The Worst of the Worst
Katherine Mangu-Ward | May 11, 2007, 8:26pm
Freedom House provides the awesome service of issuing list after list of countries that suck. Sometimes it's countries that suck at freedom of the press, sometimes it countries that suck at human rights, but the general tenor of the their reports is: "Hey! These guys are really bad. Don't forget, OK?" Which, though I sound flip, is a very legitimate service. And if it serves no other purpose, it reminds readers to pay attention to the seemingly intractable once in awhile, while giving journalists something to write about on a slow news day.
Their latest report gets right to the heart of their mission. It's called "The Worst of the Worst: The World's Most Repressive Societies, 2007"[PDF]:
“Repressive regimes can be incredibly resilient, as this year’s list demonstrates,” said Arch Puddington, Director of Research at Freedom House [and possessor of the best name ever]. “Some of the countries on this list are global bullies; others are responsible for unspeakable humanitarian crises. In practically every case, these regimes are resistant to change and are indifferent to their citizens’ political rights, civil liberties and basic human needs.”
So, for your weekend amusement, the list:
The report includes detailed summaries of political and human rights conditions in Belarus, Burma, China, Cote d’Ivoire, Cuba, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Laos, Libya, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Zimbabwe. Also included are three territories: Chechnya, Tibet and Western Sahara. Except for Cote d’Ivoire, which is new to the list this year, and Belarus, Equatorial Guinea and Zimbabwe, all have been rated the “worst of the worst” since 2002 or earlier.
More on Freedom House here and here.
libertreee | May 13, 2007, 10:02am | #
I for one am somewhat disappointed in the report on Somalia. It takes a statist viewpoint. Somalia
did not descend into anarchy, but consciously chose NOT to have western style Democracy. True, in the Southern area, around the capitol, Mogadishu, there has been chaos, but how much of that is caused by the attempts of the AU, the UN and the US to force on the people what they do not want-democracy? The clans have not had the incentive to cooperate when the other countries have been constantly meddling, trying to establish a government that surely will be dominated by one clan over the others. The chaos then is largely caused by rival clans jockeying for position to take over the state when it is established. That is the case now-one clan has won, backed by the US.
The Somalia experiment is significant for libs because it is the first nation since 1648 (Treaty of Westphalia) to consciously decide NOT to have a government. Democracy in Africa has resulted in so many civil wars and genocides because when one tribe wins the power it sees it as an opportunity to exploit or even wipe out the minority tribe. The Somalis called
holding office in a democracy or any government "having a chair". When you have a chair, it makes everything illegal legal, and everything legal illegal.
The African system of laws (XEER) that they tried to live under is not anarchy, and not Sharia law either. It is KRITARCHY, or rule by judges. It is still working well in Northern Somalia, or Somaliland.
Kritarchy is not really anarchy because the clans do not sell land to each other. It still has a territorial basis. But, it is not a monopoly on the use of force over the whole territory, where the majority exterminates the minority, either. It was a big step towards showing the world what new forms of stateless governence can emerge in the 21 Century.
Rob Levine's Sense of History - by IWuzzaLib | May 14, 2007, 4:13pm | #
2 issues with Rob Levine's sense of scale.
First, Rob Levine is parroting grossly overstated numbers that have been widely criticized and dismissed.
The 600,000 Lancet number is widely considered fraudulent. Here are some links, Rob:
1. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article1469636.ece
2. http://www.claytoncramer.com/weblog/2006_10_08_archive.html#116069912405842066
3. http://pajamasmedia.com/2006/10/joisting_with_the_lancet_the_p.php
Same for the Lancet's earlier, less outrageous study stating 100,000 Iraqi civilian dead:
1. http://www.chicagoboyz.net/archives/002543.html
2. http://www.slate.com/id/2108887/
3. http://marccooper.typepad.com/marccooper/2004/10/how_many_dead_i.html
But the second, much more important issue is Rob Levine's small and meager sense of scale and history.
In just one engagement of WWII, the battle of Okinawa, over 7,000 U.S Marines died, over 5,000 American sailors died on their ships, and over 100,000 Japanese troops died.
This scale of slaughter was common in the Pacific theater, and throughout WWII, resulting in approximately 400,000 American combatants killed, well over 1,000,000 Japanese combatants killed, over 20,000,000 Russian combatants and civilians killed, and you [probably don't] know the rest of that history.
Even if 600,000 "extra" Iraqi civilians have been killed by America's war to liberate those unhappy people from Saddam-Hussein-Iraq's-Biggest-Weapon-Of-Mass-Destruction, as wars of liberation go this is a relatively tiny body count and a relatively small price paid in mankind's long slog against tyranny and toward liberty.
And when compared to the handiwork and bodycount of Rob Levine's intellectual forebears (100 million killed by Leftist tyrants in the 20th century according to "The Black Book of Communism"), these 600,000 dead are really just small-ball, aren't they Rob?
Given the ocean's of blood spilled in the pursuit of Rob's collectivist goals, Rob isn't really so much worried about Iraqi civilians, as he is determined to scoff and tear down those working for good, isn't that right Rob?
Back to the Leftist intellectual ghetto, Rob! And back to your primary information sources: Gasping for Air America & Pacifica!
