Is the U.S. relinquishing its sovereignty?
This is a very important question and it has been raised recently with the announcement from the White House that INTERPOL will be granted more powers in the U.S. This story is making many Americans very angry. Sovereignty apparently has been set aside for other purposes such as Obama’s civilian national security force. During the campaign many people applauded the idea without stopping to consider that if there is a centralized enforcement entity that means it’s across the board, not designed for each jurisdiction. There is no talk of what kind of training or policies will guide this backup organization(s) once implemented. The idea came and went noticed by a select few and denied by the rest as some form of putdown of the presidential candidate. So can and will INTERPOL’s police powers extended?
Eh, maybe, maybe not. Perhaps we’re not looking at this story objectively. In fact, there is too much emotion involved in how people are reacting to the possibility that this international law enforcement organization could become a centralized police power. Unless there is such a drastic plan in place, it just isn’t feasible but some things are always worthy of investigation. INTERPOL’s purpose is to serve as a hub for information sharing, intelligence, training of law enforcement agencies worldwide. It’s no different than cops back home; when a call takes them to another jurisdiction they call ahead and ask the guys at the other end to be on the alert. INTERPOL is pretty much like that; it helps agencies track statistical data as well, assists in the search for fugitives and their apprehension. INTERPOL in that context is not a bad thing. The fact is that amending EO-12425 is not as significant in itself because there are some other elements missing at this time.
Let us look at INTERPOL from a different perspective on the role of this international agency. One of the agency’s accomplishments in 2009 was the successful introduction of the INTERPOL passport, which was perfected and is being introduced into use. This passport is designed to function just like any other passport however it has been enhanced to afford expediency for teams or individuals who are invited to any of the member countries, all 188 of them, to pass through customs and passport control without interference. I suppose these individuals must be thoroughly vetted before being given such easy access into a country. The US sends plenty of FBI people overseas to assist in counterterrorism investigations all the time but I am sure that these teams can get expedited passage with their credentials. Still, law enforcement travel is tricky so countries track these individuals. Does such a passport mean fast entry but how about monitoring movement in country? Maybe there is something in the language of INTERPOL’s Secretary General that got me thinking:
“When member countries ask INTERPOL for assistance to prevent, investigate, or respond to any terrorist act, serious crime or natural disaster, the safety and security of their citizens may depend on INTERPOL being in place as fast as possible,” said Secretary General Noble.
“That a person is travelling with an INTERPOL passport for official business should be all the information a country needs in order to grant them access. By agreeing to waive visas for INTERPOL passport holders, member countries will ultimately be assisting themselves,” added Mr Noble.
INTERPOL is entering the much needed aspect of police peacekeeping and peace-building operations. You’ve probably heard the term peacekeeping more in relation to police actions such as the intervention in the Balkans of the 1990s. I am saying ‘much-needed’ for a legitimate reason. The importance of an international police force that will help military elements establish and maintain the rule of law in occupied countries has been debated and suggested for many years. The invasion of Iraq in 2003 at first appeared to be beneficial and it was expected that the population would be cooperative. The intention is always to establish the rule of law as soon as combat operations are stable or stop in order to assist the local people re-enter a period of rehabilitation. War is stressful and disrupts the normal lives of people; that’s a given.
Stability operations in Iraq went awry five weeks after Coalition troops invaded. Forget the search for Saddam Hussein; in the absence of a stable environment, Iraqis were left with the euphoric feeling of freedom without the benefit of a well-established law enforcement presence. It is also the stuff the U.S. is attempting to do in Iraq and Afghanistan; to rebuild their countries from the bottom up. The International Criminal Court – which seeks jurisdiction in the U.S. as it has in other countries – would be more involved in American law and order at all but then it needs an enforcement branch in order to be effective. At any rate, something is missing in the equation.
The ICC goes hand in hand with the UN (under war crimes tribunal, not for the persecution – prosecution of individual parties but of countries) and INTERPOL is wrapped nicely inside that circle. The question is how realistic is the possibility of these forces deploying to the U.S. To have a foreign police force deploy to the U.S. it must be due to an invitation by that country or international police authority for them to come. What is different here is the absence of a crisis big enough to warrant such an invitation. Scattered incidents involving violence or civil disorder may give the perception that we are in such trouble that we must outsource our security from others but this poses an even more troubling question. If such a police force is vetted to have passports that allow them to enter any member country easily, does the U.S. have any input or access on their background? Are we sure those cops are really who they say they are?
Just wondering.
I know the entire world seems to be going global, but I am not sure this is a good idea. I didn’t like it when the UN was granted permission to investigate if our country was violating human rights by not providing adequate housing. I don’t care for the idea of Interpol and other international security and/or investigative forces having jurisdiction within our borders. I know times have changed, but we are still a sovereign nation and can stand on our own accord.
Don’t fire until you see the blue of their helmets!!
Well, this is a symptom of the ‘global’ mentality the U.S. has been cultivating for a long time. Not only has the U.S. become friendlier to the idea of a unified world, it has slowly integrated this concept into both military and law enforcement that collaboration supersedes independent mitigation. INTERPOL works hand in hand with the UN and the agency has native-born officers working at each country office. The disturbing thing is the ease of access that this passport affords their officers in moving from country to country. Frankly, the passport is unnecessary since many of these countries have such porous borders that facilitate entry so I do not see much validity in using such a tool. As was pointed out in the article about Russia dealing with agents bearing fake IDs.
INTERPOL conducts joint operations as any military organization would, stateside and abroad, this is not unusual. The point I find curious is that Mr. Obama spoke about a national civilian security, which to many Americans smacked of totalitarianism. This would not be something to take place overnight if a new force is formed; rather, the theory that other police entities may be called upon to serve during a great emergency in the U.S. to restore order.
What that emergency would be is up for debate. Riots? Civil disobedience? Civil war? Something to think about and monitor carefully.
Thanks for your post!
You know I have never had a problem with foreign troops training on American soil, but UN troops does give me pause.
Collaboration is good but you’re right; when foreign entities make too comfortable in the U.S. one has to be suspicious. I’m glad I never had to serve under the blue…