Freedom House running scared

The fact is, Freedom House is an outfit with an agenda – a neocon agenda at that. It seeks out any person who will provide an opinion that will perpetuate and defend its very misplaced sense of what democracy means. It claims that its methodology is sound and apolitical, but in fact it sources information designed to fit its political tastes and appetite (and probably a sense of revenge).

Freedom House claims that five “authoritarian governments”-- China, Russia, Iran, Venezuela, and Pakistan-- are undermining democracy and international development. Well, all of this is quite curious. All of these countries are part of Barack Obama’s new foreign policy to reach out to so-called enemies the neocon subjectively singled out during the Bush years. It appears that Freedom House is really targeting Obama and not the alleged violators of democracy and freedom in the world.

Let’s have look at the basic findings of the Freedom House report.

“Authoritarian Foreign Aid: By doling out billions of dollars in no-strings-attached foreign aid, these regimes are hobbling international efforts to improve governance and reduce corruption. China, for example, is now the largest lender to Africa, according to the World Bank.”

Well, that is some kind of bizarre thank you to Beijing for its efforts. The Western world competes with itself to feel sorry for Africa, but it is the Chinese who are actually doing something. The West always attaches preconditions on African and other poor countries when it lends money. The Chinese, on the other hand, want to make a profit. This is how the market system works and is reinforced by globalization. Interestingly, because the Chinese are interested in a profit, that is the acknowledgment for that aid and investment to continue, the African government in question usually has to clean up its act on many issues, including corruption, in particular. Why should Freedom House have a problem with this? Are they afraid the “Chinese model” is better than the “Western model” when it comes to creating positive change in Africa?

“International Organizations under Siege: These regimes are actively disrupting the human rights and democracy work of international bodies such as the United Nations, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe and the Organization of American States. They have also created new institutions to counter organizations that promote human rights and accountable governance.”

This takes the ham off the hog. Western institutions were designed to serve Western interests. When Western institutions can’t do this, the same institutions call foul play. The UN votes on resolutions and the powerful Western countries and their allies can ignore them with impunity.

There is undeniable evidence that the OSCE was negligent moments before the conflict in South Ossetia last August when civilians and peacekeepers were killed. Why should anyone expect Russia to have trust in this institution now?

As an organization, the OAS, does not have a single problem with Cuba, though one member does and that member is the US. Washington’s approach towards Cuba is a complete and embarrassing failure. It is a pity that Freedom House cannot admit this.

Democracy Redefined: Authoritarian regimes are tarnishing the public understanding of democracy by distorting its meaning at home in state-dominated media and abroad through well-financed international media ventures.

Who says the West owns the concept of democracy? Freedom House shows its hubris with such a ridiculous statement. The mention of “state-dominated media” is simply misleading. All the major television networks in the US (and majors in print media) followed and supported Bush’s preemptive wars. Using the term “state-dominated media” is grossly misleading. The meaning of democracy is no longer found in Western capitals. Democracy finds its fit depending on the circumstances on the ground. And it is up to each polity to find consensus of what democracy should mean and, importantly, produce.

“Internet under Growing Threat: Authoritarians are using sophisticated and well-funded techniques to subvert legitimate online discourse, especially in China, Iran and Russia.”

I cannot claim to know the condition of the Internet in China and Iran. However, in Russia there are stinging characterizations of its politicians and policies. The Internet in Russia is vibrant and exciting. Those who abuse it, often to incite racist and religious hatred and promote obvious “black PR,” find the law in quick pursuit. This is as it should be.

Illiberal Education: “By either actively promoting or enabling the distortion of history through a nationalistic or extremist lens, authoritarian regimes are creating a new generation that is hostile toward democracy and suspicious of the outside world.”

This statement is truly disappointing. I don’t see any intentional hostility to distort what democracy means in the countries that Freedom House wants to isolate. What I see is an alternative narrative in play. Why should historical narratives always be in line with promoting Western interests? Freedom Houses' enemies have their own historical narratives. And they are by-and-large because of the very real hostility experiences with their contact with the West.

This Freedom House report is a parody of itself. In its top line findings Pakistan was not mentioned in any detail. This is for a reason. Recent US policy is to blame. Freedom House and other hack NGOs have a bad habit of overlooking the deficient of democracy and rights in countries aligned or controlled by Washington. But as Freedom House has an agenda, Pakistan is given attention. But is not because of any interest in Pakistan’s democracy – it is a undisguised attack on the Obama administration.

Obama has made some overtures toward China, Russia, Iran, and Venezuela. Also, there have been some harsh words about Pakistan. In all, Freedom House shows itself to be very much out of step with the times. It seems to me it only wants to remain relevant and be funded.

It is time for Freedom House to fold its tent. Its mission has nothing to with ideals anymore (if it ever did). It only wants to keep a backward-looking few employed. Freedom House is worried about its very existence and will tell you anything to stay in business. A truly pathetic lot when everything is said and done (and thought-out).