Thailand Joins Congo As "not-free" Countries

[george]

Thailand joins Congo as "not-free" countries

Another major setback for Thailand's international standing and reputation as it joined Congo as the newly "not-free" countries this year in a major survey of global freedom released Wednesday.

Freedom in the World 2007, a survey of worldwide political rights and civil

liberties done in New York, found that 45 countries are not free, representing 23 percent of the world's inhabitants. About one-half of those living in Not Free conditions inhabit one country: China.

But the same survey said that the percentage of countries designated as free has remained flat for nearly a decade and suggests that a "freedom stagnation" may be developing.

The continued weakness of democratic institutions—even after holding democratic elections—in a number of countries continues to hamper further progress. According to the survey, the number of countries judged by Freedom in the World as free in 2006 stood at 90, representing 47 percent of the global population. Fifty-eight countries qualified as partly free, with 30 percent of the world's population.

Regionally, major findings include a setback for freedom in a number of countries in the Asia-Pacific region, a more modest decline in Africa, and a solidification of authoritarian rule in the majority of countries of the former Soviet Union. Three countries experienced positive status changes:

Guyana moved from partly free to free, and Haiti and Nepal moved from Not Free to Partly Free. Two countries experienced negative status changes: both Thailand and Congo moved from partly free to not free.

Sixteen of Asia's 39 countries are Free (41 percent), while 12 are Partly Free (31 percent) and 11 are Not Free (28 percent).

Freedom House also noted that the trends reflected the growing pushback against democracy driven by authoritarian regimes, including Russia, Venezuela, China, Iran, and Zimbabwe, threatening to further erode the gains made in the last thirty years. The pushback is targeted at organizations, movements, and media that advocate for the expansion of democratic freedoms.

Regionally, Asia experienced the largest proportion of lowered scores in 2006. While the dominant development was the military-led coup that ousted Thailand's democratically elected prime minister, other countries previously considered showcases of Asian freedom, including the Philippines and East Timor, also experienced setbacks.

-- The Nation 2007-01-17

[Jingthing]

Yes, but perhaps Thailand can become the HUB of not-free nations?

[womble]

Well that is percieved freeness by someone sitting in New York.

It certainly seems a lot more free here than when I walk the streets of london.

[jumnien]

It may not be free, but it's stil cheap!

[Grover]

It may not be free, but it's stil cheap!

haha. nice one.

[the pleiadian]

quote<<<Well that is percieved freeness by someone sitting in New York.

It certainly seems a lot more free here than when I walk the streets of london.

Jingthing Posted Today, 2007-01-17 11:44:02 >>>

Thats the problem with lots of foriegn outcasts in SE Asia, many of them have very serious problem in forming thoughts, in analytical ability, in conscious awareness, they will say anything that has no academic meaning that come out of their mouth.

Do Thais have freedom of thoughts?? NO, no, there is still such thing as thought crime in Thailand, I cannot even get into it on this website, thats how free is Thailand.

Do they have freedom of press? do they have the worst censorship even in third word nations? do they have freedom of access to information and knowledge even to their own true history? do they have freedom of conducting business? the list of freedoms that we foreigners take for granted just contnue on.

Really sad that Thailand is heading the wrong direction for the gains of the hiarchy.

[hammered]

Its not surprising that "freedom stagnation" is occuring worldwide when the best known proponents of freedom - US, UK, Australia etc - are basically linking the word to mass destruction, mass murder, mass newly created poverty and war. Ditto the word democracy.

Maybe things will improve somewhat when Blair retires later this year and even more so when the Bush term finally ends - providing he doesnt start any more insane wars. That will only leave little Johnny Howard providing our Aussie brethren see fit to reelect him, and he has little powr without his bigger bully brothers. Then again who knows who will end up replacing Bush.

I wonder if Freedom House downrated the US from free to partly free as this would seem to fit with the draconian so Homeland Security legislation, the use of rendition and the denial of rights to prisoners.

I wonder who funds Freedom House?

Edited January 17, 2007 by hammered

[Laulen]

All this talk of 'freedom' and 'democracy' is somewhat relative I believe. As the saying goes, especially in respect of the previous post from HAMMERED... 'People in glasshouses...'

[chownah]

45 countries are not free, representing 23 percent of the world's inhabitants. About one-half of those living in Not Free conditions inhabit one country: China.

This would mean that China has about 12 percent of the world population....doesn't it have more like 20% of the world population?....which would mean that almost all of the not free people are from China with only 3% of the not free population living outside China.......and I don't think that is correct....something seems amiss.

