India Beats US & UK In Safety Index 2025. Here's Which Country Is Safest In Asia
In a world where safety often shapes both perception and policy, the latest global safety rankings have delivered a few surprises. According to the 2025 Numbeo Safety Index, China has emerged as the safest country in Asia, while India has outperformed several Western powers long seen as models of stability.
China secured the 15th spot globally with a safety score of 76.0, placing it well ahead of regional and international counterparts. The Numbeo index, which draws on user-submitted data from around the world, assesses countries based on crime rates, public perception of safety, and trust in law enforcement.
India, though much further down the list, delivered a noteworthy performance. Ranked 66th out of 147 nations with a score of 55.7, it edged past the United Kingdom (87th, 51.7) and the United States (89th, 50.8)—two countries often regarded as safe, developed democracies.
Among India's South Asian neighbours, Sri Lanka ranked 59th (score: 57.9), Pakistan was at 65th (score: 56.3), and Bangladesh was down below at 126th (score: 38.4).
Leading the global rankings this year is the tiny European nation of Andorra, crowned the 'world's safest country of 2025" with an impressive safety score of 84.7. Tucked away in the Pyrenees mountains between France and Spain, Andorra earned high marks for its exceptionally low crime rates and strong sense of public security.
Also making a strong showing were three Middle Eastern countries—United Arab Emirates, Qatar, and Oman—all of which secured spots in the top five worldwide. Their high rankings were attributed to well-developed security infrastructures and consistently low levels of crime.
Let's take a look at the top 10 on the list:
1. Andorra – 84.7
2. United Arab Emirates (UAE) – 84.5
3. Qatar – 84.2
4. Taiwan – 82.9
5. Oman – 81.7
6. Isle of Man (a British Crown Dependency) – 79.0
7. Hong Kong (China) – 78.5
8. Armenia – 77.9
9. Singapore – 77.4
10. Japan – 77.1
At the other end of the rankings, Venezuela was named the least safe country, recording a concerning safety score of just 19.3. Other countries grappling with conflict, political turmoil, and high crime—such as Afghanistan, Syria, and Haiti—also ranked among the lowest, reflecting deep-rooted challenges to public safety and stability.
The Numbeo Safety Index offers a real-time, crowd-sourced snapshot of how secure people feel in their own countries. It factors in multiple indicators, including fear of crime, reported incidents, and overall perceptions of safety. In its 2025 edition, the index analysed data from 146 countries. The latest results reveal a growing divide between countries with strong security frameworks and those facing mounting public safety issues—even among long-established Western democracies.
Get breaking news, in-depth analysis, and expert perspectives on everything from geopolitics to diplomacy and global trends. Stay informed with the latest world news only on News18. Download the News18 App to stay updated!
tags :
China
view comments
First Published:
Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Mint
2 hours ago
- Mint
The EU needn't have yielded to the US on a trade deal
When US President Donald Trump and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen shook hands at Trump's Scottish golf resort last week, they weren't just announcing a new trade deal—they were formalizing Europe's economic and ideological surrender. By agreeing to 15% tariffs on most exports to the US, the EU has capitulated to Trump's zero-sum world-view. In doing so, it has abandoned the principles of multilateralism that have long guided global trade. The economic consequences will likely be immediate and severe. European exporters now face tariffs nearly ten times higher than the previous trade-weighted average of 1.6%. Volkswagen alone has reported a $1.5 billion hit due to higher US tariffs. Also Read: Global shake-up: America's retreat spells a big opportunity for Europe But this is just part of the problem. The real damage is what the EU agreed to pay for the 'privilege' of maintaining access to the US market: buying $750 billion worth of US energy over three years and investing another $600 billion in the US economy. These staggering sums will inevitably divert resources from European development and innovation while legitimizing bilateral coercion over the multilateral rules-based World Trade Organization system. As critics have rightly pointed out, this massive outflow comes directly at the expense of domestic investment. What makes the EU's surrender especially troubling is how unnecessary it was. As America's largest economic partner, the EU has considerable leverage. The bloc's $270 billion services deficit with the US offered clear avenues for retaliation, from digital taxes to restrictions on American tech giants. Also Read: The IMF's 'World Economic Outlook' is too coy for a Trump-shaken world Weeks earlier, anticipating a stalemate, European policymakers had prepared counter-tariffs targeting $107 billion worth of American goods. But the EU had far more potent weapons at its disposal. Its Anti-Coercion Instrument, for example, could have barred US companies from government contracts, revoked intellectual-property rights and imposed broader trade restrictions. Yet, national leaders, fearing Trump's retaliation and under pressure from domestic industries eager to maintain access to the US market, refused to authorize Von der Leyen to use any of these tools, forcing her to negotiate from a position of weakness. The contrast with other US trading partners could not be starker. When the UK secured a 10% tariff rate from Trump in May, European leaders expressed concern about accepting similar terms. Now, they hail 15% tariffs on EU exports as a diplomatic breakthrough. Britain, acting alone, negotiated