Freedom House: Wikis

  
  

Note: Many of our articles have direct quotes from sources you can cite, within the Wikipedia article! This article doesn't yet, but we're working on it! See more info or our list of citable articles.

Encyclopedia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Freedom House
Formation 1941
Type Research institute, think tank
Headquarters Washington, D.C., United States
Key people William H. Taft IV, chairman of the Board of Trustees
Jennifer Windsor, executive director
Staff Approximately 120[1]
Website www.freedomhouse.org

Freedom House is a international non-governmental organization based in Washington, D.C. that conducts research and advocacy on democracy, political freedom and human rights.[2] Support for Freedom House is provided by individuals, but also by the United States government. It publishes an annual report assessing the degree of perceived democratic freedoms in each country, which is used in political science research.[3]

The organization was founded by Wendell Willkie and Eleanor Roosevelt in 1941, and describes itself as "a clear voice for democracy and freedom around the world." The group states "American leadership in international affairs is essential to the cause of human rights and freedom" and that this can primarily be achieved through the group's "analysis, advocacy, and action".[4] Freedom House receives about 66% of its budget from the U.S. government,[5] but also receives funding from various other sources, for example the Bradley Foundation, the Smith Richardson Foundation, the Dutch government, and a list of others.[5] Critics [6] have criticized the organization for receiving funding from and allegedly furthering the interests of the U.S. government,[7] while some within the U.S. government have offered support to the group's work.[8]

Contents

Mission statement

As stated by Freedom House:

"Freedom House is an independent organization that supports the expansion of freedom in the world. Freedom is possible only in democratic political systems in which the governments are accountable to their own people; the rule of law prevails; and freedoms of expression, association, belief and respect for the rights of minorities and women are guaranteed."

"Freedom ultimately depends on the actions of committed and courageous men and women. We support nonviolent civic initiatives in societies where freedom is denied or under threat and we stand in opposition to ideas and forces that challenge the right of all people to be free. Freedom House functions as a catalyst for freedom, democracy, and the rule of law through its analysis, advocacy, and action."[4]

Freedom House also states its "diverse Board of Trustees is united in the view that American leadership in international affairs is essential to the cause of human rights and freedom."[4]

History

The organization was founded by Wendell Willkie, Eleanor Roosevelt, George Field, Dorothy Thompson, Herbert Bayard Swope, and others in 1941. Originally launched in response to the threat posed by Nazism, it now describes itself as a clear voice for democracy and freedom around the world. Freedom House states that it:[9]

has vigorously opposed dictatorships in Central America and Chile, apartheid in South Africa, the suppression of the Prague Spring, the Soviet war in Afghanistan, genocide in Bosnia and Rwanda, and the brutal violation of human rights in Cuba, Burma, the People's Republic of China, and Iraq. It has championed the rights of democratic activists, religious believers, trade unionists, journalists, and proponents of free markets.

The group states that during the 1940s, Freedom House supported the Marshall Plan and the establishment of NATO. Freedom House also states that it was highly critical of McCarthyism.[10] During the 1950s and 1960s, it supported the U.S. civil rights movement and its leadership included several prominent civil rights activists. It supported Andrei Sakharov, other Soviet dissidents, and the Solidarity movement in Poland. Freedom House assisted the post-Communist societies in the establishment of independent media, non-governmental think tanks, and the core institutions of electoral politics.[10]

On June 25, 2005, freelance journalist F. William Engdahl asserted on the GlobalResearch.ca website that Freedom House was "created in the late 1940’s to back the creation of NATO" and criticized the group for being headed by former CIA director James Woolsey at the time of his article's publication.[11]

More recently, Freedom House has supported citizens involved in revolutions in Serbia, Ukraine, and Kyrgyzstan. It states "In Jordan, Freedom House worked to stem violence against women; in Algeria, it sought justice for victims of torture; in Uzbekistan, a brutal dictatorship, it sought to defend human rights advocates; in Venezuela, it worked with those seeking to protect and promote human rights in a difficult political environment."[10]

Funding

Freedom House receives the majority (66%) of its funding from the U.S. government through the National Endowment for Democracy, USAID, and the State Department. It also receives some funding from foundations such as the Bradley Foundation, the Smith Richardson Foundation, the Dutch government, and a list of others.[5]

Holly Sklar, details how former CIA agent Charlie Wick initiated a "public diplomacy" fundraiser campaign amongst right-wing donors organizations, lobbyists and PR specialists working in conjunction with the NED, NSC, CIA and White House Office of Public Liaison and the State Department of Public Diplomacy which established a special group called the Outreach Working Group. NSC official Walter Raymond and Roy Godson recommended donated $400,000 to Freedom House that has credibility in the political centre in a PR war against the Nicaraguan government.[12]

Author Mark McKinney bluntly defines Freedom House as "funded by both the US government and Soros to provide support to pro-Western opposition movements" and intimately links Freedom House with the National Democratic Institute, the International Republican Institute and the International Foundation for Election Systems[13]. Furthermore he argues Otpor, the group which overthrew Milosevic, received funds from the NED and Agency for International Development via the Reagan Administration established NED to do overtly what the CIA had done covertly, that is, promote Cold War propaganda and operations though Freedom House, then chaired by former CIA director James Woolsey and supported by Billionaire Soros foundations, who always support NED operations.

Organization

Freedom House is a nonprofit organization. It is predominantly funded by the U.S. government,[5] and is headquartered in Washington, D.C. It has field offices in about a dozen countries, including Ukraine, Hungary, Serbia, Jordan, Mexico, and a number of countries in Central Asia.

It is controlled by a Board of Trustees, which it describes as composed of 'business and labor leaders, former senior government officials, scholars, writers, and journalists'. While some board members were born outside the United States, and many have been affiliated with international groups, all are current residents of the United States. It does not identify itself with either of the American Republican or the Democratic parties. The board is currently chaired by William H. Taft IV. Taft assumed chairmanship of the board in January 2009, replacing previous chair Peter Ackerman. Other current notable board members include Kenneth Adelman, Farooq Kathwari, Azar Nafisi, Mark Palmer, P. J. O'Rourke, and Lawrence Lessig,[14] while past notable board members have included Zbigniew Brzezinski, Jeane Kirkpatrick, Samuel Huntington, Mara Liasson, Otto Reich, Donald Rumsfeld, Whitney North Seymour, Paul Wolfowitz, Steve Forbes, and Bayard Rustin.