Chownah

[Galong]

Well that is percieved freeness by someone sitting in New York.

It certainly seems a lot more free here than when I walk the streets of london.

Well said! Who the hel_l do a bunch of snooty NY types thing they are judging a country that I'll bet most of them couldn't point at on a map... a bunch of Patriot-Act-lovin' hypocrits

And yet, the US is NOT talking crap to China! Pussies...

[Dupont]

Rather be not free here, than "free" in the USA or London.

Free there means all the loonies and criminals and scroungers and malingerers have all the rights.

Want to be a hard working family man there and you are classed as some sort of fascist woman hating queer bashing nutter, taxed to the hilt to pay for the above mentioned, and threatend with law suits if you complain.

Only thing for you is to have your kids taken away by the hard drinking ex missus to live with some drug dealing crackhead. Have men hating teachers tell your kids that work and career is all, and that family life and fun are things of the past. Leave it out.

Give me LOS anyday, and you foreigners enjoy your "freedom"!

Edited January 17, 2007 by Dupont

[Alf Witt]

Rather be not free here, than "free" in the USA or London.

Mmm? Rather be not free here, than not free in the Congo also methinks?

[Patex]

Rather be not free here, than "free" in the USA or London.

Mmm? Rather be not free here, than not free in the Congo also methinks?

I would say not free in Thailand is still better than free in Irak...

[KireB]

Another prime time advertisement for Thailand.

Let's face it people: Thailand is a third world country with no true freedom of speech.

Yesterday I wanted to watch the Thaksin interview on CNN, but fat chance!

Whether the USA has it, is not in question! The USA is but a small part of the world!

[Plus]

They couldn't leave Thailand's rank unchanged after the coup. What else was expected? Upgrade?

[Dupont]

Another prime time advertisement for Thailand.

Let's face it people: Thailand is a third world country with no true freedom of speech.

Yesterday I wanted to watch the Thaksin interview on CNN, but fat chance!

Whether the USA has it, is not in question! The USA is but a small part of the world!

Its on CNN web site, is shit and he says very little anyway.

Full transcript as well.

[Alf Witt]

I think when they talk about freedom in New York and London they are talking about freedom to conform to their way of thinking. It doesn't seem to occur to them that other countries should be free not to do that.

[JimsKnight]

Its true that there are infringements on liberties here that are not present 'back in the homeland' but you know what? Its not the be all and the end all if Thailand has a bit of border control / infringements. Do we want see a boring welfare state leftist mentality to appear?

If the UK had the same mentality as Thailand whats the odds that half the sht that blights the green and pleasant land would never of occured or continue to happen.

Give me the partly free Thailand anyday.

NY folk are good folk but when it comes to how the thais run there country the'll never understand and just assume that the 'bad men' are in charge.

[roamer]

How I admire the freedom of the press that exists in the US, free to criticize the war in Iraq, the President, expose the way the population gets shafted, inform and educate nation of the world outside its borders.

Of course it doesn't actually DO any of those things, guess thats freedom

[TAWP]

Why do so many people here in this thread make excuses of the bad shape [in many countries] regarding freedom?

[lannarebirth]

Good spot for a book recommendation:

http://www.amazon.com/Freedom-Meditation-S...s/dp/0877730849

[opothai]

i like the freedom to vote for what ever party i like [ in the uk ]

and no doubt the thai's would like the freedom to vote for a party they would want.

but as with any political party these days the agenda they put forward is only partly adhered to but NEVER finished. Infact lies come to mind.

when and if the thai's get the vote, and believe the party they vote for,

what can anybody do when that particular party just make up rules and regulations to suit themselves, do they ever have to accountable.

As with most countries the amount of freedom is only what the leaders [ big corporations ] are willing to give you.

as through the ages only money buys true freedom.

IMHO freedom _ the ability to move anywhere be accountable to no outside influence, speech without fear, and only giving information about yourself to other parties of your own choice.

[britmaveric]

[usatrader]

Just to add a little clarity as to who and what Freedom house is and is not, given some grumblings here from the small blame someone else crowd.

Here is link to board of directors from all over the world. A Crowd afar from the lable of neocons or right wing neonuts as they are labled sometimes.

http://freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=10

As to their methology, its accuaracy and objective, well I would let the reader inform theirselves on that if they seek an answer to its creditability or lack thereof.

http://freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=35&year=2005

Freedom House: A History

Freedom House was established in 1941 in New York City. It 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.

