Serious doubts about China's bullying in "Interpol" - Speech at the "Glasgow International Criminal Law Seminar"
（編者按：中國民主黨英國總部、歐洲之聲、香港議會（籌備）等，於2024年11月4-6日在Glasgow舉辦「格拉斯哥國際刑法研討會」，台灣駐柏林代表謝志偉博士在網上參與，發表演說。）
在此時舉辦「格拉斯哥國際刑法研討會」非常重要，特別是與會的參與者有來自英國、世界各地，特別是來自中國、西藏、新疆、南蒙古、香港和台灣的朋友們共聚一堂，齊心合力反對「國際刑警」組織成為中國政府濫用與鎮壓異己的工具。
在此我謹代表台灣政府，首先衷心感謝今天所有與會人員，支持爭取台灣成為國際刑警組織觀察員，我們為實現這一艱難目標已經努力了整整四十年，但始終未達目標。
1984年，國際刑警組織通過一項決議，規定只有得到承認的主權國家才能成為成員，導致台灣被除名，被排除在國際刑警組織之外。此後，台灣一直尋求以觀察員或其他身份參與國際刑警組織，不幸的是，國際刑警組織與中國合作，由於中國的政治壓力，這些努力一直受到阻礙，將台灣排除在外。
眾所周知，國際刑警組織的全名是「國際刑事警察組織」。事實上，將台灣這樣一個自由民主的國家當成犯罪團夥或黑社會來對待，而中國卻不斷侵犯其國內人權，無疑都是犯罪行為，這種情況下，不僅台灣受害，國際刑警組織更是傷到自己。
台灣作為國際刑警組織觀察員的潛在作用可以歸結如下：
1、全球安全貢獻：台灣在網絡安全和反恐等領域擁有豐富的專業知識。台灣作為觀察員可以加強全球安全努力，促進跨國犯罪預防方面的合作。
2、公共安全：作為一個充滿活力的民主國家，台灣面臨著獨特的安全挑戰，包括網絡威脅和有組織犯罪。觀察員地位將使台灣能夠與其他國家分享最佳做法，並在執法上進行合作。
3、人權倡導：台灣對民主價值觀和人權的承諾與國際刑警組織堅持的原則一致，台灣的參與有助於在該組織內推廣這些價值觀。
4、區域穩定：隨著亞太地區緊張局勢的不斷演變，台灣參與國際刑警組織可以通過促進執法機構之間的溝通與合作，為區域穩定做出貢獻。
5、國際參與：觀察員地位將為台灣提供一個與國際社會更充分接觸的平台，促進全球安全挑戰方面的對話與合作。
6、非政治參與：作為觀察員，台灣可以以非政治身份參與，無需獲得正式的國家承認，即可參與有關警務和安全的討論。
上述六點表明，台灣參與國際刑警組織將有利於台灣和國際社會解決共同的安全問題。
就在幾天前，台灣成功地將一名西班牙逃犯「引渡」到德國，此人長期被列入國際刑警組織的紅色通緝令名單，並在台灣居住了 5 年以上。如果台灣至少是國際刑警組織的觀察員，我們就會更早得到此案的通知。台灣的這一貢獻，無疑是台灣與國際執法部門合作的一個「最佳例子」，儘管它被排除在國際刑警組織之外，卻仍然在打擊犯罪方面積極參與國際合作。
中國是國際刑警組織的重要成員。然而，世人對其某些作為卻深感憂心，這些做法必須被視為有問題，甚至是嚴重的犯罪行為。以下是批評者認為應該質疑中國參與的一些原因。
1、濫用通緝令的政治目的：有人擔心，中國將國際刑警組織的紅色通緝令用於政治目的，針對異議人士、活動人士和批評政府的個人，而不是嚴格用於真正的罪犯。這種濫用引發了人們對通緝令制度完整性的質疑。
2、侵犯人權：國際組織經常批評中國的人權記錄。批評者認為，中國利用國際刑警組織可能會助長侵犯人權的行為，例如引渡可能面臨迫害或不公平待遇的個人。
3、缺乏透明度：國際刑警組織的程序可能缺乏透明度，有人擔心中國可能會利用這一點，在沒有適當程序或審查的情況下發布通緝令。
4、國家主權與國際規範：中國往往將國家主權和安全置於國際規範和人權之上，導致與國際刑警組織促進全球警務合作原則相衝突。
5、地緣政治緊張局勢：中國與其他國家之間的政治動態，尤其是台灣和西藏問題，使國際警務合作變得複雜。這可能會造成國際刑警組織內部的緊張局勢，影響其運作和信譽。
這些觀點指出與揭示了中國利用其在國際刑警組織中的地位濫用權力，但中國並未因此被取消成員國資格，只是令國際社會對中國利用「紅通」所造成侵犯人權及其危機產生擔憂與震驚。
Serious doubts about China's bullying in "Interpol" - Speech at the "Glasgow International Criminal Law Seminar"
Prof. Dr. Jhy-Wey Shieh Berlin, 05.11.2024
Representative of Taiwan in Germany
Good day, dear friends from the UK, from all over the world, but especially from China, Tibet, Xinjiang, South Mongolia, Hongkong, and Taiwan.
