Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Is The Freedom House Free? What And Who Is It Free To?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Is The Freedom House Free? What And Who Is It Free To?

    IS THE FREEDOM HOUSE FREE? WHAT AND WHO IS IT FREE TO?
    Karen Nikoghosyan

    http://times.am/?l=en&p=4190

    The Freedom House (FH) has recently released its "Freedom in the
    World 2012" report, which rated the Republic of Armenia as partially
    free (same as in 2011), and the rating for Nagorno Kharabagh (ranked
    under the category of "Territories") was demoted to "Not free" from
    "Partially free" in 2011. First, this biased assessment and similar
    statements and judgments on Kharabakh blackmail it and discredit
    its two-decades long democratic state-building process in the eyes
    of the international community, and can therefore deprive it of
    the latter's possible support for the international recognition
    of Nagorno Kharabagh Republic's independence and deprive it of the
    possible international protection from Azerbaijan's promised future
    military aggressions. Hence, second, this outrageous assessment on
    Artsakh is yet another serious political and diplomatic message by
    certain groups and interests (in line with the interests of Azerbaijan)
    that they refuse to recognize Artsakh's right to exist and to exist
    freely and securely. Therefore, not to speak out against this false
    and politically motivated assessment will mean acquiescing with this
    blackmail and disrepute as well as its implications and possible
    consequences. I vehemently demand that the official Yerevan and
    Stepanakert seriously investigate this case, require justifications
    from the Freedom House, and hence also the reversal of their distorted
    assessment on the freedoms in Artsakh. Such assessments show that
    its authors either do not have or do not want to have any objective
    knowledge on the ground about the true developments and processes
    in Kharabakh, or that their only source and supplier of information
    is Azerbaijan.

    Artsak's ranking has taken a downward hit also because the report
    recognizes Azerbaijan as a non-free country. Evidently, if not for
    any other consideration, the authors of the report simply could not
    take the political courage to tell the world that Karabakh is a much
    freer country, a young democracy, while Azerbaijan who denies Artsakh
    the right to exist and aspires to occupy it by military force is simply
    an UNFREE country, a solid dictatorship. Acknowledging this fact would
    further discredit, and rightly so, Azerbaijan's moral (possibly also
    legal) claims on the people and territory of Artsakh - a just step that
    FH decided not to take; one of many examples of the 'tyranny of parity
    and impartiality', but a fake and purported impartiality at that.

    Technical considerations and evidence-based judgments

    Thus, the relevant authorities of the two Armenian states, namely,
    the ministries of foreign affairs of the Republic of Armenia and the
    Republic of Nagorno Karabakh should inquire to find out what events,
    factors or considerations prompted the Freedom House to bring down
    Artsakh's overall freedom rating to "Not free". They must require
    the full list of events, processes considered by FH experts. How
    was the research/evaluation conducted, and who conducted it? What
    is the methodology, which factors have been considered, what are the
    criteria? Did FH team visited Artsakh, especially last year? What makes
    the Nagorno Kharabakh Republic not free compared to the partially-free
    (according to FH) Republic of Armenia? What, according to them,
    happened and changed in Naghorno Karabakh in the course of one year
    to have instigated a decline in its freedom indicator? For example,
    the major political event that took place in Artsakh last year was
    the local government elections. Did FH representatives go there to
    observe? Do they have any (substantiated) reports or evidence that
    these elections were rigged and unfree? Does the FH or any other
    international human rights organization ever go to Kharabakh to monitor
    elections there - presidential, parliamentary, or local government,
    or other political, socio-economic processes and practices? Or, do
    they base their judgments solely on a few expedient 'field reports'
    rendered by some under-cover "independent" analysts paid to serve the
    interests of their outside bosses? Artsakh has no political prisoners,
    the country is full of all kinds of freely preaching religious sects,
    the prison conditions and the judicial system is not any worse than
    in the Republic of Armenia, there are a number of NGOs working in
    the country, and journalists who can freely criticize (and do so) the
    government. Many international organizations wishing to have a base in
    Karabakh have it and freely implement their 'peace-building' projects
    there, which often border with political propaganda, brainwashing and
    interference with the political affairs of that country and state. In
    this respect, Artsakh is even freer than it can afford to be, than
    its legitimate national security concerns can afford it.

    Moral considerations

    I very well know that the word "territory" is used in the international
    practice to refer to the unrecognized (but de facto independent)
    nations and states. Nevertheless, the use of "territory" is derogatory
    and disrespectful when applied to an effectively and independently
    functioning and functional state - such as the Nagorno Karabakh
    Republic, and a 20-year-old democratic state at that.

    To call a country/nation/people a "territory" implies that you do not
    acknowledge they exist (let alone your implied denial of their right
    to exist as a state). "Territory" is a piece of land, a geographic
    unit, not a political-administrative unit, and it does not carry
    any political meaning or 'responsibility', hence a territory cannot
    be free, partially free, or not free. Therefore, there is no moral,
    political authority to pass judgments about a 'territory's political
    freedoms, it is irrelevant and meaningless.

    Back in the late 1980s and early 1990s, international human rights
    organizations would not express any verbal or written concern
    (if not condemnation) on Azerbaijan's near genocidal practices
    against Armenia, including Kharabakh. So we should assume that ethnic
    cleanings, physical annihilation, forced displacements from homeland,
    and finally forced war against the Armenian civilian population are
    less of human rights issues. Moreover, these human rights watchdogs
    surprisingly never acknowledge and commend the independent efforts
    and achievements of NKR in establishing (after surviving the war)
    a free and independent state with all the attributes of statehood and
    of democratic state - a president, a multi-party parliament and local
    governments regularly elected in free and transparent elections,
    a welfare state protecting the socially vulnerable, economy run
    effectively, etc. These positive developments and processes are being
    consistently neglected and overlooked by human rights organizations.

    And now that Artsakh (without even moral support from outside)
    has survived the imposed war and escaped yet another attempt of
    genocide by Azerbaijan, what moral authority do these organizations
    have to make any speculations (and such biased ones) about how life
    is being organized and run in NK? What does it matter to them? Does
    it matter whether people managed to survive and are still living on
    it in a free and organized state, living on what they refer to with
    this politically faceless and statusless word "territory", but which
    is being so often politically unfairly discredited whenever dominant
    interests require so?

    Is the Freedom House free? What and who is it free to?

Working...
X