Freedom House describes its relationship with the U.S. government as follows: "Freedom House is an independent, non-governmental organization that was initially created in 1941 to urge the U.S. government to adopt policies supporting democracy and human rights at home and abroad. Its reports and analyses are independent of any governmental influence and are enriched by an intellectual atmosphere of scholarly inquiry. In recent years, Freedom House has received grants from the U.S. Agency for International Development and the State Department for various projects, usually as a result of public competition. Freedom House has also applied for and received funds from other democratic governments and international bodies that promote democracy, including the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, Norway and the European Union. Freedom House chooses to respond to specific funding opportunities, but never accepts funds from government institutions, including U.S. government agencies, in the form of contracts, and never functions as an extension of any government."[15]

Reports

Freedom in the World

Map reflecting the findings of Freedom House's 2009 survey, concerning the state of world freedom in 2008, which correlates highly with other measures of democracy [16]. Some of these estimates are disputed.[17]     Free (89)      Partly Free (62)      Not Free (42)
Countries highlighted in blue are designated "electoral democracies" in Freedom House's 2010 survey Freedom in the World
This graph shows the percentage of nations in the different categories given above for the period for which there are surveys, 1973-2008

Since 1972 (1978 in book form), Freedom House publishes an annual report, Freedom in the World, on the degree of democratic freedoms in nations and significant disputed territories around the world, by which it seeks to assess[3] the current state of civil and political rights on a scale from 1 (most free) to 7 (least free). These reports are often[18] used by political scientists when doing research. The ranking is highly correlated with several other ratings of democracy also frequently used by researchers.[3]

The methodology Freedom House uses for its reports has been criticized by social scientist K. A. Bollen for its perceived bias towards countries with pro-US positions.[19] Bollen argues that by relying on 'experts' or 'judges', the methodology falls into what is described as 'systematic measurement error': "Regardless of the direction of distortions, it is highly likely that every set of indicators formed by a single author or organization contains systematic measurement error. The origin of this measure lies in the common methodology of forming measures. Selectivity of information and various traits of the judges fuse into a distinct form of bias that is likely to characterize all indicators from a common publication."[20]

In its 2003 report, for example, Canada (judged as fully free and democratic) got a perfect score of a "1" in civil liberties and a "1" in political rights, earning it the designation of "free." Nigeria got a "5" and a "4," earning it the designation of "partly free," while North Korea scored the lowest rank of "7-7," and was thus dubbed "not free." Nations are scored from 0 to 4 on several questions and the sum determines the rankings. Example questions: "Is the head of state and/or head of government or other chief authority elected through free and fair elections?", "Is there an independent judiciary?", "Are there free trade unions and peasant organizations or equivalents, and is there effective collective bargaining? Are there free professional and other private organizations?"[21] Freedom House states that the rights and liberties of the survey are derived in large measure from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.[21]

The research and ratings process involved two dozen analysts and more than a dozen senior-level academic advisors. The eight members of the core research team headquartered in New York, along with 16 outside consultant analysts, prepared the country and territory reports. The analysts used a broad range of sources of information—including foreign and domestic news reports, academic analyses, nongovernmental organizations, think tanks, individual professional contacts, and visits to the region—in preparing the reports.[22]

The country and territory ratings were proposed by the analyst responsible for each related report. The ratings were reviewed individually and on a comparative basis in a series of six regional meetings — Asia-Pacific, Central and Eastern Europe and the Former Soviet Union, Latin America and the Caribbean, Middle East and North Africa, Sub-Saharan Africa, and Western Europe — involving the analysts, academic advisors with expertise in each region, and Freedom House staff. The ratings were compared to the previous year's findings, and any major proposed numerical shifts or category changes were subjected to more intensive scrutiny. These reviews were followed by cross-regional assessments in which efforts were made to ensure comparability and consistency in the findings. Many of the key country reports were also reviewed by the academic advisers.[22] Regardless, such a process contains elements of subjectivity.

The survey's methodology is reviewed periodically by an advisory committee of political scientists with expertise in methodological issues.[22]

Freedom House also produces annual reports on press freedom (Press Freedom Survey), governance in the nations of the former Soviet Union (Nations in Transit), and countries on the borderline of democracy (Countries at the Crossroads). In addition, one-time reports have included a survey of women's freedoms in the Middle East.

Freedom House generally uses standard geographic regions for its reports, though it groups the countries of the Middle East and North Africa together, separately from Sub-Saharan Africa; and it still uses the arguably outdated concept of Western Europe, to include countries such as Turkey and Cyprus, while categorizing Central and Eastern Europe separately — a division stemming from the Cold War era which ignores the eastwards expansion of such organizations such the EU and NATO. However, these groupings have nothing to do with the individual country ratings; they're merely used to make nations easier to find when perusing their reports, and also for comparative statistics between the modern day and the ratings of decades past.

It has been cited in thousands of scholarly articles and books.[23]

On January 16, 2008, Freedom House dropped the "freedom status" of the Philippines to partially free from a list of totally free countries. It based the downgrade on a spate of political killings "specifically targeting left-wing political activists in the country."[24]

Freedom of the Press

Freedom House also produces Freedom of the Press, a yearly report measuring the level of freedom and editorial independence enjoyed by the press in every nation and significant disputed territories around the world, on a scale from 1 (most free) to 100 (least free). Depending on the ratings, the nations are then classified as "Free", "Partly Free", or "Not Free".

Other activities

In addition to these reports, Freedom House participates in advocacy initiatives, currently focused on North Korea, Africa, and religious freedom. It has offices in a number of countries, where it promotes and assists local human rights workers and non-government organizations.

On January 12, 2006, as part of a crackdown on unauthorized nongovernmental organizations, the Uzbek government ordered Freedom House to suspend operations in Uzbekistan. Resource and Information Centers managed by Freedom House in Tashkent, Namangan, and Samarkand offered access to materials and books on human rights, as well as technical equipment, such as computers, copiers and Internet access. The government warned that criminal proceedings could be brought against Uzbek staff members and visitors following recent amendments to the criminal code and Code on Administrative Liability of Uzbekistan. Other human rights groups have been similarly threatened and obliged to suspend operations.

Freedom House is a member of the International Freedom of Expression Exchange, a global network of more than 70 non-governmental organizations that monitors free expression violations around the world and defends journalists, writers and others who are persecuted for exercising their right to freedom of expression.

Observers identified Freedom House as a counterrevolutionary organization that encouraged subversion in Cuba. In 2001, the two Czech citizens Ivan Pilip and Jan Bubenix were detained because they were said to be in violation of their status as tourists. They held meetings of a conspiratorial nature with members of small bands in Ciego de Avila province. The plot was allegedly designed by U.S. Government through the guise of Freedom House.[25]

Human Rights activists have denounced Freedom House for being a political instrument used by hawkish circles in the United States to put pressure on countries that do not behave according to their standards.[26]

Regarding regime change, Freedom House claims that it works with people around the world to "expand political rights and civil liberties." Freedom House claims that it does not support regime change. In a March 20, 2003 message, Freedom House expressed its support for the American invasion and occupation of Iraq.[27]

The Financial Times has reported that Freedom House is one of several organizations selected by the State Department to receive funding for 'clandestine activities' inside Iran.[28] In a research study, with Mr. Ackerman acting as chief adviser, Freedom House sets out its conclusions: "Far more often than is generally understood, the change agent is broad-based, non-violent civic resistance - which employs tactics such as boycotts, mass protests, blockades, strikes and civil disobedience to de-legitimate authoritarian rulers and erode their sources of support, including the loyalty of their armed defenders."[28]

