Freedom House: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→‎History: internal link
m clean up; http->https or pr-URI, per VPP using AWB
Line 164: Line 164:
</ref> Bollen studied the question of ideological bias using [[multivariate statistics]]. Using their [[factor analysis|factor-analytic]] [[statistical model|model]] for human-rights measurements, Bollen and Paxton estimate that Gastil's method produces a bias of 0.38&nbsp;[[standard&nbsp;deviation]]s&nbsp;(s.d.) against [[Marxist–Leninist]] countries and a larger bias, 0.5&nbsp;s.d., favoring Christian countries.<ref name="BP">Bollen, Kenneth A. and Paxton, Pamela, [http://cps.sagepub.com/content/33/1/58.short "Subjective Measures of Liberal Democracy"], ''Comparative Political Studies'', vol.33, no.1 (February 2000), pp.58-86</ref> In contrast, another method by a critic of ''Freedom in the World'' produced a bias for Leftist countries during the 1980s of at least 0.8&nbsp;s.d., a bias that is "consistent with the general finding that political scientists are more favorable to leftist politics than is the general population".<ref name="BP"/>
</ref> Bollen studied the question of ideological bias using [[multivariate statistics]]. Using their [[factor analysis|factor-analytic]] [[statistical model|model]] for human-rights measurements, Bollen and Paxton estimate that Gastil's method produces a bias of 0.38&nbsp;[[standard&nbsp;deviation]]s&nbsp;(s.d.) against [[Marxist–Leninist]] countries and a larger bias, 0.5&nbsp;s.d., favoring Christian countries.<ref name="BP">Bollen, Kenneth A. and Paxton, Pamela, [http://cps.sagepub.com/content/33/1/58.short "Subjective Measures of Liberal Democracy"], ''Comparative Political Studies'', vol.33, no.1 (February 2000), pp.58-86</ref> In contrast, another method by a critic of ''Freedom in the World'' produced a bias for Leftist countries during the 1980s of at least 0.8&nbsp;s.d., a bias that is "consistent with the general finding that political scientists are more favorable to leftist politics than is the general population".<ref name="BP"/>


In 1990, Gastil discussed criticisms of ''Freedom in the World'', stating that "generally such criticism is based on opinions about Freedom House rather than detailed examination of survey ratings".<ref>Gastil, Raymond D. (1990), [http://www.springerlink.com/content/c427h03080kj5g75/ "The Comparative Survey of Freedom: Experiences and Suggestions"], ''Studies in International Comparative Development'', vol.25, no.1, pp.25-50.</ref>
In 1990, Gastil discussed criticisms of ''Freedom in the World'', stating that "generally such criticism is based on opinions about Freedom House rather than detailed examination of survey ratings".<ref>{{cite doi|10.1007/BF02716904}}</ref>


The definition of freedom in Gastil (1982) and Freedom House (1990) emphasized liberties rather than the exercise of freedom, according to [[Adam Przeworski]], who gave the following example: In the United States, citizens are free to form political parties and to vote, yet even in presidential elections only half of U.S. "citizens" vote<!-- quoted because children are citizens; he should have written "adult" or "eligible" citizens or "residents" -->; in the U.S., "the same two parties speak in a commercially sponsored unison".<ref name="AP03">
The definition of freedom in Gastil (1982) and Freedom House (1990) emphasized liberties rather than the exercise of freedom, according to [[Adam Przeworski]], who gave the following example: In the United States, citizens are free to form political parties and to vote, yet even in presidential elections only half of U.S. "citizens" vote<!-- quoted because children are citizens; he should have written "adult" or "eligible" citizens or "residents" -->; in the U.S., "the same two parties speak in a commercially sponsored unison".<ref name="AP03">
Line 170: Line 170:
</ref>
</ref>