From the outset, Freedom House was notable for its bipartisan character. In its early years, its board of trustees was drawn from a broad and eclectic group of prominent Americans: leaders from business and labor, journalists, academics, former government officials. A key figure among its early leaders was Wendell Willkie, the Republican presidential nominee in 1940. Eleanor Roosevelt was also a strong supporter and served as honorary chairman in the organization's early years.

Having been launched in response to the threat posed by one great totalitarian evil, Nazism, Freedom House took up the struggle against the other twentieth century totalitarian threat, Communism, after the conclusion of World War II. The organization's leadership was convinced that the spread of democracy would be the best weapon against totalitarian ideologies. Freedom House thus embraced a mission to work to expand freedom around the world and to strengthen human rights and civil liberties in the United States. Freedom House thus strongly endorsed the post-war Atlantic Alliance, as well as such key policies and institutions as the Marshall Plan and NATO.

During the 1950s, Freedom House was an aggressive foe of McCarthyism. It was also an early supporter of the movement for racial equality. Through the years, Freedom House has included among its leadership prominent civil rights leaders, most notably Roy Wilkins, the director of the NAACP, and Bayard Rustin, a leading adviser to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

During the 1970s, Freedom House became concerned about the erosion of freedom in many parts of the developing world. With Marxist regimes, juntas, and military strongmen holding sway over swathes of Asia, Africa, the Middle East, and Latin America, Freedom House responded with a program that combined research and analysis, advocacy, and on-the-ground involvement in crisis areas.

In 1973, Freedom House launched its annual survey of global political rights and civil liberties, Freedom in the World. Employing a methodology that had been devised by leading social scientists, the survey rated every country in the world on a series of indicators basic to freedom. Published annually, it provided policymakers, journalists, and the public a comparative view of the global state of freedom, in which countries were measures across regional boundaries and from year to year.

Also in that time period, Freedom House took the leading role in a campaign to defeat a proposal, under debate in the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), to establish a New World Information and Communications Order, a measure that many saw as an opening wedge towards global censorship. The organization was involved in the defense of Andrei Sakharov and other Soviet dissidents. When the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan, Freedom House established the Afghanistan Information Center, a clearinghouse for information on the conflict. It was among the earliest supporters of Poland's Solidarity trade union. Responding to growing strife in Africa, Freedom House sent study missions to Zimbabwe and South Africa led by Bayard Rustin. It also sent missions to assess conditions in Central America during the 1980s, as part of an ongoing project to support centrist democratic forces, under siege from the Marxist left and the death squad right.

With the end of the Cold War, the Freedom House mission evolved to meet the new challenge of expanding freedom to societies under dictatorship and helping to stabilize free institutions in new, fragile democracies. Freedom House became more active on the issue of religious freedom. In 1995, the Puebla Institute was merged into Freedom House as the Center for Religious Freedom, and led advocacy efforts to bring issues of religious freedom into the mainstream of human rights work. The 1997 merger with the National Forum Foundation substantially enhanced Freedom House's capacity to conduct on-the-ground projects in fledgling democracies in Central and Eastern Europe, the Balkans, and the former Soviet Union. Through subgrants and targeted fellowships, Freedom House assisted these post-Communist societies in the establishment of independent media, non-governmental think tanks, and the core institutions of electoral politics. Although the Center for Religious Freedom Separated from Freedom House in 2006, Freedom House continues to ensure that religious freedom remains a core part of its analysis, advocacy, and action portfolio.

In the post 9/11 period, Freedom House expanded its on-the-ground presence to more difficult environments, such as in Central Asia and the Middle East. Since 2001, Freedom House has established an increasingly global presence through offices in Ukraine, Poland, Hungary, Bosnia, Serbia, Jordan, Mexico, and a number of countries in Central Asia. In both Ukraine and Serbia, Freedom House worked closely with local groups that were responsible for peaceful democratic revolutions. 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.

Freedom House has also substantially expanded its research on various aspects of freedom. Its flagship survey, Freedom in the World, was chosen as a formal source for the determination of country eligibility for the Millennium Challenge Account, a new foreign assistance program designed to provide additional aid to poor countries that achieve certain democratic standards and adopt free market economic reforms. In addition, Freedom House publishes annually Freedom of the Press (established in 1980); Nations in Transit (since 1995), which assesses conditions in the post Communist world; and Countries at the Crossroads, a survey of governance, corruption, and transparency in sixty important countries. In 2005, Freedom House published two path-breaking studies. The first, Survey of Women's Rights in the Middle East and North Africa, identified and analyzed the institutions that contribute to gender inequality in the region. The second, How Freedom Is Won, identifies the tactics and forces which have most significantly contributed to democratic transitions over the past three decades. Through the Center for Religious Freedom, Freedom House produced a report on the presence of Saudi-government sponsored hate literature in some American mosques, and examined the impact of the imposition of extreme sharia law on religious freedom, women's rights and other human rights in a major new study, Radical Islam's Rules.