On June 8, 2006, the vice-chairman of Freedom House's board of trustees[29] asked the U.S. Senate to increase the share of NGO funding aimed at helping support non-violent foreign democratic activists organize for potential overthrows of their non-democratic governments. Palmer argued in favor of shifting funding away from NGOs working in already democratic nations to fund this effort.[30]

On December 7, 2004, U.S. House Representative Ron Paul criticized Freedom House for allegedly administering a U.S.-funded program in Ukraine where "much of that money was targeted to assist one particular candidate." Paul said that

"one part that we do know thus far is that the U.S. government, through the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), granted millions of dollars to the Poland-America-Ukraine Cooperation Initiative (PAUCI), which is administered by the U.S.-based Freedom House. PAUCI then sent U.S. Government funds to numerous Ukrainian non-governmental organizations (NGOs). This would be bad enough and would in itself constitute meddling in the internal affairs of a sovereign nation. But, what is worse is that many of these grantee organizations in Ukraine are blatantly in favor of presidential candidate Viktor Yushchenko."[31]

United Nation arguments

In May 2001, the Committee on Non-Governmental Organizations of the United Nations heard arguments for and against Freedom House. Representatives of Cuba alleged that the organization is a U.S. foreign policy instrument linked to the CIA and "submitted proof of the politically motivated, interventionist activities the NGO (Freedom House) carried out against their Government". They also claimed a lack of criticism of U.S. human rights violations in the annual reports. Cuba also claimed that these violations are well documented by other reports, such as those of Human Rights Watch. Other countries such as China and Sudan also gave criticism. The Russian representative inquired "why this organization, an NGO which defended human rights, was against the creation of the International Criminal Court."[6] The United States representative claimed that alleged links between Freedom House and the CIA were "simply not true." The representative said he agreed that the NGO receives funds from the United States Government, but said this is disclosed in its reports. The representative said the funds were from the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), which was not a branch of the CIA. The representative said his country had a law prohibiting the government from engaging in the activities of organizations seeking to change public policy, such as Freedom House. The representative said his country was not immune from criticism from Freedom House, which he said was well documented. The US representative further argued that Freedom House was a human rights organization which sought to represent those who did not have a voice. The representative said he would continue to support NGOs who criticized his Government and those of others.[6]

Russia

James Woolsey, chairman of the Freedom House, and a former director of the CIA, claimed Russia was becoming an increasingly fascist state, and that Russian administration under incumbent president Putin (2000-2008) was behaving "like a fascist government". He added, "Mr. Putin and his movement toward fascism in Russia are on the wrong side of history. They are not going to succeed, they may hold on for some time in trying to undermine the democratic revolutions near Russia and in these adjoining states, and they may be partially successful here and there, but ultimately they will lose."

Russia, identified by Freedom House as "Not Free", called Freedom House biased and accused the group of serving U.S. interests. Sergei Markov, a Duma deputy from the pro-Kremlin United Russia party, called Freedom House a "Russophobic" organization. "You can listen to everything they say, except when it comes to Russia," Markov argued. "There are many Russophobes there," he asserted.[32] In response, Christopher Walker, director of studies at Freedom House, argued that Freedom House made its evaluations based on objective criteria explained on the organization's web site, and he denied that it had a pro-U.S. agenda. "If you look closely at the 193 countries that we evaluate, you'll find that we criticize what are often considered strategic allies of the United States," he said.[32]

United States and Israel

Freedom House has criticized both the United States and its major allies to a certain extent, for example in its 2006 report on the U.S. and Israel. It criticized the U.S. for its policies on interrogation and detention during the War on Terrorism and urged they should be brought into compliance with international law.[33][34] The occupied Palestinian territories, administered by Israel and Palestinian Authority, have not received good scores.[35] However, Israel itself, not including the Territories received an assessment as a free electoral democracy[36].

U.S. Government Role

As noted in the section on organization above, Freedom House receives most of its funding from the U.S. government, and prominent U.S. government officials reside on its board. MIT Professor Emeritus Noam Chomsky, University of Pennsylvania Professor Emeritus Edward S. Herman, and some nations[6] have criticized the organization for receiving funding from and allegedly furthering the interests of the U.S. government. Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman, in their book Manufacturing Consent, wrote that in 1979 Freedom House monitored the election of Ian Smith in Rhodesia and found them "fair", but found the 1980 elections won by Mugabe under British supervision "dubious".[37] Chomsky and Herman further write that the group's history has been characterized as excessively criticizing states opposed to US interests and unduly sympathetic to those regimes supportive of US interests.[37] The authors suggest this can be most notably seen by the way it perceived the US ally El Salvador in the early 1980s, a regime that used the army for mass slaughter of the populace to intimidate them in the run up to an "election", but Freedom House found these elections to be "admirable".[37] Freedom House was criticized for taking part in the rehabilitation campaign for the ARENA right-wing extremist party, which participated in the World Anti-Communist League and took responsibility for massacres in El Salvador.[38]

Noam Chomsky further claimed in 1988 that Freedom House "had interlocks with AIM, the World Anticommunist League [sic], Resistance International, and U.S. government bodies such as Radio Free Europe and the CIA, and has long served as a virtual propaganda arm of the (U.S) government and international right wing."[7] He justifies this claim by presenting a series of national elections that he claims were staged and that the Freedom House observers praised. He also criticizes Freedom House's claimed expenditure of "substantial resources in criticizing the media for insufficient sympathy with U.S. foreign-policy ventures and excessively harsh criticism of U.S. client states." Chomsky further argues that "Its most notable publication of this genre was Peter Braestrup's Big Story, which contended that the media's negative portrayal of the Tet offensive helped lose the war. The work is a travesty of scholarship, but more interesting is its premise: that the mass media not only should support any national venture abroad, but should do so with enthusiasm, such enterprises being by definition noble."[7]

Diana Barahona, an independent journalist who has published for the Washington-based non-profit organization the Council on Hemispheric Affairs and the US Newspaper Guild journal,[39] has criticized the group's perceived ties to state power and conservative institutions.[40] The organization states that its board of trustees contains Democrats, Republicans and Independents who are a mix of business and labor leaders, former senior government officials, scholars and journalists.[15]

Craig Murray, the British ambassador to Uzbekistan from 2002 to 2004, wrote that the executive director of Freedom House told him in 2003 that the group decided to back off from its efforts to spotlight human rights abuses in Uzbekistan, because some Republican board members (in Murray’s words) “expressed concern that Freedom House was failing to keep in sight the need to promote freedom in the widest sense, by giving full support to U.S. and coalition forces.” Human rights abuses in Uzbekistan at the time included treatment of prisoners who were killed by "immersion in boiling liquid," and by strapping on a gas mask and blocking the filters, Murray reported.[41] Jennifer Windsor, the executive director of Freedom House now and in 2003, said Murray's "characterization of our conversation is an inexplicable misrepresentation not only of what was said at that meeting, but of Freedom House’s record in Uzbekistan." "Freedom House has been a consistent and harsh critic of the human rights situation in Uzbekistan, as clearly demonstrated in press releases and in our annual assessments of that country," she wrote.[42]

