Freedom House: Difference between revisions
StefenTower (talk | contribs) avoid link redirect |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 54: | Line 54: | ||
An article from [[1990]] argues that the organization was [[neoconservative]], for example arguing that several prominent members at this time were neoconservatives.<ref>http://rightweb.irc-online.org/groupwatch/freehous.php#P4691_1006130</ref> More recent critics have also described the organization as neoconservative or conservative.<ref>[http://www.opednews.com/thinktank.htm][http://www.alternet.org/story/15275]</ref> |
An article from [[1990]] argues that the organization was [[neoconservative]], for example arguing that several prominent members at this time were neoconservatives.<ref>http://rightweb.irc-online.org/groupwatch/freehous.php#P4691_1006130</ref> More recent critics have also described the organization as neoconservative or conservative.<ref>[http://www.opednews.com/thinktank.htm][http://www.alternet.org/story/15275]</ref> |
||
Freedom House's work has also aroused criticism from those who favour the |
Freedom House's work has also aroused criticism from those who favour the [[Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam]], or who worry that, for instance, entitling a report ''"Saudi Publications on Hate Ideology Fill American Mosques"'' study[http://www.freedomhouse.org/religion/publications/Saudi%20Report/FINAL%20FINAL.pdf] falls short of the ideal of neutral assessment of freedom. Others would retort that Saudi Arabia is a nation which routinely executes homosexuals, refuses to allow women the right to drive or go in public with their heads exposed or even to travel without their husbands' permission, and which outlaws even the possession of non-Muslim religious works by its citizens, and that there can be no possible measure of freedom that makes any sense which treats Saudi Arabia in a "neutral" fashion. |
||
Other problems with the methodology have been alleged: |
Other problems with the methodology have been alleged: |
||
Revision as of 14:58, 26 June 2006
Freedom House is a research institute, primarily governmentally funded and headquarted in Washington, D.C., focused on promoting liberal democracy in the World.[3] It currently has field offices in about a dozen countries including the Ukraine, Poland, Hungary, Bosnia, Serbia, Jordan, Mexico, and a number of countries in Central Asia. Freedom House describes its activities in former Soviet-bloc countries as assisting local human rights workers and non-government organizations.[4] Most of its board of directors and trustees are American.
Freedom House is best known for its annual reports on the degree of democratic freedoms in each country in the world, by which it seeks to assess the current state of civil and political rights in every nation on Earth. These reports are often quoted in the media and often used by political scientists when doing research.[5]
History
The organization was founded by Wendell Wilkie, Eleanor Roosevelt, George Field, Dorothy Thompson, Herbert Bayard Swope, and others in 1941. It describes itself as a clear voice for democracy and freedom around the world. During the 1940s, Freedom House supported the Marshall Plan and the establishment of NATO. During the 1950s and 1960s, it supported the U.S. civil rights movement. During the 1980s, it supported the Solidarity movement in Poland and the democratic opposition in the Philippines. Most recently, it supported citizens involved in revolutions in Serbia, Ukraine, and Kyrgyzstan.[6]
Organization
Freedom House is still primarily an American organisation, although it has offices around the world. It does not identify itself with either the American Republican or the Democratic parties. Freedom House says of itself that it:
"has vigorously opposed dictatorships in Central America and Chile, apartheid in South Africa, the suppression of the Prague Spring, the Soviet invasion of 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."
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. The board is currently chaired by Peter Ackerman. Ackerman took over chairmanship of the board in September of 2005 from James Woolsey. Other notable board members include Steve Forbes, Samuel Huntington, Azar Nafisi, Farooq Kathwari, P. J. O'Rourke, Mara Liasson, and Mark Palmer.
Freedom House is funded by a number of foundations, including Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, the Sarah Scaife Foundation and the Soros Foundation. It also receives funding from the US Government through the National Endowment for Democracy, USAID, and the State Department. Around 2/3 of its income comes from government sources.[7]
Freedom House is a member of the International Freedom of Expression Exchange, a global network of non-governmental organisations that monitors violations of free expression, and campaigns to defend journalists, writers, Internet users and others who are persecuted for exercising their right to freedom of expression.
