Freedom House 2018 FREEDOM Index

[Tender Branson]

Turkey is not a free country any longer (not surprising really).





https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/freedom-world-2018

[Tender Branson]

Only 2 majority-Muslim countries are rated free: Tunisia and Senegal.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

List of changes: The Gambia and Uganda (?) transitioned from Not Free to Party Free, Timor-Leste went from Partly Free to Free, and both Zimbabwe and Turkey downgraded from Partly Free to Not Free.

[Lord Halifax]

List of changes: The Gambia and Uganda (?) transitioned from Not Free to Party Free, Timor-Leste went from Partly Free to Free, and both Zimbabwe and Turkey downgraded from Partly Free to Not Free.

Bummer..

Uganda has indeed been downgraded to Not Free.

[Middle-aged Europe]

The United States' "Political Rights" score has been downgraded from "1" to "2".

This is the first time since the annual Freedom in the World report was first published in 1973 that the U.S. doesn't get a 1/1 rating on both Political Rights and Civil Liberties.


Reason given on Freedom House's website:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Strudelcutie4427]

Only 2 majority-Muslim countries are rated free: Tunisia and Senegal.

I think Mauritius is majority Muslim and free

[Lourdes]

Only 2 majority-Muslim countries are rated free: Tunisia and Senegal.

I think Mauritius is majority Muslim and free

Mauritius is majority Hindu.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Mauritius

[Middle-aged Europe]

All G20 member states ranked by their "aggregate score" (100 is the "most free"):
 

"Free" countries

1. Canada (99)
2. Australia (98)
3. Japan (96)
4. Germany / United Kingdom (Tied at 94)
6. France (90)
7. Italy (89)
8. United States (86)
9. South Korea (84)
10. Argentina (83)
11. Brazil / South Africa (Tied at 78)
13. India (77)


"Partly Free" countries

14. Indonesia (64)
15. Mexico (62)


"Not Free" countries

16. Turkey (32)
17. Russia (20)
18. China (14)
19. Saudi Arabia (7)

[mvd10]

I think I'd rank the US over Italy and Japan is surprisingly high, but overall the list seems to be about right.

[WMS]

List of changes: The Gambia and Uganda (?) transitioned from Not Free to Party Free, Timor-Leste went from Partly Free to Free, and both Zimbabwe and Turkey downgraded from Partly Free to Not Free.

There is an explanation:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The change is in spite of Uganda's government, not because of it.

The United States' "Political Rights" score has been downgraded from "1" to "2".

This is the first time since the annual Freedom in the World report was first published in 1973 that the U.S. doesn't get a 1/1 rating on both Political Rights and Civil Liberties.


Reason given on Freedom House's website:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yep. A note, though: this didn't just suddenly happen - the U.S. declined during Obama's presidency as well. See the "Trajectory of the United States" chart at https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/freedom-world-2018. The U.S. was on the edge of this 2 already, then Trump pushed the U.S. over the edge. No U.S. avatar should be feeling good about the past 10 years at all...

[TDAS04]

Odd to see Burma more free than Thailand. 

[Lord Halifax]

Odd to see Burma more free than Thailand. 

But a fair evaluation.

[DavidB.]

Odd to see Burma more free than Thailand. 

But a fair evaluation.

Why?

[Lord Halifax]

Odd to see Burma more free than Thailand. 

But a fair evaluation.

Why?

Buma has democratic elections and a relatively free press, Thailand has neither. Most of the Burmese population also enjoys most civil rights (outside rebel and Rohyinga areas). Partly free is objectively a fair description of Burma, and Thailand is clearly "not free" at the moment.

[TDAS04]

Odd to see Burma more free than Thailand. 

But a fair evaluation.

Why?

Buma has democratic elections and a relatively free press, Thailand has neither. Most of the Burmese population also enjoys most civil rights (outside rebel and Rohyinga areas). Partly free is objectively a fair description of Burma, and Thailand is clearly "not free" at the moment.

I made my comment because I remember when the map showed Thailand as the only “free” country in Indochina, whereas Burma was listed among the ten most oppressive countries in the world.  Just interesting how times change.

[Unapologetic Chinaperson]

Lol did they really single out Tibet as a separate entity? Not saying that there aren't problems are, but seriously? Why only Tibet/China? Why don't they also list, say, Rankine state as a separate entity, which is more justifiable since there's an actual genocide with actual killing going on. This merely comes off as anti-China hackery.

