Confidence is a state of being clear-headed either that a hypothesis or prediction is correct or that a chosen course of action is the best or most effective. Confidence comes from a Latin word ‘fidere’ which means “to trust”; therefore, having self-confidence is having trust in one’s self. Arrogance or hubris, in comparison, is the state of having unmerited confidence—believing something or someone is correct or capable when evidence or reasons for this belief are lacking. Overconfidence or presumptuousness is excessive belief in someone (or something) succeeding, without any regard for failure. Confidence can be a self-fulfilling prophecy as those without it may fail or not try because they lack it and those with it may succeed because they have it rather than because of an innate ability.
The concept of self-confidence is commonly defined as self-assurance in one’s personal judgment, ability, power, etc. One’s self-confidence increases as a result of experiences of having satisfactorily completed particular activities.Self-confidence involves a positive belief that in the future, one can generally accomplish what one wishes to do. Self-confidence is not the same as self-esteem, which is an evaluation of one’s own worth, whereas self-confidence is more specifically trust in one’s ability to achieve some goal, which one meta-analysis suggested is similar to generalization of self-efficacy. Abraham Maslow and many others after him have emphasized the need to distinguish between self-confidence as a generalized personality characteristic, and self-confidence with respect to a specific task, ability or challenge (i.e. self-efficacy). Self-confidence typically refers to general self-confidence. This is different from self-efficacy, which psychologist Albert Bandura has defined as a “belief in one’s ability to succeed in specific situations or accomplish a task”[4] and therefore is the term that more accurately refers to specific self-confidence. Psychologists have long noted that a person can possess self-confidence that he or she can complete a specific task (self-efficacy) (e.g. cook a good meal or write a good novel) even though they may lack general self-confidence, or conversely be self-confident though they lack the self-efficacy to achieve a particular task (e.g. write a novel). These two types of self-confidence are, however, correlated with each other, and for this reason can be easily conflated.
Comments
Self confidence and building a trust both are needed
The role and importance of trust in all your engagement efforts cannot be under-estimated or under-valued. Without a purposeful and consistent effort to foster trust and build strong relationships at every step of the way, even the best-designed and thoughtful engagement processes will almost certainly either fail or fall far short of the success you seek to achieve.
While there are a number of keys to building trust within any group, it’s important to realize that this ethos should permeate every aspect of your engagement program.
The challenge of course is that we have entered an era of declining trust (though to varying degrees) in government and institutions of all types and across most nations. As has been widely documented, this poses serious challenges to those of us seeking to engage communities in an effective discussion, decision-making and participation processes.
Several drivers contribute to this decline in trust – many of which highlight issues that an effective engagement process should be designed to anticipate and/or address. These include:
Perceptions of bias of those convening or facilitating the process or in the information available
Limited engagement with, or understanding of the processes and expectations of engagement
Political polarization and the reliance on ‘proxy attributes’ guiding pre-conceived perceptions
Persistence of wicked issues
Increased distance between professionals and citizens as governance processes and activities become increasingly specialized and complex (Adapted from Matthews, 2008).
The Keys to Building Trust
Several key imperatives are found throughout the substantial trust literature. Each of these can be enhanced – or conversely undermined – in a number of implicit and explicit ways. They include:
Effective communication. This includes before, throughout, and following your formal engagement efforts. If pursued effectively, the more citizens and communities understand the process, your goals and intended outcomes, the information they need to make an informed decision, the perspectives of each other, and their role(s) and stake in the process and issue, the more trust your engagement efforts will engender and be able to build from in the long-run.
Respect. While this sounds obvious, it is absolutely essential that the tone, content, and facilitation of your engagement efforts genuinely respects the input of all participants or members – even if it’s sometimes difficult.
Transparency of processes. Your entire engagement efforts should be clear and well-understood by all stakeholders, devoid of ‘hidden’ or alternative agendas (personal, political, or informational), and honest about the role and influence citizens will have in the either the decision-making or implementation of solutions. Many community engagement efforts have failed in this regard.
Sharing information widely. Effective engagement and trust requires that everyone involved is working from a common understanding of the issue and each other’s perspectives as possible. If participants or residents feel that information is only shared with some members or does not do justice to all perspectives on an issue, you are very unlikely to be able to create the trust you need for effective or sustainable engagement.
