national pride. It is worthy of note, that when Russia’s President Vladimir Putin was dismissive of the U.S.’s decision, saying that he will not react in any strong manner, but would await the swearing in of Trump as president, the latter responded favourably.
Taking to his usual form of communicating with the public, Trump, via his Tweeter account on Friday, December 30, informed the world that it was a “Great move on delay by (V. Putin)- I always knew he was very smart!” This statement could be considered endearing to a country the U.S. within recent times has had strained relations with. These strained relations not only has to do with the cyber-attacks, but include serious differences on what has been considered Russia’s over-reach, particularly in the handling of the Syria conflict, annexation of Crimea, and invasion in Ukraine. And Trump’s reactions could be seen as being in stark conflict with the decision of the sitting president, the nation’s intelligence institutions, and the leaders in the legislature.
In a recent interview with CNN, Republican Senator (South Carolina), Lindsay Graham, said that of the 100 senators in the Senate, he is sure that 99 agree that Russia had tampered with the U.S. elections and further action will be taken by Congress to impose sanctions on the country and hit Putin personally. When the issue of cyber-attacks first surfaced during the election campaign, then candidate Trump — consciously or unwittingly — made a call encouraging Russia to intensify its operation, if the intelligence revelation was credible. It was his view that Russia in its action could reveal information about Hilary Clinton’s email saga and this would aid his victory at the polls. Observers of the campaign will also recall his expressed reservation that Russia was playing a role in influencing the election.
While it could be said that for Trump to acknowledge the election was tampered with could be seen as though he was not elected through a transparent process, there comes a time when national interest ought to trump ego. This conflict between the U.S. and Russia is occurring at a time when the leadership in the U.S. is divided on the authenticity of the intelligence information. Trump’s campaign message indicated to the world that America has lost its greatest and he has offered himself for leadership to return the society to that state. The challenge to the sovereignty of the U.S. would be the first major test when he assumes the presidency on 20th January, 2017. The world will be watching how he handles this issue, even more so that the U.S. is seen as the standard bearer of electorate integrity and has historically projected itself as a unified force in safeguarding its sovereignty.