better terms than the EU as a whole. Also Read: How Trump got the upper hand over the EU on tariffs This failure exposes the fundamental weakness of European governance. Lacking a true EU-wide governance system, the bloc remains incapable of translating competing national agendas into a unified position. With Von der Leyen hamstrung by member states prioritizing narrow domestic interests over European cohesion, the result was a deal that pleases no one but Trump and locks Europe into a state of structured dependency. The EU's failure to push back against Trump is especially troubling given its stated goal of achieving strategic autonomy. Some may argue that the deal—technically not a formal trade agreement, but rather a set of statements outlining an ongoing negotiation process—buys time. By appeasing Trump, the argument goes, the Commission has maintained transatlantic ties while creating space for future carve-outs. But if this were truly a time-buying strategy, we would expect the EU to take concrete steps to advance strategic autonomy: boosting defence spending, accelerating supply-chain diversification and investing in retaliatory capabilities. Instead, after years of pledging to reduce reliance on foreign powers, EU leaders chose to replace Russian energy imports with American supplies and commit to massive purchases of US military equipment. Also Read: Mint Explainer: Why does the EU keep sanctioning Russia? Europe's subordination both reflects and reinforces the continent's dependence on US power. It has created a structural imbalance that extends across defence, trade and energy, leaving Europe in a state of permanent vassalization. Trump's ability to extract sweeping economic concessions and defence-spending commitments shows how effectively the US can weaponize Europe's security anxieties to pursue broader geopolitical objectives. The $600 billion investment pledge, much of it earmarked for military-equipment purchases, forces Europe to subsidize American defence contractors while undermining its own industrial base. By giving in to Trump's demands, the EU validated Trump's transactional approach, emboldening not only future American administrations but also other global powers eager to turn trade into an instrument of geopolitical coercion. While the immediate crisis may have passed, the long-term damage to EU credibility and autonomy will be long-lasting. The widespread perception that Europe surrenders without resistance will undoubtedly invite further challenges to European interests. Until European leaders are able to break the cycle of dependency by empowering EU institutions to act decisively against external coercion, these humiliating capitulations will only multiply, reducing the continent to a prosperous yet powerless appendage of the US empire. ©2025/Project Syndicate The author is professor of European Union Law at HEC Paris and visiting professor at the College of Europe in Bruges and Natolin.
Hindustan Times
2 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
Bandits in Nigeria kidnap over 50 people in first mass capture incident of the year
Gunmen kidnapped more than 50 people in northwest Nigeria in a mass abduction, according to a private conflict monitoring report created for the United Nations and seen by AFP on Sunday. The report said this was the first "mass capture" incident in the Bakura local government area this year, "the recent trend of mass captures in Zamfara has been concerning,(Unsplash/Representational) "Armed bandits" targeted the village of Sabon Garin Damri in Zamfara state Friday, the report said, the latest attack in a region where residents in rural hinterlands have long suffered from gangs who kidnap for ransom, loot villages and demand taxes. The report said this was the first "mass capture" incident in the Bakura local government area this year, "the recent trend of mass captures in Zamfara has been concerning," noting "a shift in bandit strategy toward more large-scale attacks in northern Zamfara." A Zamfara police spokesman did not respond to a request for comment. Nigeria's "banditry" crisis originated in conflict over land and water rights between herders and farmers but has morphed into organised crime, with gangs preying on rural communities that have long had little or no government presence. The conflict is worsening a malnutrition crisis in the northwest as attacks drive people away from their farms, in a situation that has been complicated by climate change and western aid cuts. Last month, bandits in Zamfara killed 33 people they had kidnapped in February despite receiving a $33,700 ransom, while three babies died in captivity, officials and residents told AFP. Bandit-jihadist cooperation Since 2011, as arms trafficking increased and the wider Sahel fell into turmoil, organised armed gangs formed in northwest Nigeria, with cattle rustling and kidnapping becoming huge moneymakers in the largely impoverished countryside. Groups also levy taxes on farmers and artisanal miners. Violence has spread in recent years from the northwest into north-central Nigeria. Two weeks ago, Nigerian troops killed at least 95 members of an armed gang in a shootout and airstrikes in the northwest state of Niger. But the military is overstretched. While improved cooperation between the army and air force has aided the fight, analysts say, airstrikes have also killed hundreds of civilians over the years. Bandits, who are primarily motivated by money, have also increased their cooperation with Nigeria's jihadist groups, who are waging a separate, 16-year-old armed insurrection in the northeast. The recent emergence of the Lakurawa jihadist group in the northwest has worsened violence in the region. Governments of affected states have been forced to recruit anti-jihadist militias fighting the militants in the northeast to assist in countering the bandits.