Engaging stakeholders in meaningful ways. Although closely related to respect, stakeholders will show greater trust in the engagement efforts that account for their perspectives, view their contributions, and employ their skills in a manner that they feel is consistent with their perspectives of these attributes.
In developing your strategies and tools to enhance trust, Stephen M.R. Covey (2006) has identified ‘five waves of trust’ that are worth considering. A brief summary highlights:
Self-trust.
The Principle of Credibility. In its simplest form: “do you trust yourself and are you someone that others can trust?” It is critical that you can honestly answer ‘yes’ to both these questions.
Relationship Trust.
This is all about consistent behavior in all your relationships with others. People judge us on our behavior not our intentions.
Organizational Trust.
The principle here is alignment – in essence does your organization structures, policies, and systems engender the trust you want to achieve?
Market Trust.
This refers to your organization’s overall reputation – a trust that can be built or destroyed at incredible speed.
Societal Trust.
This is based on the principle of contribution – do stakeholders see your organization or entity as having a past record of accomplishment and contribution to the things they care about?
In your opinion, what makes a person trustworthy? Do they keep your secrets? Respect your beliefs and boundaries? When you know someone isn’t trustworthy, it affects your relationship. Often, it can break a relationship. People need to have others they can trust. Whether it’s in personal relationships, work, or society as a whole, trust is essential. Here are ten reasons why:
#1. Trust creates psychological safety
Dr. Amy Edmonson, a professor at Harvard Business School, describes psychological safety as the ability to be yourself without fear of negative consequences. She talks about this concept as it relates to trust in the workplace. When there’s trust between team members, they feel safe psychologically. This means they aren’t afraid that speaking up might cost them their reputations or jobs. Psychological safety is also important in personal relationships. Using the example of a parent and child, a child who trusts their parent isn’t afraid that something they do or say will make their parent stop loving them.
#2. Trust encourages questioning and risk-taking
In the workplace, asking questions and taking risks leads to innovation. If a team doesn’t have trust in each other, though, they’re much more likely to avoid questioning and risk-taking. It goes back to psychological safety; they don’t feel confident their questions will be respected. In personal relationships, questions and risks are just as important. People can express their concerns, ask for what they want, and question decisions. This encourages more understanding.
#3. Trust encourages fast decisions
When trust is built into an organization or relationship, decision-making is a faster process. Everyone knows that the decision-making person or entity has the best intentions. They’ve proven themselves competent in the past. No one needs to pick apart the decision-making process or check it thoroughly for errors, so everything moves faster. In many environments, a fast decision is essential and makes life better.
#4. Trust improves communication
Good communication is important in every type of relationship whether it’s one between two people or between different parts of an organization. If there isn’t trust between the participants, communication suffers. There’s fear that what is communicated might be used as retaliation or – at the very least – it won’t be respected. People will hide things from each other, which can only have negative consequences down the road. Misunderstandings are more common. When there’s trust, communication is open and honest.
#5. Trust promotes self-confidence
In environments where there isn’t trust, a person can’t rely on others to respect their opinions and value. Without that affirmation, it’s very easy for a person’s confidence to plummet. They won’t take as many risks or express their creativity. Within a safe space of trust, people can be themselves and be validated. This can only boost their self-confidence and encourage more trust and vulnerability.
#6. Trust increases productivity
Combine risk-taking, fast decisions, and self-confidence in the workplace, and you end up with a more productive workplace. When there isn’t trust, everything takes longer. There’s less unity and higher stress levels. Micro-managing is the norm. As a result, a company is less productive. This can have financial consequences, and eventually, an organization can fall apart.
#7. Trust facilitates meaningful connections
Trust is the backbone of healthy, happy relationships whether they’re romantic or not. When you trust that a person respects and loves you, it’s much easier to be vulnerable. Vulnerability is what fosters real, close connection. The journey to getting to a place where there’s trust also builds closeness. With each experience that proves a person’s trustworthiness, others feel more comfortable and safe.
#8. Trust reduces stress
Whether it’s in the workplace or personal relationships, a lack of trust is emotionally exhausting. A person feels like they’re walking through a minefield, unsure when something they say or do could backfire on them. They always feel like they’re looking over their shoulder in case someone is about to stab them in the back. This is extremely stressful. Being in an environment with trust lets a person relax and feel safe. Their stress decreases.