Freedom House continues to serve as a leading advocate for policies to advance the democratic idea. It was a founder of the Community of Democracies, an alliance of global democracies that seeks a greater voice for democracy at the United Nations and other international forums. It supports critical reforms of the United Nations to make its work in human rights and democracy more effective. Freedom House speaks out for religious freedom for practitioners of all faiths, and the Center for Religious Freedom played a leadership role in creating the Coalition for Southern Sudan, whose advocacy efforts helped to lead to a peace agreement in that region, ending the longest running war in Africa.

Freedom House is a strong voice for a U.S. foreign policy that places the promotion of democracy at the forefront. Freedom House representatives regularly testify before Congress, provide briefings to Congress, the State Department, and other agencies, and argue the case for freedom at conferences, in op-eds and through media appearances.

How is Freedom House funded?

Freedom House's activities are funded through a mix of private individual contributions, foundation awards, and grants from the United States government, other governments and the European Union.

What is Freedom House's relationship to the US government and other governments?

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.

What is Freedom House's definition of "freedom"?

Freedom is the opportunity to act spontaneously in a variety of fields outside the control of the government and/or other centers of potential domination. Freedom House measures freedom according to two broad categories: political rights and civil liberties. Political rights enable people to participate freely in the political process through the right to vote, compete for public office and elect representatives who have a decisive impact on public policies and are accountable to the electorate. Civil liberties allow for the freedoms of expression and belief, associational and organizational rights, rule of law, and personal autonomy without interference from the state.

The organization's definition of freedom is derived in large measure from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1948. The rights enumerated in the Universal Declaration include freedom of religion, expression, and assembly; freedom from torture; and the right to take part in the government of his or her country. These standards apply to all countries and territories, irrespective of geographical location, ethnic or religious composition, or level of economic development.

Where does Freedom House work around the globe?

Freedom House is engaged in supporting democratic reform in parts of the world where freedom is under duress or is not yet consolidated. Currently, Freedom House has programs in Central Asia, Central and Eastern Europe, the Middle East, Africa and Latin America. Freedom House's programs are managed from offices based in many regions of the world.

Does Freedom House address political rights and civil liberties in the United States?

Yes. The United States is one of the 192 countries and 14 territories whose levels of political rights and civil liberties are covered by the current edition of Freedom in the World. The state of media freedom in the United States is addressed in Freedom of the Press. Freedom House also comments, via press releases and letters to U.S. policymakers, and in testimony to Congressional committees, on American policies that affect political rights and civil liberties.

Map of freedom:

http://freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=15&year=2006

Sources:

http://freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=249

http://freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=265#3

[englishoak]

[Scott]

I find this a sad development for Thailand. I hope that the powers that be take some of these issues seriously. The sooner that rights are restored the better it is for everyone.

As foreigners, we are not always subject to the same regulations as the local people.

Most people will give up freedom for security. The current situation, however, doesn't indicate that either exists.

[jumnien]

Perhaps Thailand could rent a small section at Guantanamo Bay to house all TRT party members. This would surely bring them up the scale in the eyes of the New Yorkers!

[astral]

Just an American assessment because of the Coup.

Not really worth worrying about.

[PhilHarries]

Ironic, is it not, discussing "freedom" in a forum with so many taboos?

Sorry mods, only joking

As previously said, freedom is money related. On our western based wealth we live very well in LOS and can do pretty well what we like, within reason and the law, while others have to rummage through garbage bins in order to eke out a living. But in order to gain our wealth we have to have done something involving work, apart from the few who inherit their stash, but that was done by our free choice. In Thailand, without a welfare state system, the scavenger has little or no free choice.

[hammered]

Just to add a little clarity as to who and what Freedom house is and is not, given some grumblings here from the small blame someone else crowd.

Here is link to board of directors from all over the world. A Crowd afar from the lable of neocons or right wing neonuts as they are labled sometimes.

http://freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=10

As to their methology, its accuaracy and objective, well I would let the reader inform theirselves on that if they seek an answer to its creditability or lack thereof.

http://freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=35&year=2005

Freedom House: A History

Freedom House was established in 1941 in New York City. It 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.

