Editing Freedom House (section)

==Criticism==

=== Relationship with the U.S. government ===
In 2006, the ''[[Financial Times]]'' reported that Freedom House had received funding by the State Department for "clandestine activities" inside [[Iran]]. According to the ''Financial Times'', "Some academics, activists and those involved in the growing US business of spreading freedom and democracy are alarmed that such semi-covert activities risk damaging the public and transparent work of other organisations, and will backfire inside Iran."<ref name="debate">{{cite web|author=Guy Dinmore|date=March 31, 2006|title=Bush enters debate on freedom in Iran|url=https://news.ft.com/cms/s/48d26298-c052-11da-939f-0000779e2340,_i_rssPage=de095590-c8f4-11d7-81c6-0820abe49a01.html|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://archive.today/20150506165937/http://news.ft.com/cms/s/48d26298-c052-11da-939f-0000779e2340,_i_rssPage=de095590-c8f4-11d7-81c6-0820abe49a01.html|archive-date=May 6, 2015|access-date=April 6, 2006|work=The Financial Times}}{{subscription required}}</ref>

On December 7, 2004, former [[United States House of Representatives|U.S. House]] Representative and [[Libertarian Party (United States)|Libertarian]] politician [[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 "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]]."<ref>{{cite web|url=http://paul.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=217&Itemid=60|title=U.S. Hypocrisy in Ukraine|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121212002804/http://paul.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=217&Itemid=60|archive-date=2012-12-12|author=Ron Paul|author-link=Ron Paul}}</ref>

[[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.<ref name="ManConP28">Chomsky and Herman: ''[[Manufacturing Consent]]'', Vintage 1994, p. 28</ref> Most notably, Freedom House described the [[1979 Rhodesian general election]] as "fair", but described the [[1980 Southern Rhodesian general election]] as "dubious",<ref name="ManConP28" /> and found the [[1982 Salvadoran presidential election]] to be "admirable".<ref name="ManConP28" />

=== Academic commentary ===
According to one study, Freedom House's rankings "overemphasize the more formal aspects of democracy while failing to capture the informal but real power relations and pathways of influence ... and frequently lead to de facto deviations from democracy."<ref name=":2">{{Cite journal |last1=Erk |first1=Jan |last2=Veenendaal |first2=Wouter |date=2014 |title=Is Small Really Beautiful?: The Microstate Mistake |url=http://muse.jhu.edu/content/crossref/journals/journal_of_democracy/v025/25.3.erk.html |journal=Journal of Democracy |language=en |volume=25 |issue=3 |pages=135–148 |doi=10.1353/jod.2014.0054 |issn=1086-3214 |s2cid=155086258}}</ref> States can therefore "look formally liberal-democratic but might be rather illiberal in their actual workings"<ref name=":2" /><ref name=":0">{{Cite journal |last=Veenendaal |first=Wouter P. |date=2015-01-02 |title=Democracy in microstates: why smallness does not produce a democratic political system |journal=Democratization |volume=22 |issue=1 |pages=92–112 |doi=10.1080/13510347.2013.820710 |issn=1351-0347 |s2cid=145489442}}</ref>

Academic Wenfang Tang observes that Freedom House reports use criteria developed by Western elites.<ref name=":1">{{Cite book |last=Tang |first=Wenfang |url=https://www.fulcrum.org/concern/monographs/vx021h696 |title=China as Number One? The Emerging Values of a Rising Power |last2= |first2= |date=2024 |publisher=[[University of Michigan Press]] |isbn=978-0-472-07635-2 |editor-last=Zhong |editor-first=Yang |series=China Understandings Today series |location=Ann Arbor, Michigan |chapter=Democratic Authoritarianism: A Study of Chinese Political Orientations |format=EPUB |editor-last2=Inglehart |editor-first2=Ronald |editor-last3=}}</ref>{{Rp|page=77}}

A study comparing Freedom House rankings with the [[World Values Survey]] data measuring respondent's perceptions of freedom in their countries found no statistically significant correlation between the Freedom House measures of freedom and subjective feelings of freedom.<ref name=":1" />{{Rp|pages=78-79}} According to Tang, Freedom House rankings exaggerate the differences between liberal and non-liberal countries, observing for example that Freedom House scores China near zero, but Chinese survey respondents report a higher level of freedom than do survey respondents in Taiwan, Japan, South Korea, and Singapore.<ref name=":1" />{{Rp|pages=79-80}} Tang also observes that Freedom House's rating of China as a near zero for human rights conflicts with the seventh wave (2017-2022) World Values survey data indicating that 72% of Chinese are satisfied with the state of human rights in their country.<ref name=":1" />{{Rp|pages=82-84}}

