In the last post, I left off on the question of whether INTERPOL could survive without its more corrupt member countries. So, could it?
The typical lawyer answer is the one I’ll give: it depends. It depends on whether INTERPOL is interested in maximizing the reach of its data-sharing capabilities regardless of its sharing partners. if INTERPOL takes the approach reportedly espoused by the late Mother Teresa, it will accept a member country’s dues and information sharing on the basis that the good they accomplish is reason enough to keep them.
On the other hand, if INTERPOL is interested in protecting the integrity of its organization and its affiliates at all costs, then those more corrupt countries would be shown the door. Given the relatively high number of corrupt countries in the world and on INTERPOL’s membership list, excluding those countries would significantly decrease INTERPOL’s reach and effectiveness.
Of course, there is another option. The other option is that INTERPOL retains all of its member countries, but assigns differing levels of credibility to those who have historically shown themselves to be more corrupt. The level of credibility would determine how easily their requests for Red Notices would be processed, and with how much oversight. INTERPOL would thereby retain the maximum possible reach while ensuring additional safety measures when necessary.
As always, comments and thoughts are welcomed.