From the outset, Freedom House was notable for its bipartisan character. In its early years, its board of trustees was drawn from a broad and eclectic group of prominent Americans: leaders from business and labor, journalists, academics, former government officials. A key figure among its early leaders was Wendell Willkie, the Republican presidential nominee in 1940. Eleanor Roosevelt was also a strong supporter and served as honorary chairman in the organization's early years.

Having been launched in response to the threat posed by one great totalitarian evil, Nazism, Freedom House took up the struggle against the other twentieth century totalitarian threat, Communism, after the conclusion of World War II. The organization's leadership was convinced that the spread of democracy would be the best weapon against totalitarian ideologies. Freedom House thus embraced a mission to work to expand freedom around the world and to strengthen human rights and civil liberties in the United States. Freedom House thus strongly endorsed the post-war Atlantic Alliance, as well as such key policies and institutions as the Marshall Plan and NATO.

During the 1950s, Freedom House was an aggressive foe of McCarthyism. It was also an early supporter of the movement for racial equality. Through the years, Freedom House has included among its leadership prominent civil rights leaders, most notably Roy Wilkins, the director of the NAACP, and Bayard Rustin, a leading adviser to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

During the 1970s, Freedom House became concerned about the erosion of freedom in many parts of the developing world. With Marxist regimes, juntas, and military strongmen holding sway over swathes of Asia, Africa, the Middle East, and Latin America, Freedom House responded with a program that combined research and analysis, advocacy, and on-the-ground involvement in crisis areas.

In 1973, Freedom House launched its annual survey of global political rights and civil liberties, Freedom in the World. Employing a methodology that had been devised by leading social scientists, the survey rated every country in the world on a series of indicators basic to freedom. Published annually, it provided policymakers, journalists, and the public a comparative view of the global state of freedom, in which countries were measures across regional boundaries and from year to year.

Also in that time period, Freedom House took the leading role in a campaign to defeat a proposal, under debate in the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), to establish a New World Information and Communications Order, a measure that many saw as an opening wedge towards global censorship. The organization was involved in the defense of Andrei Sakharov and other Soviet dissidents. When the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan, Freedom House established the Afghanistan Information Center, a clearinghouse for information on the conflict. It was among the earliest supporters of Poland's Solidarity trade union. Responding to growing strife in Africa, Freedom House sent study missions to Zimbabwe and South Africa led by Bayard Rustin. It also sent missions to assess conditions in Central America during the 1980s, as part of an ongoing project to support centrist democratic forces, under siege from the Marxist left and the death squad right.

With the end of the Cold War, the Freedom House mission evolved to meet the new challenge of expanding freedom to societies under dictatorship and helping to stabilize free institutions in new, fragile democracies. Freedom House became more active on the issue of religious freedom. In 1995, the Puebla Institute was merged into Freedom House as the Center for Religious Freedom, and led advocacy efforts to bring issues of religious freedom into the mainstream of human rights work. The 1997 merger with the National Forum Foundation substantially enhanced Freedom House's capacity to conduct on-the-ground projects in fledgling democracies in Central and Eastern Europe, the Balkans, and the former Soviet Union. Through subgrants and targeted fellowships, Freedom House assisted these post-Communist societies in the establishment of independent media, non-governmental think tanks, and the core institutions of electoral politics. Although the Center for Religious Freedom Separated from Freedom House in 2006, Freedom House continues to ensure that religious freedom remains a core part of its analysis, advocacy, and action portfolio.

In the post 9/11 period, Freedom House expanded its on-the-ground presence to more difficult environments, such as in Central Asia and the Middle East. Since 2001, Freedom House has established an increasingly global presence through offices in Ukraine, Poland, Hungary, Bosnia, Serbia, Jordan, Mexico, and a number of countries in Central Asia. In both Ukraine and Serbia, Freedom House worked closely with local groups that were responsible for peaceful democratic revolutions. 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.