===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]] said 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 stated that these violations are well documented by other reports, such as those of [[Human Rights Watch]]. Other countries such as [[People's Republic of China|China]] and [[Sudan]] also gave criticism. The [[Russia]]n representative inquired "why this organization, an NGO which defended human rights, was against the creation of the [[International Criminal Court]]?"<ref name="UNNGOS"/>

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 U.S. 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.<ref name="UNNGOS">{{cite web |url=https://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2001/ngo432.doc.htm |title=UN: NGO Committee hears arguments for, against Freedom House|access-date=7 December 2024 |archive-url=https://archive.today/20140618233605/http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2001/ngo432.doc.htm |archive-date=18 June 2014}}</ref>

In December 2019, Freedom House, together with four other U.S.-based democracy and human rights organizations, was [[Chinese sanctions|sanctioned]] by the Chinese government. In August 2020, then Freedom House president Michael Abramowitz, together with the heads of the same four groups and six U.S. Republican lawmakers, were also sanctioned, with the Chinese foreign ministry saying these individuals had "blatantly intervened in Hong Kong affairs, grossly interfered in China's internal affairs, and seriously violated international law and the basic norms of international relations". The leaders of the five organizations saw the sanctioning, whose details were unspecified, as a tit-for-tat measure in response to the earlier sanctioning by the U.S. of 11 Hong Kong officials. The latter step had in turn been a reaction to the enactment of the [[2020 Hong Kong national security law|Hong Kong National Security Law]] at the end of June.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/us-democracy-and-human-rights-leaders-sanctioned-by-china-vow-not-to-be-cowed-into-silence/2020/08/10/0878f65a-db48-11ea-b4af-72895e22941d_story.html|title=U.S. democracy and human rights leaders sanctioned by China vow not to be cowed into silence|newspaper=[[Washington Post]]|first=Carol|last=Morello|date=11 August 2020|access-date=11 January 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200811084722/https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/us-democracy-and-human-rights-leaders-sanctioned-by-china-vow-not-to-be-cowed-into-silence/2020/08/10/0878f65a-db48-11ea-b4af-72895e22941d_story.html|archive-date=August 11, 2020|url-status=live|url-access=registration}}</ref>

===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 ruling [[United Russia]] party, called Freedom House a "Russophobic" organization, commenting: "You can listen to everything they say, except when it comes to Russia ... There are many Russophobes there."<ref name=MTimes>{{Cite web|url=http://www.themoscowtimes.com/stories/2008/01/17/011.html|title=Freedom Is Downgraded From 'Bad'}}</ref> Christopher Walker, director of studies at Freedom House, posited that Freedom House made its evaluations based on objective criteria explained on the organization's website, and denied that it had a pro-U.S. agenda, saying: "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."<ref name=MTimes />

[[UCLA]] political scientist [[Daniel Treisman]] has criticized Freedom House's assessment of Russia. Treisman cited that Freedom House ranks Russia's political rights on the same level as the [[United Arab Emirates]], which is a federation of absolute monarchies with no element of democracy within the system. Freedom House also ranks Russia's civil liberties on the same scale as those of [[Yemen]], where criticism of the president was illegal. Treisman contrasts Freedom House's ranking with the [[Polity IV]] scale used by academics, in which Russia has a much better score. In 2018, the Polity IV scale scored the United Arab Emirates at -8, Russia at +4, and the United States at +8.<ref name="treisman">{{cite book|title=The Return: Russia's Journey from Gorbachev to Medvedev|author1-link=Daniel Treisman|last=Treisman|first=Daniel|publisher=Free Press|year=2011|isbn=978-1-4165-6071-5|pages=[https://archive.org/details/returnrussiasjou0000trei/page/341 341–52]|url=https://archive.org/details/returnrussiasjou0000trei/page/341}}</ref>

In May 2024, Russian authorities declared Freedom House an "[[Russian undesirable organizations law|undesirable organization]]".<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russia-declares-us-ngo-freedom-house-an-undesirable-organisation-2024-05-07/|title=Russia declares US NGO Freedom House an undesirable organisation|work=[[Reuters]]|date=May 7, 2024}}</ref>