Freedom House has been critical of Saudi Arabia and Chile under Augusto Pinochet, classifying them as "Not Free." It was also strongly critical of the apartheid in South Africa and military dictatorships in Latin America.[43]

Recognition

Former US President Bill Clinton, giving a speech at a Freedom House breakfast, said:

I'm honored to be here with all of you and to be here at Freedom House. For more than 50 years, Freedom House has been a voice for tolerance for human dignity. People all over the world are better off because of your work. And I'm very grateful that Freedom House has rallied this diverse and dynamic group. It's not every day that the Carnegie Endowment, the Progressive Policy Institute, the Heritage Foundation, and the American Foreign Policy Council share the same masthead.[44]

Writing in the conservative National Review Online, John R. Miller, a research professor at the George Washington University’s Elliott School, states that

Freedom House has unwaveringly raised the standard of freedom in evaluating fascist countries, Communist regimes, and plain old, dictatorial thugocracies. Its annual rankings are read and used in the United Nations and other international organizations, as well as by the U.S. State Department. Policy and aid decisions are influenced by Freedom House’s report. Those fighting for freedom in countries lacking it are encouraged or discouraged by what Freedom House’s report covers. And sometimes — most importantly — their governments are moved to greater effort."[8]

Miller nevertheless criticized the organization in 2007 as not paying enough attention to slavery in its reports. He wrote democracies such as Germany and India, but mostly repressive regimes, needed to be held to account for their lack of enforcement of laws against human trafficking and the bondage of some foreign workers.[8]

See also

Notes

  1. ^ Freedom House: Frequently Asked Questions
  2. ^ Voice of America:Cuba After Fidel - What Next?
  3. ^ a b c The Limited Robustness of Empirical Findings on Democracy using Highly Correlated Datasets
  4. ^ a b c Freedom House: About Us
  5. ^ a b c d 2007 Freedom House Financial Statement
  6. ^ a b c d UN: NGO Committee hears arguments for, against Freedom House
  7. ^ a b c Manufacturing Consent. Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman, "Manufacturing Consent" Pantheon Books (1988).
  8. ^ a b c Miller, John R., "Does 'Freedom' Mean Freedom From Slavery? A glaring omission., article in National Review Online, February 5, 2007, accessed same day
  9. ^ Freedom House Annual Report 2002
  10. ^ a b c Freedom House: A History
  11. ^ Color Revolutions, Geopolitics and the Baku Pipeline
  12. ^ Holly Sklar, Washington's war on Nicaragua South End Press: 1988: ISBN 0896082954: 472 pages, p:26
  13. ^ Mark MacKinnon, The new cold war: revolutions, rigged elections and pipeline politics in the former Soviet Union Carroll & Graf Publishers, 2007 ISBN 0786720832: 313 pagesxii, 26
  14. ^ Freedom House Board of Trustees
  15. ^ a b Frequently Asked Questions
  16. ^ http://polisci.la.psu.edu/faculty/Casper/caspertufisPAweb.pdf
  17. ^ Bollen, K.A. (1992) Political Rights and Political Liberties in Nations: An Evaluation of Human Rights Measures, 1950 to 1984. In: Jabine, T.B. and Pierre Claude, R. "Human Rights and Statistics". University of Pennsylvania Press. ISBN 0812231082
  18. ^ Illumnia Login The political science journal database Illumina lists between 10 and 20 peer reviewed journal articles referencing the "freedom in the world" report each year
  19. ^ * Bollen, K.A. (1992) Political Rights and Political Liberties in Nations: An Evaluation of Human Rights Measures, 1950 to 1984. In: Jabine, T.B. and Pierre Claude, R. "Human Rights and Statistics". University of Pennsylvania Press. ISBN 0812231082. Page 189
  20. ^ * Bollen, K.A. (1992) Political Rights and Political Liberties in Nations: An Evaluation of Human Rights Measures, 1950 to 1984. In: Jabine, T.B. and Pierre Claude, R. "Human Rights and Statistics". University of Pennsylvania Press. ISBN 0812231082
  21. ^ a b Methodology
  22. ^ a b c Freedom House Methodology
  23. ^ Google Scholar Search
  24. ^ Abs-Cbn Interactive, Int'l democracy watchdog: RP only 'partly free'
  25. ^ http://www.granma.cu/documento/ingles01/003-i.html
  26. ^ http://www.russiatoday.ru/Top_News/2007-02-01/Freedom_House_report_blames_Russia_for_lack_of_liberties.html
  27. ^ http://www.freedomhouse.org/uploads/pdf/ws2003.pdf
  28. ^ a b "Bush enters debate on freedom in Iran". http://news.ft.com/cms/s/48d26298-c052-11da-939f-0000779e2340,_i_rssPage=de095590-c8f4-11d7-81c6-0820abe49a01.html. Retrieved 2006-04-06. 
  29. ^ FH Board of Trustees: Mark Palmer
  30. ^ Promotion of Democracy by Nongovernmental Organizations: An Action Agenda - Testimony by Ambassador Mark Palmer before the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee on June 8, 2006.
  31. ^ Ron Paul: U.S. Hypocrisy in Ukraine
  32. ^ a b Freedom Is Downgraded From 'Bad'
  33. ^ FH: 2006 Freedom in the World Report
  34. ^ Freedom House Urges President Bush to Bring U.S. Policies on Interrogation and Detention into Compliance with U.S. and International Law
  35. ^ FH: 2007 Map of Freedom in the World:Palestinian Authority -Administered Territories [Israel]
  36. ^ http://freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=22&year=2009&country=7630
  37. ^ a b c Chomsky and Herman: Manufacturing Consent, Vintage 1994, p28
  38. ^ http://www.voltairenet.org/article30112.html
  39. ^ From Cuba to Queens: Who needs a revolution more?
  40. ^ FH Files.Diana Barahona, "The Freedom House Files" Monthly Review, March, 2007
  41. ^ Glorious Nation of Uzbekistan, By TARA McKELVEY, New York Times Book Review, December 9, 2007. Book review of DIRTY DIPLOMACY: The Rough-and-Tumble Adventures of a Scotch-Drinking, Skirt-Chasing, Dictator-Busting and Thoroughly Unrepentant Ambassador Stuck on the Frontline of the War Against Terror, by Craig Murray.
  42. ^ NYTimes Sunday Book Review: Jennifer Windsor letter
  43. ^ Comparative scores for all countries from 1973 to 2006
  44. ^ Remarks at a Freedom House breakfast - President Bill Clinton speech

External links

Official links

Freedom House reports

Related links


Freedom House
File:Freedom House
Formation 1941
Type Research institute, think tank
Headquarters Washington, D.C., United States
Key people William H. Taft IV, chairman of the Board of Trustees
Jennifer Windsor, executive director
Staff Approximately 120[1]
Website www.freedomhouse.org

