Internet Freedom reports and boring tricks of Freedom House

Once again, according to the latest Freedom on The Net report, released on October 28 by the U.S.-based nongovernmental organization Freedom House. That’s Internet freedom has declined around the world -- again.

The NGO says 2015 was the fifth year in a row it has documented a decline in Internet freedom, with more governments censoring information of public interest, while also expanding surveillance and cracking down on privacy tools.

According to the research results, China was the world’s worst abuser of Internet freedom, followed by Syria and Iran. And, as old and boring allegation, they continued to distortedly criticize Vietnam’s human rights record. But before coming to that issue, let take a look at who is Freedom House and why do they claim themselves rights to judge others?

Freedom House is a U.S. based government funded non-governmental organization (NGO) that conducts research and advocacy on democracy, political freedom, and human rights.^[5] Freedom House was founded in October 1941. 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,^[6]which monitor censorship, intimidation and violence against journalists, and public access to information, are among its other signature reports.

The Financial Times has reported that Freedom House is one of several organizations selected by the State Department to receive funding for 'clandestine activities' insideIran.^[52] In a research study, 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."^[52]

On June 8, 2006, the vice-chairman of Freedom House's board of trustees^[53] 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.

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.

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.

 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.

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.