===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 the killing of prisoners by "immersion in boiling liquid", and by strapping on a gas mask and blocking the filters, Murray reported.<ref>[https://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/09/books/review/McKelvey2-t.html 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.</ref> 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".<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/23/books/review/Letters-t.html?_r=1 |title=Freedom House's Record |author=Jennifer Windsor |date=December 23, 2007 |work=The New York Times |archive-date=May 26, 2024 |archive-url=https://archive.today/20240526074251/https://www.webcitation.org/6BPwn8mTC?url=http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/23/books/review/Letters-t.html%3F_r=2& |access-date=October 13, 2012 |url-status=dead }}</ref>

===Criticism from American conservatives===
In the 2010s, a number of [[Conservatism in the United States|American conservative]] institutions have criticized Freedom House for what they see as an anti-conservative shift in the organization; the organization has been criticized as being biased against conservative governments and the policies they enact, and has also been accused of favoring [[Progressivism|progressive]] and [[left-wing]] ideas in its ranking system.<ref>{{cite web|date=February 16, 2018|title=Freedom House Turns Partisan|url=https://www.heritage.org/global-politics/commentary/freedom-house-turns-partisan|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191208155901/https://www.heritage.org/global-politics/commentary/freedom-house-turns-partisan|url-status=unfit|archive-date=December 8, 2019|access-date=March 5, 2022|publisher=The Heritage Foundation}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|last=Schwarz|first=Fred|date=July 4, 2018|title=Land of the 86 Percent Free|work=National Review|url=https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/land-of-the-86-percent-free/|access-date=March 5, 2022}}</ref> It has also been criticized for a perceived shift to an [[activist]] mindset; a 2018 article in the ''[[National Review]]'' described it as having "changed dramatically since its anti-Communist days during the Cold War" and having "become simply another progressive, anti-conservative (and overwhelmingly government-dependent) NGO".<ref name=":5">{{cite news|last=Fonte|first=John|date=April 2, 2018|title=What Is Illiberalism? Answering Joshua Muravchik|work=National Review|url=https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/04/freedom-house-ratings-biased-against-conservatives/|access-date=March 5, 2022}}</ref> Another article criticized Freedom House for characterizing differences in policy as anti-democratic and for using what it regarded as partisan rather than objective measures of democracy.<ref name=":6">{{cite news|last1=Fonte|first1=John|last2=Gonzalez|first2=Mike|date=February 14, 2018|title=Freedom House Turns Partisan|work=National Review|url=https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/02/freedom-house-left-progressive-bias-2018-report-united-states-great-britain-israel-denmark-poland/|access-date=March 5, 2022}}</ref>
===Criticism from Vietnam===
As [[Vietnam]] is a [[one-party state|one-party]] [[socialist state]], it is a frequent target for criticism and accusations from Freedom House, resulting in strong responses and criticism made by Vietnamese media against the organization.

The section about Vietnam in [[Freedom on the Net]] publication is criticized by Vietnamese state media, as Freedom House accuses Vietnam to not have Internet freedom in this publication.<ref>{{cite news|last1=Nguyễn|first1=Sơn|date=October 1, 2021|title=Một bản báo cáo thiếu khách quan, sai sự thật về tự do Internet ở Việt Nam|trans-title=An unbiased, false report on Internet freedom in Vietnam|url=https://dangcongsan.vn/bao-ve-nen-tang-tu-tuong-cua-dang/mot-ban-bao-cao-thieu-khach-quan-sai-su-that-ve-tu-do-internet-o-viet-nam-592613.html|work=[[Communist Party of Vietnam]] Newspaper|access-date=January 18, 2025}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|last1=Trần|first1=Lâm|date=October 25, 2022|title=Freedom House lại xuyên tạc, bóp méo sự thật ở Việt Nam|trans-title=Freedom House again distorts the truth in Vietnam|url=https://baonghean.vn/freedom-house-lai-xuyen-tac-bop-meo-su-that-o-viet-nam-10246154.html|work=[[Nghệ An province|Nghệ An]] Newspaper|access-date=January 18, 2025}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|date=November 4, 2024|title=Freedom House lại tái diễn luận điệu xuyên tạc về quyền tự do Internet tại Việt Nam|trans-title=Freedom House repeats distorted arguments about Internet freedom in Vietnam|url=https://congan.quangbinh.gov.vn/freedom-house-lai-tai-dien-luan-dieu-xuyen-tac-ve-quyen-tu-do-internet-tai-viet-nam/|work=[[Quảng Bình province|Quảng Bình Province]] Police|access-date=January 18, 2025}}</ref>