Freedom House has also substantially expanded its research on various aspects of freedom. Its flagship survey, Freedom in the World, was chosen as a formal source for the determination of country eligibility for the Millennium Challenge Account, a new foreign assistance program designed to provide additional aid to poor countries that achieve certain democratic standards and adopt free market economic reforms. In addition, Freedom House publishes annually Freedom of the Press (established in 1980); Nations in Transit (since 1995), which assesses conditions in the post Communist world; and Countries at the Crossroads, a survey of governance, corruption, and transparency in sixty important countries. In 2005, Freedom House published two path-breaking studies. The first, Survey of Women's Rights in the Middle East and North Africa, identified and analyzed the institutions that contribute to gender inequality in the region. The second, How Freedom Is Won, identifies the tactics and forces which have most significantly contributed to democratic transitions over the past three decades. Through the Center for Religious Freedom, Freedom House produced a report on the presence of Saudi-government sponsored hate literature in some American mosques, and examined the impact of the imposition of extreme sharia law on religious freedom, women's rights and other human rights in a major new study, Radical Islam's Rules.

Freedom House continues to serve as a leading advocate for policies to advance the democratic idea. It was a founder of the Community of Democracies, an alliance of global democracies that seeks a greater voice for democracy at the United Nations and other international forums. It supports critical reforms of the United Nations to make its work in human rights and democracy more effective. Freedom House speaks out for religious freedom for practitioners of all faiths, and the Center for Religious Freedom played a leadership role in creating the Coalition for Southern Sudan, whose advocacy efforts helped to lead to a peace agreement in that region, ending the longest running war in Africa.

Freedom House is a strong voice for a U.S. foreign policy that places the promotion of democracy at the forefront. Freedom House representatives regularly testify before Congress, provide briefings to Congress, the State Department, and other agencies, and argue the case for freedom at conferences, in op-eds and through media appearances.

How is Freedom House funded?

Freedom House's activities are funded through a mix of private individual contributions, foundation awards, and grants from the United States government, other governments and the European Union.

What is Freedom House's relationship to the US government and other governments?

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.

What is Freedom House's definition of "freedom"?

Freedom is the opportunity to act spontaneously in a variety of fields outside the control of the government and/or other centers of potential domination. Freedom House measures freedom according to two broad categories: political rights and civil liberties. Political rights enable people to participate freely in the political process through the right to vote, compete for public office and elect representatives who have a decisive impact on public policies and are accountable to the electorate. Civil liberties allow for the freedoms of expression and belief, associational and organizational rights, rule of law, and personal autonomy without interference from the state.

The organization's definition of freedom is derived in large measure from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1948. The rights enumerated in the Universal Declaration include freedom of religion, expression, and assembly; freedom from torture; and the right to take part in the government of his or her country. These standards apply to all countries and territories, irrespective of geographical location, ethnic or religious composition, or level of economic development.

Where does Freedom House work around the globe?

Freedom House is engaged in supporting democratic reform in parts of the world where freedom is under duress or is not yet consolidated. Currently, Freedom House has programs in Central Asia, Central and Eastern Europe, the Middle East, Africa and Latin America. Freedom House's programs are managed from offices based in many regions of the world.

Does Freedom House address political rights and civil liberties in the United States?

Yes. The United States is one of the 192 countries and 14 territories whose levels of political rights and civil liberties are covered by the current edition of Freedom in the World. The state of media freedom in the United States is addressed in Freedom of the Press. Freedom House also comments, via press releases and letters to U.S. policymakers, and in testimony to Congressional committees, on American policies that affect political rights and civil liberties.

Map of freedom:

http://freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=15&year=2006

Sources:

http://freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=249

http://freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=265#3

Freedom House is 75% funded by the US government and has received money from theBush administration for clandestine opperations in Iran even against the wishes of Iranian human rights organizations. see:

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/48d26298-c052-11da...00779e2340.html

Peter Ackerman the director who sems to support such neo-conservative based operations is strongly defended by Michael Ledeen who by anyones description is a neo-conservative.

Sure when Eleanor Roosevelt et al set up Freedom House it was aimed against the Nazis, but things have changed since then. And sure as with many such organizations in the US some minority funding from the other side makes it appear non-partisan or independent. However, a cursory examination of its current role and where most of its money comes from exposes the real organzation in the modern world.

It is enough to raise suspicions when in the original article US competitors Russia and China and US enemies Iran and Venezuela are listed as regressing without mentioning the US which unlike Venezuela has elections that cannot reach international standards and has introduced laws restricting freedom? If an organization like this cannot be evenhanded it simply becomes a propoganda tool, and in the case of Freedom House and the FT Iran report it seems the orgnization has gone a lot further than just propoganda.

We should always be wary that many of the neo-con theorists originally came from a liberal or left stance before moving to the right. There is no reason to think that some organizations on that side of politics would also not drift into the neo-con corner.