Another study by Mainwaring, Brink, and Perez-Linanhe found the Freedom Index of ''Freedom in the World'' to have a strong positive [[correlation]] (at least 80%) with three other democracy indices.<ref name="springerlink.com">Mainwaring, Scott, Daniel Brink and Anibal Perez-Linan (2001), [http://www.springerlink.com/content/xmh1jx1p1k71bdqc/ "Classifying Political Regimes in Latin America, 1945-1999"], ''Studies in Comparative International Development'', vol.36, no.1, pp.37-65.</ref> Mainwaring ''et al.'' wrote that Freedom House's index had "two systematic biases: scores for leftist were tainted by political considerations, and changes in scores are sometimes driven by changes in their criteria rather than changes in real conditions".<ref name="springerlink.com" /> Nonetheless, when evaluated on Latin American countries yearly, Freedom House's index were strongly and positively correlated with the index of [[Adam Przeworski]] and with the index of the authors themselves: They evaluated [[Pearson's correlation coefficient|Pearson's coefficient of linear correlation]] between their index and Freedom&nbsp;House's index, which was 0.82; among these indices and the two others studied, the correlations were all between 0.80 and 0.86.<ref name="springerlink.com"/>
Another study by Mainwaring, Brink, and Perez-Linanhe found the Freedom Index of ''Freedom in the World'' to have a strong positive [[correlation]] (at least 80%) with three other democracy indices.<ref name="springerlink.com">{{cite doi|10.1007/BF02687584}}</ref> Mainwaring ''et al.'' wrote that Freedom House's index had "two systematic biases: scores for leftist were tainted by political considerations, and changes in scores are sometimes driven by changes in their criteria rather than changes in real conditions".<ref name="springerlink.com" /> Nonetheless, when evaluated on Latin American countries yearly, Freedom House's index were strongly and positively correlated with the index of [[Adam Przeworski]] and with the index of the authors themselves: They evaluated [[Pearson's correlation coefficient|Pearson's coefficient of linear correlation]] between their index and Freedom&nbsp;House's index, which was 0.82; among these indices and the two others studied, the correlations were all between 0.80 and 0.86.<ref name="springerlink.com"/>


Freedom House maintains that its methodology is systematic and not culturally biased:
Freedom House maintains that its methodology is systematic and not culturally biased:
Line 184: Line 184:


Speaking at a screening of film 'The Magnitsky Files,' Senator [[John McCain]] said:
Speaking at a screening of film 'The Magnitsky Files,' Senator [[John McCain]] said:
<blockquote> Thank you for everything that Freedom House continues to do on behalf of people around the world who suffer oppression and persecution. I'm honored to have known you and to have the opportunity to work with you around the world...We rely on organizations like Freedom House to make judgments about corruption and the persecution of minorities...<ref>[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hU3dzfxQbY4, June 26, 2012]</ref></blockquote>
<blockquote> Thank you for everything that Freedom House continues to do on behalf of people around the world who suffer oppression and persecution. I'm honored to have known you and to have the opportunity to work with you around the world...We rely on organizations like Freedom House to make judgments about corruption and the persecution of minorities...<ref>{{YouTube|hU3dzfxQbY4|June 26, 2012}}</ref></blockquote>


Writing in the conservative [[National Review|National Review Online]], [[John R. Miller]] states:
Writing in the conservative [[National Review|National Review Online]], [[John R. Miller]] states:

Revision as of 18:45, 23 January 2014

For the community organization in Boston, see Freedom House (Roxbury, Massachusetts).

Freedom House
FormationOctober 31, 1941
TypeResearch institute
Think tank
HeadquartersWashington, D.C.
United States
Key people
William H. Taft IV
Chair, Board of Trustees
David J. Kramer
Executive Director
(October 4, 2010–present)
Staff
approx. 150[1]
Websitewww.freedomhouse.org

Freedom House is a U.S.-based[2] non-governmental organization (NGO) that conducts research and advocacy on democracy, political freedom, and human rights.[3] Freedom House was founded in October 1941, and Wendell Willkie and Eleanor Roosevelt served as its first honorary chairpersons. It describes itself as a "clear voice for democracy and freedom around the world".

The organization's annual Freedom in the World report, which assesses each country's degree of political freedoms and civil liberties, is frequently cited by political scientists, journalists, and policy-makers. Freedom of the Press and Freedom of the Net,[4] which monitor censorship, intimidation and violence against journalists, and public access to information, are among its other signature reports.