Freedom House is a international non-governmental organization based in Washington, D.C. that conducts research and advocacy on democracy, political freedom and human rights.[2] It publishes an annual report assessing the degree of perceived democratic freedoms in each country, which is used in political science research.[3]

The organization was founded by Wendell Willkie and Eleanor Roosevelt in 1941, and describes itself as "a clear voice for democracy and freedom around the world." The group states "American leadership in international affairs is essential to the cause of human rights and freedom" and that this can primarily be achieved through the group's "analysis, advocacy, and action".[4] Freedom House receives about 66% of its budget from the U.S. government,[5] but also receives funding from various other sources, for example the Bradley Foundation, the Smith Richardson Foundation, the Dutch government, the Nicholas B. Ottaway Foundation, the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, the John S. & James L. Knight Foundation, the John Hurford Foundation, and a list of others.[5] Critics [6] have criticized the organization for receiving funding from and allegedly furthering the interests of the U.S. government,[7] while some within the U.S. government have offered support to the group's work.[8]

Contents

Mission statement

As stated by Freedom House:

"Freedom House is an independent organization that supports the expansion of freedom in the world. Freedom is possible only in democratic political systems in which the governments are accountable to their own people; the rule of law prevails; and freedoms of expression, association, belief and respect for the rights of minorities and women are guaranteed."
"Freedom ultimately depends on the actions of committed and courageous men and women. We support nonviolent civic initiatives in societies where freedom is denied or under threat and we stand in opposition to ideas and forces that challenge the right of all people to be free. Freedom House functions as a catalyst for freedom, democracy, and the rule of law through its analysis, advocacy, and action."[4]

Freedom House also states its "diverse Board of Trustees is united in the view that American leadership in international affairs is essential to the cause of human rights and freedom."[4]

History

The organization was founded by Wendell Willkie, Eleanor Roosevelt, George Field, Dorothy Thompson, Herbert Bayard Swope, and others in 1941. According to its website, Freedom House "emerged from an amalgamation of two groups that had been formed, with the quiet encouragement of President Franklin D. Roosevelt, to encourage popular support for American involvement in World War II at a time when isolationist sentiments were running high in the United States."[9] After the war, "Freedom House took up the struggle against the other twentieth century totalitarian threat, Communism.... The organization's leadership was convinced that the spread of democracy would be the best weapon against totalitarian ideologies."[9]

The organization now describes itself as a clear voice for democracy and freedom around the world. Freedom House states that it:[10]

has vigorously opposed dictatorships in Central America and Chile, apartheid in South Africa, the suppression of the Prague Spring, the Soviet war in Afghanistan, genocide in Bosnia and Rwanda, and the brutal violation of human rights in Cuba, Burma, the People's Republic of China, and Iraq. It has championed the rights of democratic activists, religious believers, trade unionists, journalists, and proponents of free markets.

The group states that during the 1940s, Freedom House supported the Marshall Plan and the establishment of NATO. Freedom House also states that it was highly critical of McCarthyism.[9] During the 1950s and 1960s, it supported the U.S. civil rights movement and its leadership included several prominent civil rights activists. It supported Andrei Sakharov, other Soviet dissidents, and the Solidarity movement in Poland. Freedom House assisted the post-Communist societies in the establishment of independent media, non-governmental think tanks, and the core institutions of electoral politics.[9]

On June 25, 2005, freelance journalist F. William Engdahl asserted on the GlobalResearch.ca website that Freedom House was "created in the late 1940’s to back the creation of NATO" and criticized the group for being headed by former CIA director James Woolsey at the time of his article's publication.[11]

More recently, Freedom House has supported citizens involved in revolutions in Serbia, Ukraine, and Kyrgyzstan. It states "In Jordan, Freedom House worked to stem violence against women; in Algeria, it sought justice for victims of torture; in Uzbekistan, a brutal dictatorship, it sought to defend human rights advocates; in Venezuela, it worked with those seeking to protect and promote human rights in a difficult political environment."[9]

Funding

In 2001 Freedom House had income of around $11m, increasing to over $26m in 2006.[12] Much of the increase was due to an increase between 2004 and 2005 in US government federal funding, from $12m to $20m.[12] Federal funding fell to around $10m in 2007, but still represented around 80% of Freedom House's budget.[12] As one scholar noted, "This is unusual, especially when one considers that the organizations involved in the assessment and monitoring of human rights, democracy and freedom in the world refuse on principle - as a guarantee of their independence and credibility - government funding."[12]

Freedom House receives the majority of its funding from the U.S. government through the National Endowment for Democracy, USAID, and the State Department. It also receives some funding from foundations such as the Bradley Foundation, the Smith Richardson Foundation, the Dutch government, the Nicholas B. Ottaway Foundation, the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, the John S. & James L. Knight Foundation, the John Hurford Foundation, and a list of others.[5]

Organization

File:1301 Connecticut
Freedom House headquarters in Dupont Circle, Washington, D.C.

Freedom House is a nonprofit organization, and is headquartered in Washington, D.C. It has field offices in about a dozen countries, including Ukraine, Hungary, Serbia, Jordan, Mexico, and a number of countries in Central Asia.

It is controlled by a Board of Trustees, which it describes as composed of 'business and labor leaders, former senior government officials, scholars, writers, and journalists'. While some board members were born outside the United States, and many have been affiliated with international groups, all are current residents of the United States. It does not identify itself with either of the American Republican or the Democratic parties. The board is currently chaired by William H. Taft IV. Taft assumed chairmanship of the board in January 2009, replacing previous chair Peter Ackerman. Other current notable board members include Kenneth Adelman, Farooq Kathwari, Azar Nafisi, Mark Palmer, P. J. O'Rourke, and Lawrence Lessig,[13] while past notable board members have included Zbigniew Brzezinski, Jeane Kirkpatrick, Samuel Huntington, Mara Liasson, Otto Reich, Donald Rumsfeld, Whitney North Seymour, Paul Wolfowitz, Steve Forbes, and Bayard Rustin.

Freedom House describes its relationship with the U.S. government as follows: "Freedom House is an independent, non-governmental organization that was initially created in 1941 to urge the U.S. government to adopt policies supporting democracy and human rights at home and abroad. Its reports and analyses are independent of any governmental influence and are enriched by an intellectual atmosphere of scholarly inquiry. In recent years, Freedom House has received grants from the U.S. Agency for International Development and the State Department for various projects, usually as a result of public competition. Freedom House has also applied for and received funds from other democratic governments and international bodies that promote democracy, including the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, Norway and the European Union. Freedom House chooses to respond to specific funding opportunities, but never accepts funds from government institutions, including U.S. government agencies, in the form of contracts, and never functions as an extension of any government."[14]

Reports

Freedom in the World


[15]. Some of these estimates are disputed.[16]     Free (89)      Partly Free (62)      Not Free (42)]]

File:Electoral
Countries highlighted in blue are designated "electoral democracies" in Freedom House's 2010 survey Freedom in the World