Though if they want to double down on said anti-China hackery, they really ought to separate Xinjiang Province as well, due to tensions between the central government and the Muslim peoples there. Right now this is just continuing the trend of more uninformed "Free Tibet" pandering.

[Aboa]

Lol did they really single out Tibet as a separate entity? Not saying that there aren't problems are, but seriously? Why only Tibet/China? Why don't they also list, say, Rankine state as a separate entity, which is more justifiable since there's an actual genocide with actual killing going on. This merely comes off as anti-China hackery.

Though if they want to double down on said anti-China hackery, they really ought to separate Xinjiang Province as well, due to tensions between the central government and the Muslim peoples there. Right now this is just continuing the trend of more uninformed "Free Tibet" pandering.

They also separate Crimea, Kashmir(s) and Western Sahara

[Hatman 🍁]

They seem to think abolishing term limits is a bad thing, which is dumb. If voters want to re-elect someone, how is taking that choice away more democratic?

[Lord Halifax]

They seem to think abolishing term limits is a bad thing, which is dumb. If voters want to re-elect someone, how is taking that choice away more democratic?

In developing countries (incl. all of Africa) and immature democracies its usually a path to more authoritarian rule. Its necessary to prevent strongmen from playing "president forever".

[Unapologetic Chinaperson]

Lol did they really single out Tibet as a separate entity? Not saying that there aren't problems are, but seriously? Why only Tibet/China? Why don't they also list, say, Rankine state as a separate entity, which is more justifiable since there's an actual genocide with actual killing going on. This merely comes off as anti-China hackery.

Though if they want to double down on said anti-China hackery, they really ought to separate Xinjiang Province as well, due to tensions between the central government and the Muslim peoples there. Right now this is just continuing the trend of more uninformed "Free Tibet" pandering.

They also separate Crimea, Kashmir(s) and Western Sahara

The difference between them is that Tibet is unambiguously a part of China (despite what certain Free Tibet activists say), whereas Crimea, Kashmir, and WS are considered disputed territories on the international stage. This is more akin to separating Catalonia or Scotland away from Spain and the UK, respectively.

At the very least they could've put a dotted line to emphasize the fact that this is an internal matter, de jure and de facto.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Yeah it seems like messy business. Why not rate the freedoms of the numerous bifurcated sections of Syria, or Iraqi Kurdistan, or the two (?) current Libya governments, or the sections of Afghanistan controlled by the Taliban etc etc

[Lord Halifax]

Lol did they really single out Tibet as a separate entity? Not saying that there aren't problems are, but seriously? Why only Tibet/China? Why don't they also list, say, Rankine state as a separate entity, which is more justifiable since there's an actual genocide with actual killing going on. This merely comes off as anti-China hackery.

Though if they want to double down on said anti-China hackery, they really ought to separate Xinjiang Province as well, due to tensions between the central government and the Muslim peoples there. Right now this is just continuing the trend of more uninformed "Free Tibet" pandering.

They also separate Crimea, Kashmir(s) and Western Sahara

The difference between them is that Tibet is unambiguously a part of China (despite what certain Free Tibet activists say), whereas Crimea, Kashmir, and WS are considered disputed territories on the international stage. This is more akin to separating Catalonia or Scotland away from Spain and the UK, respectively.

At the very least they could've put a dotted line to emphasize the fact that this is an internal matter, de jure and de facto.

Tibet is occupied territory, like West Sahara, Kashmir, North Cyprus and Crimea. So its logical. You are too focused on formalities. It doesn't matter what territory x is "part of" (which comes down to legal mumbo jumbo), it is its status as conquered by force that matters.

[Aboa]

Lol did they really single out Tibet as a separate entity? Not saying that there aren't problems are, but seriously? Why only Tibet/China? Why don't they also list, say, Rankine state as a separate entity, which is more justifiable since there's an actual genocide with actual killing going on. This merely comes off as anti-China hackery.

Though if they want to double down on said anti-China hackery, they really ought to separate Xinjiang Province as well, due to tensions between the central government and the Muslim peoples there. Right now this is just continuing the trend of more uninformed "Free Tibet" pandering.