#9. Trust increases feelings of optimism
If you look at someone who identifies as a pessimist, odds are they’ve not experienced a lot of relationships or environments with trust. On the other hand, trust teaches a person that the world isn’t all dangerous. There are people out there with good intentions. Research shows that optimism comes with a range of benefits, including better health and longer lifespans.
#10. Trust is good for communities
When trust is embedded into a community as a cultural norm, that community is healthier and happier. This makes sense since communities are just webs of different relationships. Dan Buettner, author of The Blue Zones of Happiness, discovered that when trust is below 30%, a country’s living standards are stuck and unable to grow. Besides gross domestic product, trust is the strongest predictor of a nation’s happiness level.
bringing up the value of trust will be much valuable when you see the result of the opposite
one of the points that make people feel the value of things they have , is when they suddenly lose it (good example, mess happens in places , people that we see suffer from losing their houses, a good pet, someone you like in life, many examples …… )
some people may not going to like it ,please give it a time and read it
from Wikipedia
Betrayal is the breaking or violation of a presumptive contract, trust, or confidence that produces moral and psychological conflict within a relationship amongst individuals, between organizations or between individuals and organizations. Often betrayal is the act of supporting a rival group, or it is a complete break from previously decided upon or presumed norms by one party from the others. Someone who betrays others is commonly called a traitor or betrayer. Betrayal is also a commonly used literary element, also used in other fiction like films and TV series, and is often associated with or used as a plot twist.
Definition
Philosophers Judith Shklar and Peter Johnson, authors of The Ambiguities of Betrayal and Frames of Deceit respectively, contend that while no clear definition of betrayal is available, betrayal is more effectively understood through literature.
Theoretical and practical needs
Jackson explains why a clear definition is needed:
Philosophers should be able to clarify the concept of betrayal, compare and contrast it with other moral concepts, and critically assess betrayal situations. At the practical level people should be able to make honest sense of betrayal and also to temper its consequences: to handle it, not be assaulted by it. What we need is a conceptually clear account of betrayal that differentiates between genuine and merely perceived betrayal, and which also provides systematic guidance for the assessment of alleged betrayal in real life.
Signature and consequences
An act of betrayal creates a constellation of negative behaviours, thoughts, and feelings in both its victims and its perpetrators. The interactions are complex. The victims exhibit anger and confusion, and demand atonement from the perpetrator, who in turn may experience guilt or shame, and exhibit remorse. If, after the perpetrator has exhibited remorse or apologized, the victim continues to express anger, this may in turn cause the perpetrator to become defensive, and angry in turn. Acceptance of betrayal can be exhibited if victims forgo the demands of atonement and retribution; but is only demonstrated if the victims do not continue to demand apologies, repeatedly remind the perpetrator or perpetrators of the original act, or ceaselessly review the incident over and over again.
If no true apology, atonement, real remorse and plan to change one’s behaviors are not present, then the one who was betrayed can accept that it happened, and that the perpetrator is unwilling or unable to change. No real change means they can do it again. Lack of validation from the perpetrator can be been described as a “second assault,” which can exacerbate the effects of the initial trauma incurred. Accepting the betrayal and going no contact is the best route forward. The alternative is to stay in connection and realize the trespass can happen again, and may choose to avoid doing certain things to decrease severity. For example, if a person gossips, do not tell them your secrets.
Political
Most adults living in liberal democracies place trust in the state of which they are a citizen. When this trust is betrayed, at its worst, the individual can suffer psychological betrayal trauma. Betrayal trauma has symptoms similar to Posttraumatic stress disorder, although the element of amnesia and disassociation is likely to be greater.
The key difference between traditional post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and betrayal trauma is that the former is historically seen as being caused primarily by fear, whereas betrayal trauma is a response to extreme anger. Fear and anger are the two sides to the fight-or-flight response, and as such are our strongest and most basic psychological emotions.
Pure political betrayal trauma can be caused by situations such as wrongful arrest and conviction by the legal system of a western democracy; or by discrimination, bullying or other serious mistreatment by a state institution or powerful figure within the state.
I hope you like it
some people may not going to like it (I do apologize for that )
Since trust is so important in both working and personal relationships, how can we monitor it, build upon it and heal it when it becomes frayed? It is useful to view trust as a natural response to certain qualities in a person, group or organization, and the absence of these qualities will diminish the level of trust. These qualities are:
Reliability and Dependability: A person or group that is true to their word and fulfills their commitments encourages trust.