Reports
- See also: Freedom in the World 2006
Freedom House produces a yearly report, Freedom in the World, giving its assessment of the degree of democracy and freedom in nations and significant disputed territories around the world, and produces annual scores representing the levels of political rights and civil liberties in each state and territory, on a scale from 1 (most free) to 7 (least free). This same report has been widely used by political scientists.[8] This report is also now being used to judge good governance in countries being considered for President George W. Bush's Millennium Challenge Account foreign aid program. Freedom House's country ratings are made available annually, with its past ratings also available.
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." Freedom House gives a limited explanation of its metrics and methodology [9] saying it considers questions such as "Is the population treated equally under the law?" and " Are the legislative representatives elected through free and fair elections?".
Until 2003, countries whose combined average ratings for political rights and for civil liberties fell between 1.0 and 2.5 were designated "free"; those between 3.0 and 5.5 "partly free"; and those between 5.5 and 7.0 "not free". Beginning with the ratings for 2003, countries whose combined average ratings fall between 3.0 and 5.0 are "partly free", and those between 5.5 and 7.0 are "not free."
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.
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. 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.
The Financial Times has reported that Freedom House is one of several organisations selected by the State Department to receive funding for 'clandestine activities' inside Iran.[1]
Criticisms
Freedom House has faced accusations from critics over the years, some of whom have described the organization as being a "right-wing"[10] "anticommunist propaganda institution"[11]. Specific ratings that have been attacked include Cuba's rating of 7-7 as well as Cuba's inclusion in Freedom House's list of the world's 'worst' (most repressive) regimes. Frank Calzón who has served as director of the Cuban Program of Freedom House has been accused of a history of subversive activities against Cuba dating to the 1970's.
However, Freedom House reports also mention criticisms of both the US and Israel.[12] It has been highly critical of some traditional US allies, such as Saudi Arabia and Chile under Pinochet, classifying them as "Not Free". Its ratings are, although there are some differences, highly correlated with several other ratings of democracy also widely used political science research.[13]
Similarly, claims that Freedom House favours American definitions of political rights and civil liberties, allegedly because it is partly funded by U.S. government agencies, ignore the fact that Freedom House derives its research methodology directly from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, not from any American document, and has been using the same measurement standards for decades. [14]
An article from 1990 argues that the organization was neoconservative, for example arguing that several prominent members at this time were neoconservatives.[2] More recent critics have also described the organization as neoconservative or conservative.[3]
Freedom House's work has also aroused criticism from those who favour the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam, or who worry that, for instance, entitling a report "Saudi Publications on Hate Ideology Fill American Mosques" study[15] falls short of the ideal of neutral assessment of freedom. Others would retort that Saudi Arabia is a nation which routinely executes homosexuals, refuses to allow women the right to drive or go in public with their heads exposed or even to travel without their husbands' permission, and which outlaws even the possession of non-Muslim religious works by its citizens, and that there can be no possible measure of freedom that makes any sense which treats Saudi Arabia in a "neutral" fashion.
Other problems with the methodology have been alleged:
- Constitutional and treaty restrictions on civil liberties are excluded from the analysis. Some democracies qualify the right to freedom of speech with de facto exclusion of certain groups, views, or types of speech. For example, in some European nations it is illegal to deny the Holocaust.
See also
External links
- Freedom House
- Freedom House:when “freedom” is only a pretext, Voltaire Network, September 2004
- What is "good" press freedom? The difficulty of measuring freedom of the press worldwide (PDF), Christina Holtz-Bacha, 2004.
Annual surveys
- Freedom House Publications
- 2006 essay and survey data
- Annual Report 2005
- Annual Report 2004
- Annual Report 2003
- Annual Report 2002
- Annual Report 2001