They also separate Crimea, Kashmir(s) and Western Sahara

The difference between them is that Tibet is unambiguously a part of China (despite what certain Free Tibet activists say), whereas Crimea, Kashmir, and WS are considered disputed territories on the international stage. This is more akin to separating Catalonia or Scotland away from Spain and the UK, respectively.

At the very least they could've put a dotted line to emphasize the fact that this is an internal matter, de jure and de facto.

I don't really see why Freedom House should be particularly beholden to any ''international stage'' Tibet was de facto independent between 1913 and 1950 and if Freedom House wants to regard them as occupied territory or whatever good for them.

[Unapologetic Chinaperson]

Lol did they really single out Tibet as a separate entity? Not saying that there aren't problems are, but seriously? Why only Tibet/China? Why don't they also list, say, Rankine state as a separate entity, which is more justifiable since there's an actual genocide with actual killing going on. This merely comes off as anti-China hackery.

Though if they want to double down on said anti-China hackery, they really ought to separate Xinjiang Province as well, due to tensions between the central government and the Muslim peoples there. Right now this is just continuing the trend of more uninformed "Free Tibet" pandering.

They also separate Crimea, Kashmir(s) and Western Sahara

The difference between them is that Tibet is unambiguously a part of China (despite what certain Free Tibet activists say), whereas Crimea, Kashmir, and WS are considered disputed territories on the international stage. This is more akin to separating Catalonia or Scotland away from Spain and the UK, respectively.

At the very least they could've put a dotted line to emphasize the fact that this is an internal matter, de jure and de facto.

Tibet is occupied territory, like West Sahara, Kashmir, North Cyprus and Crimea. So its logical. You are too focused on formalities. It doesn't matter what territory x is "part of" (which comes down to legal mumbo jumbo), it is its status as conquered by force that matters.

By your logic then Hawaii is also an occupied territory, with its own independent kingdom overthrown by American settlers a little over a century ago, followed immediately by annexation by the US under William McKinley. And since then the native Hawaiian culture has become displaced by white settlers and Asian migrant workers, until it is marginalized to the point where it is little more than a tourist attraction. Sounds familiar, doesn't it? (And on paper, since Tibet was nominally part of China during the Qing Dynasty, the CCP invasion/reassertion of authority has more legitimacy than America's takeover of Hawaii.)

And if we want to get broader we can say all of America is occupied by white colonial settlers. The same sorts of oppression and cultural destruction that goes on in Tibet and Xinjiang was also done in the 1800s and 1900s in the United States, against virtually all Native American groups. At least the Tibetans and Ugyhurs still exist in substantial numbers, in contrast to most Native American groups.

But that's just whataboutism...

That line of reasoning implies that there's something special about Tibet that justifies destroying the entire social and geopolitical structure of Asia that other "occupied territories" do not. But there isn't. The reality is that Tibet is as much a part of the Chinese state as any culturally distinct province, and there is nothing anyone (with the possible exception of India, who would be the primary beneficiary of an "independent" Tibet) can do about it.

[Unapologetic Chinaperson]

Lol did they really single out Tibet as a separate entity? Not saying that there aren't problems are, but seriously? Why only Tibet/China? Why don't they also list, say, Rankine state as a separate entity, which is more justifiable since there's an actual genocide with actual killing going on. This merely comes off as anti-China hackery.

Though if they want to double down on said anti-China hackery, they really ought to separate Xinjiang Province as well, due to tensions between the central government and the Muslim peoples there. Right now this is just continuing the trend of more uninformed "Free Tibet" pandering.

They also separate Crimea, Kashmir(s) and Western Sahara

The difference between them is that Tibet is unambiguously a part of China (despite what certain Free Tibet activists say), whereas Crimea, Kashmir, and WS are considered disputed territories on the international stage. This is more akin to separating Catalonia or Scotland away from Spain and the UK, respectively.

At the very least they could've put a dotted line to emphasize the fact that this is an internal matter, de jure and de facto.

I don't really see why Freedom House should be particularly beholden to any ''international stage'' Tibet was de facto independent between 1913 and 1950 and if Freedom House wants to regard them as occupied territory or whatever good for them.

Well, FH certainly has the right to regard Tibet, Kashmir, etc. as occupied territories. And China, India, Pakistan, etc. have every right to ignore FH.