As of 2010, grants awarded from the US government accounted for most of Freedom House's funding;[5] the grants were not earmarked by the government but allocated through a competitive process. Freedom House is widely regarded as a reliable source[who?]. Nonetheless, some critics have accused Freedom House’s reports of bias or of promoting U.S. government interests abroad. [citation needed]

History

Freedom House was founded in October 1941. Among its founding members were George Field, Dorothy Thompson, Wendell Willkie, Herbert Agar, Herbert Bayard Swope, Ralph Bunche, Father George B. Ford, Roscoe Drummond and Rex Stout. George Field (1904–2006) was executive director of the organization until his retirement in 1967.[6]

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."[7] During World War II Freedom House sponsored the weekly radio program, Our Secret Weapon (1942–1943), a CBS radio series created to counter Axis shortwave radio propaganda broadcasts. Writer Rex Stout, chairman of the Writers' War Board and representative of Freedom House, would rebut the most entertaining lies of the week.[8] The idea for the counterpropaganda series was that of Sue Taylor White of Freedom House; her husband, Paul White, the first director of CBS News, produced and directed the program.[9]

After the war, as its website states, "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."[7] Freedom House supported the Marshall Plan and the establishment of NATO.[7]

Freedom House also states that it was highly critical of McCarthyism.[7] 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.[7]

The organization describes itself currently 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.

In 1967, Freedom House absorbed Books USA, which had been created several years earlier by Edward R. Murrow,[11] as a joint venture between the Peace Corps and the United States Information Service.[12] [13]

More recently, Freedom House has supported citizens involved in challenges to the existing regimes in Serbia, Ukraine, Kyrgyzstan, Egypt, Tunisia and elsewhere. The organization states, "From South Africa to Jordan, Kyrgyzstan to Indonesia, Freedom House has partnered with regional activists in bolstering civil society; worked to support women’s rights; sought justice for victims of torture; defended journalists and free expression advocates; and assisted those struggling to promote human rights in challenging political environments."[7] Freedom House was 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.[14]

In 2001 Freedom House had income of around $11m, increasing to over $26m in 2006.[5] Much of the increase was due to an increase between 2004 and 2005 in US government federal funding, from $12m to $20m.[5] Federal funding fell to around $10m in 2007, but still represented around 80% of Freedom House's budget.[5]

Organization

Freedom House headquarters in Dupont Circle, Washington, D.C.

Freedom House is a nonprofit organization. Headquartered in Washington, D.C., it has field offices in about a dozen countries, including Ukraine, Hungary, Serbia, Jordan, Mexico, and also countries in Central Asia.

Freedom House states that its Board of Trustees is composed of "business and labor leaders, former senior government officials, scholars, writers, and journalists". All board members 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, succeeding Peter Ackerman. Other current board members include Kenneth Adelman, Farooq Kathwari, Azar Nafisi, Mark Palmer, P. J. O'Rourke, and Lawrence Lessig,[1] while past 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.

Reports

Freedom in the World

Main article: Freedom in the World
Country ratings from Freedom House's Freedom in the World 2013 survey, concerning the state of world freedom in 2012.[15]
  Free (90)   Partly Free (58)   Not Free (47)
Countries highlighted in blue are designated "electoral democracies" in Freedom House's 2013 survey Freedom in the World
Percentage of countries in each category over time, from Freedom House's 1973 through 2013 reports.
  Free   Partly Free   Not Free

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[16] the current state of civil and political rights on a scale from 1 (most free) to 7 (least free).

Until 2003 were states where the average for political and civil liberties differed from 1.0 to 2.5 considered "free". States with values from 3.0 to 5.5 were considered "partly free" and those with values between 5.5 and 7.0 as "not free". Since 2003 the scope of the "partly free" ranges from 3.0 to 5.0, "not free" from 5.5 to 7.0.

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.[16]

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's methods (around 1990) and other democracy-researchers were mentioned as examples of an expert-based evaluation by sociologist Kenneth A. Bollen, who is also an applied statistician. Bollen writes that expert-based evaluations are prone to statistical bias of an unknown direction, that is, not known either to agree with U.S. policy or to disagree with U.S. policy: "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]

Freedom of the Press

2013 Freedom of the Press Classifications[21]
Main article: Freedom of the Press (report)

The Freedom of the Press index is an annual survey of media independence that assesses the degree of print, broadcast, and internet freedom throughout the world.[22] It provides numerical rankings and rates each country's media as "Free," "Partly Free," or "Not Free." Individual country narratives examine the legal environment for the media, political pressures that influence reporting, and economic factors that affect access to information.

