The Politico's January 24, 2023 Foreign Affairs Opinion piece by Ben Keith and Ted R. Bromund1 Opinion | Interpol Is Doing Russia’s Dirty Work includes the following:
That’s technically true; the provision for suspension isn’t in Interpol’s Constitution. It’s in Article 131 of Interpol’s Rules on the Processing of Data, which entitles Interpol to suspend the access rights of any member state for up to three months.
Moreover, if Interpol’s Executive Committee approves, a nation can receive a “long-term suspension.” Unfortunately, that committee is currently dominated by autocracies and Interpol abusers. It’s unlikely that the UAE, China, Egypt and Turkey will vote to suspend one of their comrades in abuse.
Interpol’s defense for its inaction — a defense regularly reiterated by its secretary general, Jürgen Stock — is that Interpol was founded on neutrality and on apolitical cooperation against ordinary law crimes: offenses like murder, rape and robbery.
I can understand why some of the countries listed might be labeled autocracies by the opinion's authors, but could answers focus on two other aspects of the assertion:
- "that committee is currently dominated by" Is it a numerical superiority? Is it being dominated in other ways?
- "and Interpol abusers" Are there widespread and/or substantiated cases of Interpol abuse" reported? Could some of this be argued to be abuse with political motivations?
1"Ben Keith is a London barrister specializing in cross-border and international cases at 5 St. Andrew’s Hill. Ted R. Bromund is a senior research fellow with The Heritage Foundation’s Thatcher Center for Freedom."