In the name of my government, I want to start my short statement with heartfelt gratitude to all of today’s participants for supporting Taiwan’s goal of becoming at least an observer of Interpol. We have been trying to reach this difficult goal for exactly four decades without results.
Taiwan was excluded from Interpol in 1984 In 1984, Interpol passed a resolution stating that only recognized sovereign states could be members, which led to Taiwan’s removal from the organization. Since then, Taiwan has sought to participate in Interpol as an observer or in other capacities, but these efforts have been consistently blocked due to political pressures from the PRC. And unfortunately, the Interpol cooperates with China to exclude Taiwan.
As you all know, Interpol’s full name is `The International Criminal Police Organization´. Indeed, it is criminal to treat a free and democratic country like Taiwan as if it were a criminal gang or mafia, while China has been violating human rights at home uninterrupted. And this harms both Taiwan and the organization itself.
Taiwan’s potential role as an observer in Interpol could be argued for several reasons:
Global Security Contribution: Taiwan has significant expertise in areas like cybersecurity and counter-terrorism. Its inclusion as an observer could enhance global security efforts and foster cooperation in transnational crime prevention.
Public Safety: As a vibrant democracy, Taiwan faces unique security challenges, including cyber threats and organized crime. Observer status would enable Taiwan to share best practices and collaborate on law enforcement issues with other countries.
Human Rights Advocacy: Taiwan’s commitment to democratic values and human rights aligns with the principles upheld by Interpol. Its participation could help promote these values within the organization.
Regional Stability: As tensions in the Asia-Pacific region continue to evolve, Taiwan’s involvement in Interpol could contribute to regional stability by facilitating communication and collaboration among law enforcement agencies.
International Engagement: Observer status would provide Taiwan a platform to engage more fully with the international community, fostering dialogue and collaboration on global security challenges.
Non-Political Participation: As an observer, Taiwan could participate in a non-political capacity, allowing it to contribute to discussions on policing and security without the need for formal recognition as a state.
These points illustrate how Taiwan’s involvement with Interpol could benefit both Taiwan and the broader international community in addressing shared security concerns.
Just a couple of days ago, Taiwan successfully extradited a Spanish fugitive to Germany who has lived in Taiwan for longer than 5 years to Germany after he was placed on Interpol’s Red Notice list for a long time. If Taiwan had been at least an observer of Interpol, we would have been notified of this case much, much earlier. Anyway, this contribution of Taiwan has marked a notable instance of Taiwan’s collaboration with international law enforcement despite its exclusion from Interpol.
This incident demonstrated Taiwan’s proactive approach to international cooperation in combating crime, despite the challenges posed by its exclusion from formal international organizations like Interpol.
These points illustrate how Taiwan’s involvement with Interpol could benefit both Taiwan and the broader international community in addressing shared security concerns.
Now allow me to say something about China in this case.
China is a prominent member of Interpol. However, concerns have been raised regarding some of its practices that must be seen as problematic and even as seriously criminal. Here are some reasons why critics argue that China’s participation should be challenged.
Political Abuse of Notices: There are concerns that China has used Interpol’s Red Notices for political purposes, targeting dissidents, activists, and individuals critical of the government rather than strictly for genuine criminal activities. This misuse raises questions about the integrity of the notice system.
Human Rights Violations: China’s record on human rights is often criticized by international organizations. Critics argue that the country’s use of Interpol could facilitate human rights abuses, such as the extradition of individuals who may face persecution or unfair treatment.
Lack of Transparency: Interpol’s processes can lack transparency, and there are concerns that China may leverage this to issue notices without proper due process or scrutiny.
State Sovereignty vs. International Norms: China often prioritizes state sovereignty and security over international norms and human rights, leading to conflicts with Interpol’s principles of promoting global policing cooperation.
Geopolitical Tensions: The political dynamics between China and other countries, particularly regarding Taiwan and Tibet, complicate international cooperation in policing. This can create tensions within Interpol, affecting its operations and credibility.
While these points reflect criticisms of how China utilizes its position within Interpol, they do not disqualify China from membership in the organization. Rather, they highlight ongoing concerns about the implications of its participation in international policing and human rights. And that´s not a proper attitude.