Since 1972 (1978 in book form), Freedom House publishes an annual report, Freedom in the World, on the degree of democratic freedoms in nations and significant disputed territories around the world, by which it seeks to assess[3] the current state of civil and political rights on a scale from 1 (most free) to 7 (least free). These reports are often[17] used by political scientists when doing research. The ranking is highly correlated with several other ratings of democracy also frequently used by researchers.[3]

In its 2003 report, for example, Canada (judged as fully free and democratic) got a perfect score of a "1" in civil liberties and a "1" in political rights, earning it the designation of "free." Nigeria got a "5" and a "4," earning it the designation of "partly free," while North Korea scored the lowest rank of "7-7," and was thus dubbed "not free." Nations are scored from 0 to 4 on several questions and the sum determines the rankings. Example questions: "Is the head of state and/or head of government or other chief authority elected through free and fair elections?", "Is there an independent judiciary?", "Are there free trade unions and peasant organizations or equivalents, and is there effective collective bargaining? Are there free professional and other private organizations?"[18] Freedom House states that the rights and liberties of the survey are derived in large measure from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.[18]

The research and ratings process involved two dozen analysts and more than a dozen senior-level academic advisors. The eight members of the core research team headquartered in New York, along with 16 outside consultant analysts, prepared the country and territory reports. The analysts used a broad range of sources of information—including foreign and domestic news reports, academic analyses, nongovernmental organizations, think tanks, individual professional contacts, and visits to the region—in preparing the reports.[19]

The country and territory ratings were proposed by the analyst responsible for each related report. The ratings were reviewed individually and on a comparative basis in a series of six regional meetings — Asia-Pacific, Central and Eastern Europe and the Former Soviet Union, Latin America and the Caribbean, Middle East and North Africa, Sub-Saharan Africa, and Western Europe — involving the analysts, academic advisors with expertise in each region, and Freedom House staff. The ratings were compared to the previous year's findings, and any major proposed numerical shifts or category changes were subjected to more intensive scrutiny. These reviews were followed by cross-regional assessments in which efforts were made to ensure comparability and consistency in the findings. Many of the key country reports were also reviewed by the academic advisers.[19]

The survey's methodology is reviewed periodically by an advisory committee of political scientists with expertise in methodological issues.[19]

Freedom House also produces annual reports on press freedom (Press Freedom Survey), governance in the nations of the former Soviet Union (Nations in Transit), and countries on the borderline of democracy (Countries at the Crossroads). In addition, one-time reports have included a survey of women's freedoms in the Middle East.

Freedom House generally uses standard geographic regions for its reports, though it groups the countries of the Middle East and North Africa together, separately from Sub-Saharan Africa; and it still uses the arguably outdated concept of Western Europe, to include countries such as Turkey and Cyprus, while categorizing Central and Eastern Europe separately — a division stemming from the Cold War era and the communist past of these countries. However, these groupings have nothing to do with the individual country ratings; they're merely used to make nations easier to find when perusing their reports, and also for comparative statistics between the modern day and the ratings of decades past.

The methodology Freedom House uses for its reports has been criticized by social scientist K. A. Bollen for its perceived bias towards countries with pro-US positions.[20] Bollen argues that by relying on 'experts' or 'judges', the methodology falls into what is described as 'systematic measurement error': "Regardless of the direction of distortions, it is highly likely that every set of indicators formed by a single author or organization contains systematic measurement error. The origin of this measure lies in the common methodology of forming measures. Selectivity of information and various traits of the judges fuse into a distinct form of bias that is likely to characterize all indicators from a common publication."[21]

Freedom of the Press

The survey, which provides analytical reports and numerical ratings for 195 countries and territories, continues a process conducted since 1980 by Freedom House. The findings are widely used by governments, international organizations, academics, and the news media in many countries. Countries are given a total score from 0 (best) to 100 (worst) on the basis of a set of 23 methodology questions divided into three subcategories. Assigning numerical points allows for comparative analysis among the countries surveyed and facilitates an examination of trends over time. The degree to which each country permits the free flow of news and information determines the classification of its media as “Free,” “Partly Free,” or “Not Free.” Countries scoring 0 to 30 are regarded as having “Free” media; 31 to 60, “Partly Free” media; and 61 to 100, “Not Free” media. The criteria for such judgments and the arithmetic scheme for displaying the judgments are described in the following section. The ratings and reports included in Freedom of the Press 2009 cover events that took place between January 1, 2008, and December 31, 2008.

The study is based on universal criteria. The starting point is the smallest, most universal unit of concern: the individual. We recognize cultural differences, diverse national interests, and varying levels of economic development.

The findings are reached after a multilayered process of analysis and evaluation by a team of regional experts and scholars, including the internal research team as well as external consultants.

The diverse nature of the methodology questions seeks to encompass the varied ways in which pressure can be placed upon the flow of information and the ability of print, broadcast, and internet-based media to operate freely and without fear of repercussions. The report provides a picture of the entire “enabling environment” in which the media in each country operate. Degree of news and information diversity available to the public is also addressed.

An independent review of press freedom studies, commissioned by the Knight Foundation in 2006, found that FOP is the best in its class of Press Freedom Indicators. (International Communication Gazette 2007; 69; 5 'An Evaluation of Press Freedom Indicators' Lee B. Becker, Tudor Vlad and Nancy Nusser)

Other Reports

Freedom House also produces annual reports on governance in the nations of the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe (Nations in Transit), and countries on the borderline of democracy (Countries at the Crossroads). In addition, the multi-year reports have included a survey of women's freedoms in the Middle East.

Freedom House regularly produces special reports. "Today’s American: How Free?" is a special report which examines whether Americans are sacrificing essential values in the war against terror, and scrutinizes other critical issues such as the political process, criminal justice system, racial inequality and immigration.

Other special reports include "Freedom on the Net: A Global Assessment of Internet and Digital Media", "Freedom in Sub-Saharan Africa 2009", "Freedom of Association under Threat", etc.

Other activities

In addition to these reports, Freedom House participates in advocacy initiatives, currently focused on North Korea, Africa, and religious freedom. It has offices in a number of countries, where it promotes and assists local human rights workers and non-government organizations.

On January 12, 2006, as part of a crackdown on unauthorized nongovernmental organizations, the Uzbek government ordered Freedom House to suspend operations in Uzbekistan. Resource and Information Centers managed by Freedom House in Tashkent, Namangan, and Samarkand offered access to materials and books on human rights, as well as technical equipment, such as computers, copiers and Internet access. The government warned that criminal proceedings could be brought against Uzbek staff members and visitors following recent amendments to the criminal code and Code on Administrative Liability of Uzbekistan. Other human rights groups have been similarly threatened and obliged to suspend operations.

Freedom House is a member of the International Freedom of Expression Exchange, a global network of more than 70 non-governmental organizations that monitors free expression violations around the world and defends journalists, writers and others who are persecuted for exercising their right to freedom of expression.

