Red Notice Monitor Webinar | China's Misuse of INTERPOL: Targeting Uyghurs Abroad | 1 February 2024 | 11:00 GMT | Register Here
Interpol's Secretary General, Jurgen Stock, found himself under the lens of CBS 60 Minutes this week. Ben Keith and Rhys Davies of this blog were also featured, and we tried to give some legal perspectives. The topic, unsurprisingly for this blog, was the Red Notice system and its inherent tension between efficiency and justice. This was a rare opportunity to hear Stock address concerns we've raised here and elsewhere.
When challenged about the system's flaws, Stock conceded, "It's not perfect. We see wrong decisions on national and Interpol levels." This is hardly controversial. What raised eyebrows was his response when pressed by CBS host Bill Whitaker to name and shame countries like Russia, China, and Turkey, notorious for Red Notice abuse.
"Naming and shaming isn't in the interest of international police cooperation," Stock argued. "We need a platform for information sharing across borders, even between states in conflict. Our role isn't policing member countries' human rights agendas."
On the surface, Stock's logic has merit. Interpol's efficiency depends on member state cooperation. Excluding abusers, however egregious, might fracture this network. Criminals roaming free is a legitimate concern. But this viewpoint is rather simplistic. Interpol's constitution explicitly prohibits politicized Red Notices, highlighting the system's inherent vulnerability to abuse by repressive regimes.
To accept Stock's justification unquestioningly is to ignore the human cost of this "efficiency." Individuals wrongly accused, lives ripped apart by politically motivated Red Notices, face years of legal battles and emotional turmoil. Their stories are the dark underbelly of Interpol's shiny facade.
We've witnessed this devastation firsthand. We've seen lives shattered, families torn apart, and careers destroyed by flimsy accusations or political vendettas. Interpol's claim of balancing efficiency and justice rings hollow in the face of such stories. Can we justify sacrificing lives for a system that tolerates, even incentivizes, abuse? Is sacrificing due process the only path forward?
Interpol's stance seems increasingly untenable. How can we justify a system that allows for, and perhaps even incentivizes, such abuses? Is compromising due process the only way to maintain international cooperation?
We believe not. The answer lies in meaningful reform, not sweeping exclusions. Robust oversight mechanisms, independent review processes, and a genuine commitment to human rights are essential steps towards a Red Notice system worthy of trust. Interpol must move beyond lip service and embrace meaningful change.