Tweet
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?
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?