Observers identified Freedom House as a counterrevolutionary organization that encouraged subversion in Cuba. In 2001, the two Czech citizens Ivan Pilip and Jan Bubenix were detained because they were said to be in violation of their status as tourists. They held meetings of a conspiratorial nature with members of small bands in Ciego de Avila province. The plot was allegedly designed by U.S. Government through the guise of Freedom House.[22]

Human Rights activists have denounced Freedom House for being a political instrument used by hawkish circles in the United States to put pressure on countries that do not behave according to their standards.[23]

The Financial Times has reported that Freedom House is one of several organizations selected by the State Department to receive funding for 'clandestine activities' inside Iran.[24] In a research study, with Mr. Ackerman acting as chief adviser, Freedom House sets out its conclusions: "Far more often than is generally understood, the change agent is broad-based, non-violent civic resistance - which employs tactics such as boycotts, mass protests, blockades, strikes and civil disobedience to de-legitimate authoritarian rulers and erode their sources of support, including the loyalty of their armed defenders."[24]

On June 8, 2006, the vice-chairman of Freedom House's board of trustees[25] asked the U.S. Senate to increase the share of NGO funding aimed at helping support non-violent foreign democratic activists organize for potential overthrows of their non-democratic governments. Palmer argued in favor of shifting funding away from NGOs working in already democratic nations to fund this effort.[26]

On December 7, 2004, U.S. House Representative Ron Paul criticized Freedom House for allegedly administering a U.S.-funded program in Ukraine where "much of that money was targeted to assist one particular candidate." Paul said that
"one part that we do know thus far is that the U.S. government, through the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), granted millions of dollars to the Poland-America-Ukraine Cooperation Initiative (PAUCI), which is administered by the U.S.-based Freedom House. PAUCI then sent U.S. Government funds to numerous Ukrainian non-governmental organizations (NGOs). This would be bad enough and would in itself constitute meddling in the internal affairs of a sovereign nation. But, what is worse is that many of these grantee organizations in Ukraine are blatantly in favor of presidential candidate Viktor Yushchenko."[27]

United Nation arguments

In May 2001, the Committee on Non-Governmental Organizations of the United Nations heard arguments for and against Freedom House. Representatives of Cuba alleged that the organization is a U.S. foreign policy instrument linked to the CIA and "submitted proof of the politically motivated, interventionist activities the NGO (Freedom House) carried out against their Government". They also claimed a lack of criticism of U.S. human rights violations in the annual reports. Cuba also claimed that these violations are well documented by other reports, such as those of Human Rights Watch. Other countries such as China and Sudan also gave criticism. The Russian representative inquired "why this organization, an NGO which defended human rights, was against the creation of the International Criminal Court."[6] The United States representative claimed that alleged links between Freedom House and the CIA were "simply not true." The representative said he agreed that the NGO receives funds from the United States Government, but said this is disclosed in its reports. The representative said the funds were from the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), which was not a branch of the CIA. The representative said his country had a law prohibiting the government from engaging in the activities of organizations seeking to change public policy, such as Freedom House. The representative said his country was not immune from criticism from Freedom House, which he said was well documented. The US representative further argued that Freedom House was a human rights organization which sought to represent those who did not have a voice. The representative said he would continue to support NGOs who criticized his Government and those of others.[6]

Russia

James Woolsey, chairman of the Freedom House, and a former director of the CIA, claimed Russia was becoming an increasingly fascist state, and that Russian administration under incumbent president Putin (2000-2008) was behaving "like a fascist government". He added, "Mr. Putin and his movement toward fascism in Russia are on the wrong side of history. They are not going to succeed, they may hold on for some time in trying to undermine the democratic revolutions near Russia and in these adjoining states, and they may be partially successful here and there, but ultimately they will lose."

Russia, identified by Freedom House as "Not Free", called Freedom House biased and accused the group of serving U.S. interests. Sergei Markov, a Duma deputy from the pro-Kremlin United Russia party, called Freedom House a "Russophobic" organization. "You can listen to everything they say, except when it comes to Russia," Markov argued. "There are many Russophobes there," he asserted.[28] In response, Christopher Walker, director of studies at Freedom House, argued that Freedom House made its evaluations based on objective criteria explained on the organization's web site, and he denied that it had a pro-U.S. agenda. "If you look closely at the 193 countries that we evaluate, you'll find that we criticize what are often considered strategic allies of the United States," he said.[28]

United States and Israel

Freedom House has criticized both the United States and its major allies to a certain extent, for example in its 2006 report on the U.S. and Israel. It criticized the U.S. for its policies on interrogation and detention during the War on Terrorism and urged they should be brought into compliance with international law.[29][30] The occupied Palestinian territories, administered by Israel and Palestinian Authority, have not received good scores.[31] However, Israel itself, not including the Palestinian Territories, received an assessment as a free electoral democracy[32].

U.S. Government Role

MIT Professor Emeritus Noam Chomsky, University of Pennsylvania Professor Emeritus Edward S. Herman, and some nations[6] have criticized the organization for receiving funding from and allegedly furthering the interests of the U.S. government. Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman, in their book Manufacturing Consent, wrote that in 1979 Freedom House monitored the election of Ian Smith in Rhodesia and found them "fair", but found the 1980 elections won by Mugabe under British supervision "dubious".[33] Chomsky and Herman further write that the group's history has been characterized as excessively criticizing states opposed to US interests and unduly sympathetic to those regimes supportive of US interests.[33] The authors suggest this can be most notably seen by the way it perceived the US ally El Salvador in the early 1980s, a regime that used the army for mass slaughter of the populace to intimidate them in the run up to an "election", but Freedom House found these elections to be "admirable".[33] Freedom House was criticized for taking part in the rehabilitation campaign for the ARENA right-wing extremist party, which participated in the World Anti-Communist League and took responsibility for massacres in El Salvador.[34]

Noam Chomsky further claimed in 1988 that Freedom House "had interlocks with AIM, the World Anticommunist League [sic], Resistance International, and U.S. government bodies such as Radio Free Europe and the CIA, and has long served as a virtual propaganda arm of the (U.S) government and international right wing."[7] He justifies this claim by presenting a series of national elections that he claims were staged and that the Freedom House observers praised. He also criticizes Freedom House's claimed expenditure of "substantial resources in criticizing the media for insufficient sympathy with U.S. foreign-policy ventures and excessively harsh criticism of U.S. client states." Chomsky further argues that "Its most notable publication of this genre was Peter Braestrup's The Big Story, which contended that the media's negative portrayal of the Tet offensive helped lose the war. The work is a travesty of scholarship, but more interesting is its premise: that the mass media not only should support any national venture abroad, but should do so with enthusiasm, such enterprises being by definition noble."[7]

Diana Barahona, an independent journalist who has published for the Washington-based non-profit organization the Council on Hemispheric Affairs and the US Newspaper Guild journal,[35] has criticized the group's perceived ties to state power and conservative institutions.[36] The organization states that its board of trustees contains Democrats, Republicans and Independents who are a mix of business and labor leaders, former senior government officials, scholars and journalists.[14]

