A web site recently listed the countries most censorial in restricting people’s access to the Internet. [1] All are members of the United Nations, and four of them are on the U.N. Human Rights Council. Surprised?

The State of Freedom at the United Nations

Freedom House publishes an annual edition of their research project entitled Freedom in the World, in which they rate each country by its level of personal liberty:

The Freedom in the World survey provides an annual evaluation of the state of global freedom as experienced by individuals. The survey measures freedom–the opportunity to act spontaneously in a variety of fields outside the control of the government and other centers of potential domination–according to two broad categories: political rights and civil liberties. Political rights enable people to participate freely in the political process, including the right to vote freely for distinct alternatives in legitimate elections, compete for public office, join political parties and organizations, and elect representatives who have a decisive impact on public policies and are accountable to the electorate. Civil liberties allow for the freedoms of expression and belief, associational and organizational rights, rule of law, and personal autonomy without interference from the state. [2]

Countries are rated on a scale of 1 to 7 for each category, with 1 representing the most liberty and 7 the least. Countries receive two grades, one for political rights and one for civil rights. These are averaged to arrive at the country’s overall grade, placing it in one of three categories: “free”, “partially free”, and “not free”. By cross-indexing Freedom in the World with the list of U.N. member states, we find that only 46% of U.N. members are considered free countries. The average grade for the entire United Nations is “partially free.” [3]

Economic Freedom in the United Nations Member States

In another annual report, Heritage Foundation evaluates a country’s level of economic freedom using the following criteria:

· “Corruption in the judiciary, customs service, and government bureaucracy;

· Non-tariff barriers to trade, such as import bans and quotas as well as strict labeling and licensing requirements;

· The fiscal burden of government, which encompasses income tax rates, corporate tax rates, and trends in government expenditures as a percent of output;

· The rule of law, efficiency within the judiciary, and the ability to enforce contracts;

· Regulatory burdens on business, including health, safety, and environmental regulation;

· Restrictions on banks regarding financial services, such as selling securities and insurance;

· Labor market regulations, such as established work weeks and mandatory separation pay; and

· Informal market activities, including corruption, smuggling, piracy of intellectual property rights, and the underground provision of labor and other services. [4]

Heritage Foundation defines economic freedom as:

[T]he absence of government coercion or constraint on the production, distribution, or consumption of goods and services beyond the extent necessary for citizens to protect and maintain liberty itself. In other words, people are free to work, produce, consume, and invest in the ways they feel are most productive. [5]

Economically “free” countries attain a score of 1.99 or less; “mostly free” score 2.00–2.99; “mostly unfree” 3.00–3.99; and economically “repressed” countries score 4.00–5.00. [6] Of the 154 U.N. member countries rated by Heritage Foundation last year, only 19 (12%) are economically “free.” The average score for U.N. member countries is 2.99, barely into the territory of “mostly free.” [7]

The World Bank has its own ranking system, called Purchasing Power Parity, to determine the relative affluence of people living in different countries:

A purchasing power parity exchange rate equalizes the purchasing power of different currencies in their home countries for a given basket of goods. These special exchange rates are often used to compare the standards of living of two or more countries. [8]

Countries are ranked in an ascending order, the most affluent country ranked number one, and the country with the least purchasing power ranked 208. (Out of 208 countries examined in the latest study.) Is There a Link Between Freedom and Prosperity?Breaking each economic grading system into quartiles, we see a corresponding degradation of personal liberty where people possess less economic liberty and affluence.World Bank Purchasing Power Parity and Freedom House RatingPPP Quartile PPP Average Freedom House Average1 29.5 1.82 87.0 2.83 136.0 3.64 184.2 4.6 Heritage Foundation Economic Index and Freedom House RatingEI Quartile EI Average Freedom House Average1 2.0 1.42 2.8 3.03 3.2 3.54 3.9 5.2 It is probably not surprising at this point to see a correlation between both economic grading systems: as purchasing power (affluence) improves, economic freedom increases. [9] Heritage Foundation Economic Index and World Bank Purchasing Power ParityEI Quartile EI Average PPP Average1 2.05 37.52 2.83 95.73 3.23 143.54 3.85 155.5 Countries with more economic freedom have higher standards of living, and people who live in countries with more economic freedom also possess more political freedom and civil rights. This article is not intended to be a chicken-and-egg discussion, but to show that you can’t have one without the other. Corruption in the United Nations Member StatesEach year, Transparency International publishes their Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI), revealing “the degree to which corruption is perceived to exist among public officials and politicians.” [10]

The TI CPI focuses on corruption in the public sector and defines corruption as the abuse of public office for private gain. The surveys used in compiling the CPI ask questions that relate to the misuse of public power for private benefit, for example bribery of public officials, kickbacks in public procurement, embezzlement of public funds or questions that probe the strength of anti-corruption policies, thereby encompassing both administrative and political corruption. [11]

A CPI score of 10 indicates a country with no government corruption, while a score of 1 indicates that corruption has a terrible and overriding negative socio-economic influence.