Transparency: People are anxious about unknowns and tend to assume the worst when they’re not informed about a new development. When management meets in secret or does not share important information, team members can easily become distrustful. On the other hand, when people share their thoughts, feelings and considerations, or when an organization, usually through its leader, tells its members what is going on, everyone knows where they stand and trust can flourish.
Competency: This is another element that is central to building trust. If you think a person, leader or organization is not capable of doing what they are supposed to do, you cannot trust them. Therefore, even when a person has a good heart or good intentions and we like them personally, they cannot win our trust if they’re not capable of doing what they promise.
Sincerity, Authenticity and Congruency: People can often sense when someone says something that is not aligned with what they are feeling inside. When a leader is insincere or inauthentic, people don’t believe what he or she is saying. A leader who says one thing but who acts differently is not congruent. For example, it is hard to believe someone who says they want to listen but does not give you a chance to speak, or someone who says she is concerned about people yet seems to have a plan to lay people off. People may think they can hide their true feelings or contradictions, but others can quickly detect a lack of sincerity or congruency. That’s when trust is eroded.
Fairness: Some people act as if the needs and desires of others are not important, or they don’t truly listen to or respect both sides. Trust cannot grow in a relationship where it’s all about one person or in a workplace where all the energy is focused on the company or leader.
Openness and Vulnerability: If a person never says they are wrong and apologizes or acknowledges their mistakes, other people do not feel comfortable disagreeing with them or sharing their own thoughts. A leader who is “never wrong” never gets the truth from others. Yet a timely apology or admission of being wrong is a powerful weapon to build or rebuild trust.
this is one of the most important things to have public sense of it , How important to have Trust in dealing with each others .
by reading from time to time we may be able to bring this up
What Is Trust?
To have trust in a relationship means that you feel a sense of security and loyalty with your partner
“To trust means to rely on another person because you feel safe with them and have confidence that they will not hurt or violate you. Trust is the foundation of relationships because it allows you to be vulnerable and open up to the person without having to defensively protect yourself
Promotes Positivity
Trust is important in relationships because it allows you to be more open and giving. If you trust your partner, you are more likely to be forgiving of their shortcomings or behaviors that irritate you because overall you believe in them and know they have your back.
Reduces Conflict
Trust also allows you to navigate conflict. When you trust your partner, you are more willing to overlook problems or commit to finding solutions to issues because you feel allied in areas that mean the most to you. Even if your partner does something disappointing, you are more likely to give them the benefit of the doubt and see the good in them if you trust them.
Increases Closeness
Establishing trust creates a strong bond and foundation to build on. Knowing you can trust your partner promotes increased closeness and safety. When you trust one another, you feel safe knowing that your partner has your back and can be relied upon for comfort, care, and support.
very important step for EU to get more strength on the concerns and points that found a lot of the news about refugees
let’s say ,about this issue in countries like Turkey and others
the future of this issue to be solved
will make a good different
encourage you to make some search on it and just have an idea about the new agency and what is related to its job and how this going to impact certain type of news once this will be solved
Found this report about the status of democracy that give away more details about How democracy in the world is challenging ,freedom is shrinking
More comments about the report
has been made by an intergovernmental organization in Stockholm supports sustainable democracy worldwide, many democratic governments back down and take authoritarian tactics by restricting freedom of expression and weaken the rule of law, a trend exacerbated by the pandemic Corona.
This report comes ahead of US President Joe Biden’s Summit for Democracy to be held on December 9-10, where nearly 100 countries will meet to discuss challenges facing democracy
report was based on 5 main pillars in assessing the state of democracy: government, basic rights, oversight of government, impartial administration, and engagement.
According to the report, the number of declining democracies has doubled in the past decade, representing a quarter of the world’s population. This includes established democracies such as the United States, as well as European Union member states such as Hungary, Poland and Slovenia, where more than two-thirds of the world’s population lives in declining democracies or authoritarian regimes.
Overall, the number of countries moving in an authoritarian direction in 2020 exceeded the number of countries moving in a democratic direction.
The report notes that the world has lost at least four democracies in the past two years, either through flawed elections or military coups. Indicators of the global state of democracy show that authoritarian regimes have increased their repression, and 2020 was the worst year ever.
The coronavirus pandemic has deepened the trend of democratic deterioration, and as of August 2021, 64 percent of countries have taken measures deemed disproportionate, unnecessary or illegal to curb the epidemic.