The annual survey, which provides analytical reports and numerical ratings for 196 countries and territories in 2011, continues a process conducted since 1980. 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: legal environment, political environment, and the economic environment. Assigning numerical points allows for comparative analysis among the countries surveyed and facilitates an examination of trends over time. 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 ratings and reports included in each annual report cover events that took place during the previous year, for example Freedom of the Press 2011 covers events that took place between January 1, 2010 and December 31, 2010.[23]

The study is based on universal criteria and recognizes cultural differences, diverse national interests, and varying levels of economic development. The starting point is the smallest, most universal unit of concern: the individual. The survey uses a multilayered process of analysis and evaluation by a team of regional experts and scholars, including an internal research team and 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.[23]

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.[24]

Other reports

Freedom House also produces annual reports on governance in the nations of the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe (Nations in Transit),[25] and countries on the borderline of democracy (Countries at the Crossroads).[26] In addition, the multi-year reports have included a survey of women's freedoms in the Middle East.

Freedom House regularly produces special reports. The annual "Worst of the Worst: The World's Most Repressive Societies"[27] report consists of extracts from Freedom in the World covering countries that receive the lowest possible combined average score for political rights and civil liberties, as well as countries "on the threshold," falling just short of the lowest possible rating.

"Today’s American: How Free?"[28] is a special report which examines whether Americans in 2008 were 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",[4] "Freedom in Sub-Saharan Africa 2009", and "Freedom of Association under Threat".

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 80 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. Freedom House also publishes the China Media Bulletin, a weekly analysis on press freedom in and related to the People's Republic of China.

Criticism

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.[29] In a research study, with 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."[29]

On June 8, 2006, the vice-chairman of Freedom House's board of trustees[30] 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.[31]

Cuban, Sudanese and Chinese criticism

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."[32]

The U.S. representative stated 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.[32]

Russia

Russia, identified by Freedom House as "Not Free", called Freedom House biased and accused the group of serving U.S. interests. Sergei Markov, an MP from the 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.[33] 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.[33]

Daniel Treisman, a UCLA political scientist, has criticised Freedom House's assessment of Russia. Treisman has pointed out that Freedom House ranks Russia's political rights on the same level as the United Arab Emirates, which, according to Freedom House, is a federation of absolute monarchies with no hint of democracy anywhere in the system. Freedom House also ranks Russia's civil liberties on the same scale as those of Yemen. In Yemen, according to the constitution, Sharia law is the only source of legislation, and allows assaults and killings of women for alleged immoral behaviour. Criticising the president is illegal in Yemen. Treisman contrasts Freedom House's ranking with the Polity IV scale used by academics and in which Russia has a much better score. In the Polity IV scale, Saudi Arabia is a consolidated autocracy (-10), while the United States is a consolidated democracy (+10); Russia has a score of +4, while United Arab Emirates has a score of -8.[34]

U.S. domestic criticism

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."[35][unreliable source?][original research?]

Noam Chomsky and Edward S. Herman have criticized the organization for excessively criticizing states opposed to US interests while being unduly sympathetic to regimes supportive of US interests.[36] According to Chomsky and Herman, Freedom House described the Rhodesian general election of 1979 as "fair" but found the Southern Rhodesian 1980 elections as "dubious".[36] They said that Freedom House found El Salvador's 1982 election to be "admirable".[36]

Alleged partiality toward Uzbekistan

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 in 2003, replied that 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".[38]

Systematic evaluations

In several studies of the methodology used by Raymond D. Gastil and others to create Freedom in the World report, Kenneth A. Bollen found that "no criticisms ... have demonstrated a systematic bias in all the ratings. Most of the evidence consists of anecdotal evidence of relatively few cases. Whether there is a systematic or sporadic slant in Gastil's ratings is an open question".[39] Bollen studied the question of ideological bias using multivariate statistics. Using their factor-analytic model for human-rights measurements, Bollen and Paxton estimate that Gastil's method produces a bias of 0.38 standard deviations (s.d.) against Marxist–Leninist countries and a larger bias, 0.5 s.d., favoring Christian countries.[40] In contrast, another method by a critic of Freedom in the World produced a bias for Leftist countries during the 1980s of at least 0.8 s.d., a bias that is "consistent with the general finding that political scientists are more favorable to leftist politics than is the general population".[40]

In 1990, Gastil discussed criticisms of Freedom in the World, stating that "generally such criticism is based on opinions about Freedom House rather than detailed examination of survey ratings".[41]

