Interpol Sides With Russia In Ukraine Conflict

Interpol member countries are committed to working together to prevent real criminals from escaping justice, and the system is based on the presumption that all its members are acting in good faith. But like other authoritarian members of Interpol, Russia abuses this presumption to prosecute enemies of the Putin regime. This has to stop and Interpol has all the tools it needs to do it, including suspending Russia from the organization. In response to Moscow’s unprovoked invasion of Ukraine, the US, UK and other allies tried last year to suspend Russia from Interpol. The group resisted, emphasizing its neutrality and arguing it could do more with Russia on board: “As long as the Interpol network can help rescue a victim of child abuse… it is its duty to ensure lines of communication remain open.” .

This is false. Interpol was formed to disseminate information that aids the search for suspected criminals, while preventing misuse of its systems by member states. But the organization’s top responsibility is not to help catch criminals. Interpol’s own Constitution famously states that it must operate in the spirit of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which enshrines the presumption of innocence and the right to private property. But authoritarian regimes like Russia and China often abuse Interpol to persecute their critics or to justify theft of corporate assets.

Interpol wants to avoid anything that could lead to one of its members quitting or being suspended, for fear of diluting its global influence. For this reason, it claims that its Constitution does not provide for the suspension of a member. This is technically true; the provision for suspension is not in the Interpol Constitution. It is found in Article 131 of the Interpol Data Processing Regulations, which authorizes Interpol to suspend the access rights of any member state for up to three months. Furthermore, if the Interpol Executive Board approves, a nation can receive a “long-term suspension”. Sadly, this committee is currently dominated by autocracies and Interpol abusers. The UAE, China, Egypt and Turkey are unlikely to vote to suspend one of their fellow abusers. Interpol’s defense for its inaction – a defense regularly reiterated by its secretary general, Jürgen Stock – is that Interpol was founded on neutrality and apolitical cooperation against common law crimes: offenses such as murder, rape and robbery.

But practicing neutrality doesn’t mean ignoring systemic abuses. Interpol routinely allows spurious allegations of fraud, or false allegations of ordinary crimes, to be used to attack political or business adversaries. Stock argued that there is no trade-off between offering “the broadest mutual assistance possible” to the police and Interpol’s neutrality. But when the police are the criminal, there is a compromise. Regimes such as Russia and China do not recognize the distinction between ordinary crimes and political crimes, a distinction on which Interpol relies. By ignoring this distinction, Interpol ends up “acting as an arm of a criminal regime to hunt down its enemies,” in the words of Bill Browder, a critic of Putin and the main target of Interpol’s Russian abuses.

The Kremlin has repeatedly asked Interpol to arrest Browder, who has exposed Russian corruption, but Interpol has rejected the requests. Interpol’s neutrality on Russia’s accession to the war in Ukraine boils down to a refusal to do anything that could be perceived as taking sides. This is not neutrality, it is blindness. True neutrality means enforcing Interpol’s rules by everyone, regardless of the identity or reaction of those who break them. Interpol’s narrow-minded view of neutrality doesn’t just affect brave activists like Browder. In 2018, the United States requested, and was granted, a red notice from Interpol to try to arrest Yevgeny Prigozhin, a friend of Putin and founder of the notorious Russian mercenary group Wagner.

But in 2020, after a complaint was filed by Prigozhin’s lawyers, Interpol withdrew the notice on the grounds that it “would have significant negative implications for Interpol’s neutrality” making it “perceived as siding with one country against another”. other”. Interpol’s view of neutrality is based, as Stock puts it, on the belief that “if there is state activity, Interpol is not conducting any activity.” But if the state commits the crimes, Interpol’s efforts to remain neutral tacitly side with criminal states like Russia. Sadly, after taking a strong stand last March calling for Russia to be suspended, the Biden administration backed down. In August, the State Department and the Attorney General released a report that found — in defiance of evidence released by Interpol itself — that there had been no abuses by Interpol since 2019.

Interpol’s Costs

Incredibly, the United States, which pays most of Interpol’s costs, is now so afraid to point the finger at the abusers and uphold Interpol’s rules that it fails to cite the Department’s National Human Rights Reports. of State, which testify to the continuing reality of Interpol abuses. Interpol’s critics are not always in the crosshairs. The organization is right to resist requests, such as the recent one by the Wall Street Journal’s editorial board, to become involved in areas outside the ordinary crimes to which it is limited by its Constitution. Interpol should not prosecute crimes of a “military nature,” even well-documented and massive ones such as human rights violations and Russia’s commission of war crimes in Ukraine.

The question is not whether Russia is wrong in Ukraine. Russia was wrong and must answer for it. But Interpol is not the right tool to use for this purpose. Interpol has enough trouble preventing abuse of its systems. If it becomes involved at the will of the combatants in the prosecution of war crimes, it will face rampant politicisation. Those concerned about Russia’s politicization of Interpol should not respond by urging Interpol to violate its own rules.
At the same time, there is a right way to involve Interpol in this fight.

The international community could set up a tribunal to try Russians for genocidal offenses, crimes against humanity and war crimes. The court could then work with Interpol and make requests for the location and detention of suspects. This is the procedure established in 2010 by the Interpol General Assembly, aimed at ensuring that Interpol does not turn into a judge of rival fighters’ claims. The recent designation of Russia as a terrorist state by the European Parliament is a significant step in this process. Until an international tribunal is established, Interpol has a lot of work to do. Most importantly, it needs to stop telling half-truths about its rules, abandon its biased view of neutrality, and start abiding by its basic requirement to enforce its own rules, even as Russia and China perceive it as a stance.

This article is originally published on matricedigitale.it