TIINA JAUHIAINEN KNOWS the reach of the United Arab Emirates firsthand. In 2018, Jauhiainen helped her friend and skydiving partner Sheikha Latifa bint Mohammed al-Maktoum escape the country after accusing her father, the ruler of Dubai, of restricting her basic freedoms and locking up her sister. Jauhiainen and Sheikha Latifa fled the UAE on Jet Skis and boarded a yacht, but they were captured by Indian commandos in international waters and sent back to the UAE, where Sheikha Latifa was returned to her family and Jauhiainen was detained for a few weeks.
Months later, back in her native Finland, Jauhiainen applied for a visa to Australia, where she wanted to visit a friend. Australia rejected her application, stating that she was the target of a criminal investigation. She later learned that she was named in a “red notice” requested by the UAE and issued by international policing agency Interpol — and only after a lawyer intervened did she get the notice rescinded. “It just shows how easily they can abuse the system,” Jauhiainen told The Intercept.
Now Jauhiainen and others who have been detained in the UAE are watching Interpol’s upcoming election with concern. Ahmed Naser al-Raisi, a senior official with the UAE’s Interior Ministry who oversees security forces and detentions, is running for president of the organization. Al-Raisi’s fate will be decided at a meeting of Interpol’s General Assembly in Istanbul next week, and human rights advocates have been waging a campaign to stop him and a Chinese official who is also running for office
Interpol, which is headquartered in Lyon, France, and brings together police forces from 194 countries, has long faced questions about its vulnerability to politicization, in part because its members include governments that are notorious for human rights abuses and the repression of dissent. While the agency maintains that it is politically neutral and its constitution stipulates that it must operate “in the spirit” of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Interpol has come under increased scrutiny in recent years as authoritarian regimes around the world have exploited its systems — particularly the red notices the agency distributes to alert countries about wanted individuals — as a way to target activists, dissenters, and political opponents. Many abuses of the red-notice system date to after September 11, when a U.S. secretary-general, Ronald Noble, oversaw an expansion of Interpol’s reach, rolling out a digitization effort that led to an abrupt spike in alerts.
An unusually large number of seats are up for grabs at Interpol’s November 23-25 General Assembly, which was canceled last year because of the coronavirus pandemic. Members will elect a new president and replace most of the agency’s executive committee, which runs its day-to-day operations, as well as all members of the Commission for the Control of Interpol’s Files, which handles complaints about red notices.
While member countries are not obligated to act on an Interpol red notice, individuals targeted by them often face arrest and detention, sometimes for prolonged periods, as well as extradition. People named in red notices can also lose access to financial services or have their visas or passports canceled.“It’s a policing organization: It’s an organization that’s run by police, for the benefit of the police, and the police don’t necessarily like to be very open about everything that they do.”
Calls for greater transparency about the agency’s safeguard mechanisms and warnings about abuse of its systems have intensified in the lead-up to the election. While the presidency has traditionally been a ceremonial position, China recently tried to use the role to expand its influence. The lack of transparency and standards for who can run for office, critics warn, is symptomatic of much deeper problems within Interpol.
“It’s not just the idea that Interpol’s president might come from one of the worst abusers of human rights,” said Bruno Min, who leads the campaign to reform Interpol at the equal justice group Fair Trials, “but the fact that the whole process is so opaque.”
“It’s a policing organization: It’s an organization that’s run by police, for the benefit of the police, and the police don’t necessarily like to be very open about everything that they do,” he added, noting that Interpol is careful not to openly rebuke its members. “They don’t like doing things that might embarrass or undermine certain countries. … They’re very careful not to be too critical, they’re very diplomatic.”
Interpol did not respond to a request for comment.
Tiina Jauhiainen in London in October 2021.
Photo: Courtesy of Tiina Jauhiainen
A Tool for Autocrats
Interpol’s work began in 1914, when police from 24 countries got together to coordinate fugitive hunts. After World War I, the group came under the control of the Nazis, and many countries stopped participating. The agency later regrouped, evolving into Interpol in 1956 and expanding beyond Europe and North America.
In the aftermath of 9/11, as the U.S.-led “war on terror” ramped up, Interpol’s work grew exponentially. A technological upgrade removed bureaucratic obstacles and made it much easier, and faster, for countries to issue red notices. The number of notices issued increased tenfold over the last two decades, with 11,000 going out last year. According to Interpol, there are currently more than 66,000 active red notices, though less than 8,000 are visible to the public.