Craig Murray, the British ambassador to Uzbekistan from 2002 to 2004, wrote that the executive director of Freedom House told him in 2003 that the group decided to back off from its efforts to spotlight human rights abuses in Uzbekistan, because some Republican board members (in Murray’s words) “expressed concern that Freedom House was failing to keep in sight the need to promote freedom in the widest sense, by giving full support to U.S. and coalition forces.” Human rights abuses in Uzbekistan at the time included treatment of prisoners who were killed by "immersion in boiling liquid," and by strapping on a gas mask and blocking the filters, Murray reported.[37] Jennifer Windsor, the executive director of Freedom House now and in 2003, said Murray's "characterization of our conversation is an inexplicable misrepresentation not only of what was said at that meeting, but of Freedom House’s record in Uzbekistan." "Freedom House has been a consistent and harsh critic of the human rights situation in Uzbekistan, as clearly demonstrated in press releases and in our annual assessments of that country," she wrote.[38]

Freedom House has been critical of Saudi Arabia and Chile under Augusto Pinochet, classifying them as "Not Free." It was also strongly critical of the apartheid in South Africa and military dictatorships in Latin America.[39]

Recognition

Former US President Bill Clinton, giving a speech at a Freedom House breakfast, said:
I'm honored to be here with all of you and to be here at Freedom House. For more than 50 years, Freedom House has been a voice for tolerance for human dignity. People all over the world are better off because of your work. And I'm very grateful that Freedom House has rallied this diverse and dynamic group. It's not every day that the Carnegie Endowment, the Progressive Policy Institute, the Heritage Foundation, and the American Foreign Policy Council share the same masthead.[40]

Writing in the conservative National Review Online, John R. Miller, a research professor at the George Washington University’s Elliott School, states that

Freedom House has unwaveringly raised the standard of freedom in evaluating fascist countries, Communist regimes, and plain old, dictatorial thugocracies. Its annual rankings are read and used in the United Nations and other international organizations, as well as by the U.S. State Department. Policy and aid decisions are influenced by Freedom House’s report. Those fighting for freedom in countries lacking it are encouraged or discouraged by what Freedom House’s report covers. And sometimes — most importantly — their governments are moved to greater effort."[8]

Miller nevertheless criticized the organization in 2007 as not paying enough attention to slavery in its reports. He wrote democracies such as Germany and India, but mostly repressive regimes, needed to be held to account for their lack of enforcement of laws against human trafficking and the bondage of some foreign workers.[8]

See also

Notes

  1. ^ Freedom House: Frequently Asked Questions
  2. ^ Voice of America:Cuba After Fidel - What Next?
  3. ^ a b c The Limited Robustness of Empirical Findings on Democracy using Highly Correlated Datasets
  4. ^ a b c Freedom House: About Us
  5. ^ a b c 2007 Freedom House Financial Statement
  6. ^ a b c d UN: NGO Committee hears arguments for, against Freedom House
  7. ^ a b c Manufacturing Consent. Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman, "Manufacturing Consent" Pantheon Books (1988).
  8. ^ a b c Miller, John R., "Does 'Freedom' Mean Freedom From Slavery? A glaring omission., article in National Review Online, February 5, 2007, accessed same day
  9. ^ a b c d e Freedom House: A History
  10. ^ Freedom House Annual Report 2002
  11. ^ Color Revolutions, Geopolitics and the Baku Pipeline
  12. ^ a b c d Giannonea, Diego (2010), "Political and ideological aspects in the measurement of democracy: the Freedom House case", Democratization, Volume 17, Issue 1, pages 68 - 97
  13. ^ Freedom House Board of Trustees
  14. ^ a b Frequently Asked Questions
  15. ^ http://polisci.la.psu.edu/faculty/Casper/caspertufisPAweb.pdf
  16. ^ Bollen, K.A. (1992) Political Rights and Political Liberties in Nations: An Evaluation of Human Rights Measures, 1950 to 1984. In: Jabine, T.B. and Pierre Claude, R. "Human Rights and Statistics". University of Pennsylvania Press. ISBN 0-8122-3108-2
  17. ^ Illumnia Login The political science journal database Illumina lists between 10 and 20 peer reviewed journal articles referencing the "freedom in the world" report each year
  18. ^ a b Methodology
  19. ^ a b c Freedom House Methodology
  20. ^ * Bollen, K.A. (1992) Political Rights and Political Liberties in Nations: An Evaluation of Human Rights Measures, 1950 to 1984. In: Jabine, T.B. and Pierre Claude, R. "Human Rights and Statistics". University of Pennsylvania Press. ISBN 0-8122-3108-2. Page 189
  21. ^ * Bollen, K.A. (1992) Political Rights and Political Liberties in Nations: An Evaluation of Human Rights Measures, 1950 to 1984. In: Jabine, T.B. and Pierre Claude, R. "Human Rights and Statistics". University of Pennsylvania Press. ISBN 0-8122-3108-2
  22. ^ http://www.granma.cu/documento/ingles01/003-i.html
  23. ^ http://www.russiatoday.ru/Top_News/2007-02-01/Freedom_House_report_blames_Russia_for_lack_of_liberties.html
  24. ^ a b "Bush enters debate on freedom in Iran". http://news.ft.com/cms/s/48d26298-c052-11da-939f-0000779e2340,_i_rssPage=de095590-c8f4-11d7-81c6-0820abe49a01.html. Retrieved 2006-04-06. 
  25. ^ FH Board of Trustees: Mark Palmer
  26. ^ Promotion of Democracy by Nongovernmental Organizations: An Action Agenda - Testimony by Ambassador Mark Palmer before the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee on June 8, 2006.
  27. ^ Ron Paul: U.S. Hypocrisy in Ukraine
  28. ^ a b Freedom Is Downgraded From 'Bad'
  29. ^ FH: 2006 Freedom in the World Report
  30. ^ Freedom House Urges President Bush to Bring U.S. Policies on Interrogation and Detention into Compliance with U.S. and International Law
  31. ^ FH: 2007 Map of Freedom in the World:Palestinian Authority--Administered Territories [Israel]
  32. ^ http://freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=22&year=2009&country=7630
  33. ^ a b c Chomsky and Herman: Manufacturing Consent, Vintage 1994, p28
  34. ^ http://www.voltairenet.org/article30112.html
  35. ^ From Cuba to Queens: Who needs a revolution more?
  36. ^ FH Files. Diana Barahona, "The Freedom House Files" Monthly Review, March, 2007
  37. ^ Glorious Nation of Uzbekistan, By TARA McKELVEY, New York Times Book Review, December 9, 2007. Book review of DIRTY DIPLOMACY: The Rough-and-Tumble Adventures of a Scotch-Drinking, Skirt-Chasing, Dictator-Busting and Thoroughly Unrepentant Ambassador Stuck on the Frontline of the War Against Terror, by Craig Murray.
  38. ^ NYTimes Sunday Book Review: Jennifer Windsor letter
  39. ^ Comparative scores for all countries from 1973 to 2006
  40. ^ Remarks at a Freedom House breakfast - President Bill Clinton speech

External links

Official links

Freedom House reports

Related links








Got something to say? Make a comment.
Your name
Your email address
Message