The definition of freedom in Gastil (1982) and Freedom House (1990) emphasized liberties rather than the exercise of freedom, according to Adam Przeworski, who gave the following example: In the United States, citizens are free to form political parties and to vote, yet even in presidential elections only half of U.S. "citizens" vote; in the U.S., "the same two parties speak in a commercially sponsored unison".[42]

Another study by Mainwaring, Brink, and Perez-Linanhe found the Freedom Index of Freedom in the World to have a strong positive correlation (at least 80%) with three other democracy indices.[43] Mainwaring et al. wrote that Freedom House's index had "two systematic biases: scores for leftist were tainted by political considerations, and changes in scores are sometimes driven by changes in their criteria rather than changes in real conditions".[43] Nonetheless, when evaluated on Latin American countries yearly, Freedom House's index were strongly and positively correlated with the index of Adam Przeworski and with the index of the authors themselves: They evaluated Pearson's coefficient of linear correlation between their index and Freedom House's index, which was 0.82; among these indices and the two others studied, the correlations were all between 0.80 and 0.86.[43]

Freedom House maintains that its methodology is systematic and not culturally biased:

Freedom House does not maintain a culture-bound view of freedom. The methodology of the survey is grounded in basic standards of political rights and civil liberties, derived in large measure from relevant portions of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. These standards apply to all countries and territories, irrespective of geographical location, ethnic or religious composition, or level of economic development.[44]

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.[45]

Speaking at a reception hosted by Freedom House to honor human rights defenders, U.S. Representative Jim McGovern said:

I want to thank Freedom House for all the incredible work that they do to assist human rights defenders around the world. We rely a lot on Freedom House not only for information, advice and counsel, but also for their testimony when we do our hearings. And I’m a big fan.[46]

Speaking at a screening of film 'The Magnitsky Files,' Senator John McCain said:

Thank you for everything that Freedom House continues to do on behalf of people around the world who suffer oppression and persecution. I'm honored to have known you and to have the opportunity to work with you around the world...We rely on organizations like Freedom House to make judgments about corruption and the persecution of minorities...[47]

Writing in the conservative National Review Online, John R. Miller states:

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."[48]

Miller nevertheless criticized the organization in 2007 as not paying enough attention to slavery in its reports. He wrote that repressive regimes, and even democracies such as Germany and India, needed to be held to account for their lack of enforcement of laws against human trafficking and the bondage of some foreign workers.[48]