Adding all our indices together, we begin to get an overall picture of the relationship between personal freedom, economic empowerment, and good governance.

Freedom House Rating, Economic Index, and Corruption Perceptions IndexFH Grade EI Average CPI Average“1” (Best) 2.11 7.0Free 2.50 5.5Partially Free 3.18 3.1Not Free 3.62 2.8

For the purpose of highlighting the 37 countries rated by Freedom House as having the best of both political and civil rights (scores of 1), consider that these countries rate highest in economic freedom and have the least government corruption of any group. (Note: There are 50 U.N. members with a “1” rating, but only 37 were graded on both economic freedom and corruption.) This group also contains all those countries rated as economically “free” by Heritage Foundation. Conversely, the group rated by Freedom House as “not free” contains all but one of the countries rated economically “repressed” by Heritage Foundation, as well as containing those most corrupt.

Of the 160 U.N. member countries rated by Transparency International, the overall average corruption index was 4.0, which means that government officials in U.N. member countries often use their authority and power “for private gain.” The corollary of this is that they generally do not seek to benefit “the people.” Not even the U.N. Human Rights Council seems capable of providing any counterbalancing force: only 53% of the current council is rated “free” in terms of political and civil rights, its composite corruption index is 4.3, and only 13% of the member states are rated economically “free,” scant reassurance that the Human Rights Council supports human rights for the “little people” in the world. [12]

Any vote of the U.N. membership on issues enhancing personal liberty is tenuous at best, because governments may feel it infringes on their sovereignty. Remember that member countries send ambassadors to represent them at the United Nations. Oxford English Dictionary defines “ambassador,” as: “A diplomat of the highest rank permanently representing a monarch or State at a foreign court or government.” [13] By definition, ambassadors only represent the people who sent them, not “the people.” This is especially true since three-quarters of the U.N. member countries limit their people’s political and/or civil rights to varying degrees.

By the way, the 13 Internet-repressing countries mentioned at the beginning of this article stack up like this: all of these countries quash personal liberty. With the exception of Saudi Arabia, whose economic freedom index of 2.84 places it just inside the rating of “Mostly Free,” all of these countries possess repressive or mostly repressive economic systems, have worse-than-average government corruption, and all are graded “Not Free” by Freedom House. Finally, this group is over-represented on the U.N. Human Rights Council: 31% of this group, compared to 24% of all U.N. members getting a representative on the council. Not surprised any longer, huh?

About the AuthorHoward Nemerov publishes with ChronWatch, News Busters and other sites, and is a frequent guest on NRA News. He can be reached at HNemerov [at sign] Netvista.net.

Endnotes:

 

[1] 24 hours against Internet censorship launched, list of the 13 Internet enemies in 2006 published, Reporters Without Borders, November 7, 2006. 

[2] Freedom in the World: Methodology, Freedom House. 

[3] Data collated into Excel spreadsheet. Email request for data.

[4] William W. Beach and Marc A. Miles, Ph.D. Explaining the Factors of the Index of Economic Freedom, Heritage House, November 2005, page 55. 

 

[5] William W. Beach and Marc A. Miles, Ph.D., Explaining the Factors of the Index of Economic Freedom, page 56.

 

 

[6] William W. Beach and Marc A. Miles, Ph.D., Explaining the Factors of the Index of Economic Freedom, page 57.

 

[7] Data collated into Excel spreadsheet. Email request for data.

 

[8] Purchasing Power Parity, Wikepedia. 

 

 

[9] Data collated into Excel spreadsheet. Email request for data.

 

[10] Transparency International, Corruptions Perceptions Index, 2006, Frequently Asked Questions. 

[11] Ibid.

 

[12] Data collated into Excel spreadsheet. Email request for data.

 

 

[13] The New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, Thumb Index Edition, 1993 Edition, Clarendon Press, page 63.