Mint
4 hours ago
- Mint
A Dutchmans Life Shows Russias Path Not Taken
Derk Sauer, a communist turned journalist, turned capitalist entrepreneur, died this week at 72 after a sailing accident. If you aren't Dutch or haven't been heavily involved with Russia over the last three decades, then you probably haven't heard of him. But he was a hugely important figure for independent Russian media and a man who shaped hundreds of lives if not more, including my own. His is a story that very sadly encapsulates the road that wasn't traveled in post-Soviet Moscow, either by the West in the 1990s, when it mattered most, or by President Vladimir Putin since. When the Soviet Union collapsed, shock therapy — a big bang approach to privatization and ending price controls and other constraints on the market — was prescribed. The idea was for the free market to build a new economy from the rubble of the old. Technology and knowledge transfer from the West would be key. McDonald's Corp. arrived early. Energy majors including ExxonMobil Corp. and BP Plc moved in, hoping to develop neglected and new oil and gas fields. Car manufacturers from General Motors Co. to Mercedes-Benz Group AG were lured by the prospect of selling modern vehicles to those used to having to repair a new Lada before they could drive it. But Moscow also became a kind of Klondike for small-time Western would-be entrepreneurs. Many were carpetbaggers in search of a quick buck. They had the ethics of the Russian oligarchs and criminals with whom they worked to set up anything from casinos to gyms. They came and went with the money. Even blue-chip names like the Harvard Institute for International Development became mired in corruption scandals and left in disgrace. In the end, too little of worth was built. What worked for Poland didn't for Russia, and the result, famously, was a massive transfer of wealth into the hands of a few Russian oligarchs. The economy shrank by almost 15% in 1992 alone. Life expectancy for men fell from to 59 years in 1993 from 64 just three years earlier. Yet this familiar horror show doesn't tell the whole story. Some value was built in the 1990s. When it came to fostering a professional, independent Russian media — a key component in any functioning market democracy — Sauer made a massive contribution. He showed what was possible and what it took to succeed. Sauer arrived before the Soviet collapse to launch a glossy English-language monthly for the Dutch publishing company VNU. As more became possible after 1991, he saw a market for a full-service daily Moscow newspaper, modeled on the Paris-based International Herald Tribune. When VNU didn't buy in, he found investors and started The Moscow Times. He didn't do the usual with such expatriate newspapers, hiring a few low-paid reporters to add some local color to a daily collection of wire stories. Instead, he invested in hiring a sizable team — including myself and older, more experienced hands, including from the IHT and The Washington Post. He used these to train and edit a larger group of young reporters from Russia and abroad. By the time I left after several years as editor in 1997, we had some 60 journalists and editors publishing 32 to 40 pages a day. But this expat-led publishing business soon became a sideshow. Sauer's holding company, Independent Media, expanded to publish Russian editions of a whole range of magazines, from Cosmopolitan and Vogue to Playboy. When an early effort at a Russian-language business newspaper fizzled, he pulled in the Financial Times and Wall Street Journal to create Vedomosti, which quickly became the country's most respected and genuinely independent daily. Nobody, of course, was immune from the wildness of a market that had been liberalized without regulations or institutions in place to create a level playing field. It was a jungle that served mainly the ruthless and the connected. As the money rolled in, Sauer also had to acquire a form of protection, selling a 10% stake in his company to an oligarch. But when either the Kremlin or Russian investors pressured him to shut down coverage that would embarrass them — including access for cash and transfer pricing scandals, respectively — he checked the reporting and let us print. Most important was that he and his family stayed, committing to what they were building. When the first opportunity came to cash out, some co-investors in Independent Media took the money and left. Sauer didn't. He remained even as the market became more difficult and the tolerance of a free press that allowed his stable of newspapers and magazines to thrive began to disappear. After eventually selling the company in 2005, Sauer went on to work with RBC, a Russian news outlet that sought the independence and quality he had come to represent. When The Moscow Times withered in 2017, he bought it back to keep it alive, albeit online and in a much-slimmed form. Increasingly under political pressure, he left RBC and then, in 2022, the country. He helped The Moscow Times and other exiled independent Russian outlets, such as the TV channel Dozhd , to relocate to the Baltic States and Netherlands, as they too had to flee. They continue to write and broadcast for Russians on issues such as the war in Ukraine in ways no domestically based media can. What might have been if more Western businesspeople had come to Russia not to join the pillaging that in many cases passed for investment, but to actually build something? Or had lived by the rules of a regulated free-market democracy, the way Sauer did for journalism? If Western governments had tried harder and risked more? Or if international financial institutions had offered something better suited to Russia than shock therapy? And what if Putin and his vertical power system hadn't made fact-based journalism impossible? If the Kremlin had focused on developing a strong, diversified domestic economy, instead of carving up the nation's resources among friends and looking for expansion and glory at the expense of Russia's neighbors? Those are unanswerable questions, and by now, academic. Perhaps there will be another chance, another Moscow opening, forced by a future, younger generation of Russians at a time when the West has grown wiser and less arrogant. All that's clear to me today, though, is that Russia would be a richer, freer, less aggressive and less paranoid nation had it remained open to people like Derk Sauer, rather than force him out with the ecosystem he did so much to foster. This column reflects the personal views of the author and does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners. Marc Champion is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering Europe, Russia and the Middle East. He was previously Istanbul bureau chief for the Wall Street Journal.