See also

Notes

  1. ^ a b "Our Leadership". Freedom House. Archived from the original on October 13, 2012. Retrieved October 13, 2012.
  2. ^ William Ide (January 11, 2000). "Freedom House Report: Asia Sees Some Significant Progress". Voice of America. Archived from the original on October 13, 2012. Retrieved October 13, 2012.
  3. ^ "Cuba After Fidel - What Next?". Voice of America. October 31, 2009. Archived from the original on October 13, 2012. Retrieved October 13, 2012.
  4. ^ a b "Freedom on the Net 2013", Freedom House, 3 October 2013. Retrieved 12 October 2013.
  5. ^ 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. pp. 68-97.
  6. ^ History of the Freedom House, George Field Collection of Freedom House Files, 1933–1990 (Bulk 1941–1969): Finding Aid, Princeton University Library; Freedom House Statement on the Passing of George Field (June 1, 2006). Retrieved January 15, 2011
  7. ^ a b c d e f "Our History". Freedom House. Archived from the original on October 13, 2012. Retrieved October 13, 2012.
  8. ^ Dunning, John, On the Air: The Encyclopedia of Old-Time Radio. New York: Oxford University Press, Inc., 1998 ISBN 978-0-19-507678-3 hardcover; revised edition of Tune In Yesterday (1976). p. 529.
  9. ^ McAleer, John, Rex Stout: A Biography. Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1977 ISBN 0-316-55340-9. p. 305.
  10. ^ "Freedom House Annual Report 2002" (PDF). Freedom House. Retrieved October 13, 2012.
  11. ^ Barnhisel, Greg; Turner, Catherine (2010). Pressing the Fight: Print, Propaganda, and the Cold War. University of Massachusetts Press. p. 135. ISBN 978-1558497368. Retrieved October 13, 2012.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  12. ^ "Onward the Peace Corps". Milwaukee Journal. December 2, 1964. Retrieved March 27, 2012.
  13. ^ Allen Kent. "Encyclopedia of library and information science, Volume 38". Chapter on "International Book Donation Programs". p. 239.
  14. ^ Comparative scores for all countries from 1973 to 2006 [dead link]
  15. ^ Freedom in the World 2013
  16. ^ a b The Limited Robustness of Empirical Findings on Democracy using Highly Correlated Datasets
  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
  21. ^ "Freedom of the Press 2013". Freedom House. May 21, 2013. Retrieved August 22, 2013.
  22. ^ "Freedom of the Press", web page, Freedom House. Retrieved May 29, 2011
  23. ^ a b "Freedom of the Press 2011 — Methodology", Karin Karlekar, Freedom House, April 15, 2011, 4 pp.
  24. ^ "An Evaluation of Press Freedom Indicators", Lee B. Becker, Tudor Vlad and, Nancy Nusser, International Communication Gazette, vol.69, no.1 (February 2007), pp. 5-28
  25. ^ "Nations in Transit", Freedom House, 2013. Retrieved 12 October 2013.
  26. ^ "Countries at the Crossroads", Freedom House, 2012. Retrieved 12 October 2013.
  27. ^ "Worst of the Worst 2012: The World's Most Repressive Societies", Freedom House, 28 June 2012. Retrieved 12 October 2013.
  28. ^ "Today's American: How Free?", Freedom House, 2008. Retrieved 12 October 2013.
  29. ^ a b Guy Dinmore (March 31, 2006). "Bush enters debate on freedom in Iran". The Financial Times. Retrieved April 6, 2006.(subscription required)
  30. ^ FH Board of Trustees: Mark Palmer
  31. ^ 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.
  32. ^ a b UN: NGO Committee hears arguments for, against Freedom House
  33. ^ a b Freedom Is Downgraded From 'Bad'
  34. ^ Treisman, Daniel (2011). The Return: Russia's Journey from Gorbachev to Medvedev. Free Press. pp. 341–352. ISBN 978-1-4165-6071-5.
  35. ^ Ron Paul: U.S. Hypocrisy in Ukraine
  36. ^ a b c Chomsky and Herman: Manufacturing Consent, Vintage 1994, p28
  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. ^ Jennifer Windsor (December 23, 2007). "Freedom House's Record". The New York Times. Archived from the original on October 13, 2012. Retrieved October 13, 2012.
  39. ^ Bollen, K.A., "Political Rights and Political Liberties in Nations: An Evaluation of Human Rights Measures, 1950 to 1984", Human Rights Quarterly, vol.8, no.4 (November 1986), pp.567-591. Also in: Jabine, T.B. and Pierre Claude, R. (Eds.), Human Rights and Statistics, University of Pennsylvania Press, 1992, pp.188-215, ISBN 0-8122-3108-2.
  40. ^ a b Bollen, Kenneth A. and Paxton, Pamela, "Subjective Measures of Liberal Democracy", Comparative Political Studies, vol.33, no.1 (February 2000), pp.58-86
  41. ^ Attention: This template ({{cite doi}}) is deprecated. To cite the publication identified by doi:10.1007/BF02716904, please use {{cite journal}} (if it was published in a bona fide academic journal, otherwise {{cite report}} with |doi=10.1007/BF02716904 instead.
  42. ^ Przeworski, Adam (2003). "Freedom to choose and democracy". Economics and Philosophy. 19. Cambridge University Press: 265–279. doi:10.1017/S0266267103001159. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  43. ^ a b c Attention: This template ({{cite doi}}) is deprecated. To cite the publication identified by doi:10.1007/BF02687584, please use {{cite journal}} (if it was published in a bona fide academic journal, otherwise {{cite report}} with |doi=10.1007/BF02687584 instead.
  44. ^ "Freedom in the World 2010: Methodology", Freedom in the World 2010, Freedom house
  45. ^ Remarks at a Freedom House breakfast - President Bill Clinton speech
  46. ^ McGovern praises 'unsung heroes', April 19, 2012
  47. ^ June 26, 2012 on YouTube
  48. ^ a b Miller, John R., "Does 'Freedom' Mean Freedom From Slavery? A glaring omission., article in National Review Online, February 5, 2007, accessed same day

External links

Wikimedia Commons has media related to Freedom House.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Freedom_House&oldid=592057666"