As the number of alerts surged, reports of them running afoul of the organization’s commitment to human rights also multiplied. Critics have pushed for Interpol to better protect its systems from abuse. Some have also called on member countries to prevent the agency from becoming a tool for autocrats, including by forming voting blocks to oppose candidates from authoritarian regimes
Much of the most recent criticism has focused on al-Raisi, the UAE official. Al-Raisi has actively campaigned for the presidency on a platform that includes expanding the agency’s use of technology, pointing to the UAE, which engages in extensive surveillance, as a model.
Several human rights groups have raised alarm about al-Raisi’s candidacy, with a coalition of 19 organizations pointing, in a joint letter, to the UAE’s “poor human rights record, including the systematic use of torture and ill-treatment in state security facilities,” and warning that his appointment would “damage Interpol’s reputation and stand in great contradiction to the spirit of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the organisation’s mission.” Al-Raisi, the group added, “is part of a security apparatus that continues to systematically target peaceful critics, rendering civic space virtually non-existent.” Some European officials have also opposed al-Raisi’s candidacy.
Critics have also noted the UAE’s record of using Interpol red notices to target individuals over bounced checks, a controversial practice common in several Gulf countries that “makes Interpol into some sort of international debt collection agency,” said Min. UAE officials did not respond to a request for comment.
The UAE has sought a greater role in the agency’s operations in recent years. In 2017, it made an unprecedented $50 million pledge to the Interpol Foundation for a Safer World, a Swiss-based, independent nonprofit that supports Interpol’s activities. Despite its high profile, Interpol itself is a rather small organization, with an annual budget of just over $150 million. Member countries are required to contribute in proportion to their economies. The UAE’s donation to the foundation — far larger than its required $260,000 contribution to the Interpol budget — “represents one of the largest single donations ever made to Interpol,” according to a report published earlier this year by the U.K.’s former director of public prosecutions, David Calvert-Smith. The report questioned whether the UAE is exercising “undue influence” over Interpol.“I actually cannot believe that … I have to travel to the headquarters of Interpol to ask them not to make one of the men responsible for my torture their next president.”
The UAE also hosted Interpol’s General Assembly in 2018 and was scheduled to do so again in 2020 before the meeting was called off. (This year’s host, Turkey, has also drawn criticism for its history of targeting political dissenters.)
Jauhiainen is joined in her campaign against al-Raisi by two British citizens: Matthew Hedges, who was detained for nine months in 2018 while writing a dissertation on the UAE’s security strategy, and Ali Issa Ahmad, who was detained in Dubai in 2019 after wearing a Qatari T-shirt to a soccer game amid a feud between Qatar and the UAE. Both men were released following diplomatic pressure.
Hedges and Ahmad have filed legal complaints against al-Raisi in the U.K., France, Sweden, and Norway. “I actually cannot believe that almost three years after I was finally released, I have to travel to the headquarters of Interpol to ask them not to make one of the men responsible for my torture their next president,” Hedges said in a speech in Lyon in September
Influencing Interpol
Human rights groups have also raised concerns about other governments’ potential involvement in Interpol’s operations. In 2016, China’s then-vice minister for public security, Meng Hongwei, was elected president of the organization. He immediately sought to transform what had traditionally been a ceremonial role at Interpol into a position of greater influence and power, most notably by moving into Interpol’s Lyon headquarters with four Chinese assistants, while his predecessors had only visited a couple times a year. His contentious term was cut short in 2018, when he was arrested in China amid leader Xi Jinping’s anti-corruption crusade and was sentenced to 13 years in prison for bribery.
A Russian bid to install a senior official to Interpol’s presidency failed in 2018 after Western officials and human rights groups raised fears that the candidate would use the position to track and target critics of the Kremlin.
Now another Chinese public security official, Hu Binchen, is running for a seat on Interpol’s executive committee — reigniting fears that China could expand its control over the agency’s operations to target individuals wanted for political reasons.“I think there is, in general, a quite strategic move from China and other authoritarian regimes to take control of these organizations while Western governments are distracted or losing interest.”
Last week, a coalition of legislators from across the world launched a campaign opposing Hu’s candidacy. The group, the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China, pointed to the recent arrest of Uyghur activist Idris Hasan in Morocco after Chinese authorities issued a red notice. While Interpol has since canceled the notice, Hasan remains detained in Morocco and fears extradition to China, where he faces detention and torture. Dolkun Isa, another Uyghur activist and president of the World Uyghur Congress, was briefly arrested in Italy in 2017 while traveling to address the Italian Senate. A red notice naming him was finally rescinded in 2018. (China joined Interpol in the mid-1980s and has issued red notices with increasing frequency since Xi came into power in 2012.)
As the Chinese government has continued to intensify its crackdown on minorities and critics, it has also sought to “bolster its legal mechanisms to extend its policing abroad,” Luke de Pulford, executive director of the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China, told The Intercept.
“I think there is, in general, a quite strategic move from China and other authoritarian regimes to take control of these organizations while Western governments are distracted or losing interest,” de Pulford added. “Our concern is obviously in individual cases where activists and exiles are arrested and threatened for deportation or extradition but more broadly, the chilling effect that that has on these communities, on anyone seeking to criticize the Chinese Communist Party globally.”
Hu’s election to the executive committee, the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China members wrote in an open letter, “would be giving a green light to the PRC government to continue their misuse of Interpol and would place the tens of thousands of Hong Konger, Uyghur, Tibetan, Taiwanese and Chinese dissidents living abroad at even greater risk.”
In a separate statement published by the World Uyghur Congress, nearly two dozen human rights advocates wrote, “As activists in exile who are particularly vulnerable to the Chinese Government’s attempts to persecute dissidents abroad, we fear the potential election of Hu Binchen would have grave consequences.”
Critics of both the UAE and Chinese bids have warned that those countries can exert economic pressure to influence the votes of other countries.
In response to a question about Hu’s candidacy, the Chinese Embassy in Washington, D.C., pointed The Intercept to comments foreign ministry spokesperson Zhao Lijian made in a press conference Wednesday: “Chinese police have long maintained a practical and friendly cooperative relationship with Interpol and law enforcement departments of its members.”
A view of a laptop computer screen showing the Interpol website which features a ‘Red Notice’ on September 26, 2013 in London, England.
Photo: Oli Scarff/Getty Images
No Transparency
Facing growing criticism, Interpol has undertaken a series of reforms in recent years. The agency adopted a policy meant to protect refugees from being targeted with alerts from their country of origin and calling on countries to notify Interpol before denying asylum claims following an agency notice. The agency also pledged to change how it vets alerts, for instance by ensuring that Interpol administrators review requests for red notices before they’re made available to member countries.
But while critics welcomed the changes, they warned that observers are not able to monitor whether the reforms are working. “Interpol says that is has very clear regulations around ensuring that political arrests don’t take place through Interpol systems, and what we would argue is that clearly their vetting process is not stringent enough,” said de Pulford, citing the cases of the Uyghur activists targeted by red notices.
Interpol does not publish data about how many red notices it rejects, making it hard to establish how well its vetting process is working. Countries can also bypass the vetting process by issuing “diffusions,” informal alerts to specific countries that theoretically carry less weight than red notices but often include many of the same details.“We don’t have any information about how they’re able to tell whether a red notice is abusive or not.”
“We don’t have any information about how they’re able to tell whether a red notice is abusive or not,” said Min, of Fair Trials, which has worked with individuals targeted by illegitimate notices, including refugees and activists. “That really makes us question whether they’re actually capable of doing the checks that they say that they’re doing. … They won’t go into any further detail about how exactly it’s done.”
The lack of transparency was on stark display earlier this fall, when Interpol announced, in a statement scant on explanations, that it had reinstated Syria’s access to the agency’s databases nearly a decade after having restricted it early in the country’s war. Syrian activists and critics of President Bashar al-Assad have denounced the move as part of a broader international trend toward the normalization of relationships with Assad’s regime. They warned that Interpol’s decision is “handing Assad new powers to hunt down dissidents beyond Syria’s borders.”
“If I am in any country, I might be arrested, or kidnapped, or taken by anyone, because I am on the blacklist of the Syrian regime,” Kholoud Helmi, a journalist and activist with Families for Freedom, a group that advocates on behalf of Syrians detained or disappeared by the regime, told The Intercept. “Especially for those of us who are everywhere, speaking to the international community, attending events in different countries, all over the world, is this going to silence us in the future? Are we going to jeopardize our safety and security? Am I going to be arrested?”
