Front Burner - Amnesty International chief on the fight for human rights

Episode Date: May 6, 2025

Dr. Agnès Callamard has been a leader in the human rights sector for decades, and since 2021 has worked in the role of Secretary General for Amnesty International. She joins the show to discuss doing human rights work at this difficult historical moment, the future of international law, Canada’s role on the world stage, the question of genocide, and some of the lessons that can be drawn from the world’s most precarious frontiers. For transcripts of Front Burner, please visit: https://www.cbc.ca/radio/frontburner/transcripts

1942, Europe. Soldiers find a boy surviving alone in the woods. They make him a member of Hitler's army. But what no one would know for decades, he was Jewish. Could a story so unbelievable be true? I'm Dan Goldberg. I'm from CBC's personally, Toy Soldier. Available now wherever you get your podcasts. This is a CBC Podcast. Hi, I'm Ali Janes. I'm a producer on Frontburner filling in for Jamie. Today our guest is Agnès Calamard.

She's the Secretary General of Amnesty International, and she spoke to us yesterday from Ottawa where she was visiting Parliament Hill. Given the attacks on human rights and rule of law we're seeing all over the world right now, not least from and within the United States, we felt it was a particularly appropriate time to speak to her. We talked about everything from human rights in Canada, to the US's threats of annexation, to the legitimacy of international law, as well as why amnesty has made a determination of genocide in Gaza, but not, for example, in the Ethiopian region of Tigray.

And how, after decades of bearing witness to some of the worst human atrocities, she finds the strength to keep doing this work. Here's our conversation. And yes, hello. Thank you so much for joining us. Thank you for having me. It's a pleasure. So you started the day on Parliament Hill, speaking to lawmakers, media, bureaucrats about human rights and the threat of authoritarianism in the United States. And so, you know, tell me how that was and what compelled you to come to Canada in the moment that we're in today.

Well, first, I came to Canada because for the last 100 days, I will say, Canada has been one of the few countries to step up and stand up to Donald Trump. The Canadian leaders and Canadian people have expressed very clearly their disagreement and their commitment to resist whatever Donald Trump had in mind, including his attack on the territorial integrity of Canada. So it seems to Amnesty International and me that Canada is one of the models, and we are very few of them, that needs to become much more common. And we would like to ensure that the last 100 days in Canada continue in that direction, and that the resistance that started emerging out of Canadian leadership

become much broader and include resisting for human rights, for the multilateral system and for international justice. I mean, talking more about Canada in a domestic sense for a moment, I mean, when you look at issues confronting Canada today, I'm wondering what jumps off the page to you, Indigenous rights, policing, obviously the prospect of American annexation, weapon sales. I mean, what concerns you most about the state of this country?

Well, I will say the two or three key priorities for Amnesty International are Indigenous people and the criminalization of Indigenous activism, in particular in relation to the protection of their environment. So that's one. The second is asylum and the right to asylum. Anything related to the implementation of the Paris Agreement related to climate change. I think Canada could do far more than what it is doing at the moment.

And yes, you mentioned also weapons export, including two countries where there is a very high risk that those weapons will be used to commit human rights violations. Now you're already nodded to this. The world in many ways is in a moment of turmoil. One of our guests recently put it as the democratic zone is shrinking. As you noted, the US president appears to be leading a law enforcement campaign against dissenters at

home. He's breaking strategic relationships abroad. He's realigning the country with America's historical adversaries like Russia. We've had professors on the show in recent weeks talking about the Trump administration's war on higher education, on history and memory. And I'm wondering from your perspective as someone who has been involved on the front lines of democratic challenges all over the world for many years, what has struck you

most about this Trump moment? Two or three things. The first what struck me and Amnesty International is the fact that Donald Trump is surfing on authoritarian practices that have already been there. He's accelerating them, he's normalizing them, he's giving credibility to them, but he has not created them internationally speaking. And I think it's really important to understand that the seeds of what we are confronting is much deeper than 100 days of Trump presidency.

That being said, there is absolutely no doubt that for the United States and for those world, those 100 days have been a disaster for human rights and that the situation in the US has gotten extremely difficult and far worse than it has ever been. What struck me out is the attack on the rule of law, the attack on institutions which have been the hallmark of the American model for two or three centuries. The attacks on institutions of justice and checks and balance, including the media, which have been part and parcel of what the United States have always highlighted. So that's one very striking element of what we are witnessing. The second is the organized campaign against gender equality, racial equality, diversity and inclusion.

Against something that has been at the heart of the American model, particularly since the civil rights movement. There is a real attempt to destroy what was done for the last 60 years or so. That's the second part. And the third is what he's doing internationally. His attacks and his sanction, in fact, of the International Criminal Court, his withdrawal from the World Health Organization, his, of course, withdrawal from the World Health Organization, is of course withdrawal from the Paris Agreement, which he has done before, but on this occasion is really accompanied

that withdrawal by gutting out everything that the US had done for the last decade or so in terms of protecting the environment, the attacks on freedom of expression on the First Amendment, the fact that migrants with their documents could be expelled from the country on very unsound basis, and the fact that the American president when asked whether he will protect the Constitution, replied, I don't know. Even given those numbers that you're talking about, don't you need to uphold the Constitution of the United States as president?

I don't know. I have to respond by saying again, I have brilliant lawyers that work for me, and they are going to obviously follow what the Supreme Court said. What you said is not what I heard the Supreme Court said. They have a different interpretation. Generally, how is it that you understand the role of an organization like Amnesty International in a moment like the one we find ourselves in today? And I'm wondering how you establish meaningful change at a time when so many of the most

powerful forces in the world appear to be moving in the opposite direction? Well, that's a long question. First, I want to react to the opposite direction. Yes, all the signs are in red right now. Nationally and internationally we do see really the spread and globalization of authoritarian practices including in so-called old democratic countries. Yes, international law and the international rule of law are on their knee, thanks to, I will say, many years of double standard by the various superpowers, but particularly over the last two years, three years, with Russia's

aggression of Ukraine, which Russia insisted was not a violation of the UN Charter, and more recently with Israel's genocide of Palestinians in Gaza with the full support of the United States. Those two examples have really brought international law and the international rule of law system on their knee. So for those reasons, we are insisting that this historical juncture could easily turn into an historic catastrophe. What do we do with it?

First, we don't give up. And that's why Amnesty International's position at the moment is very clear. We do not capitulate, we do not negotiate, we do not make deals with those intending to destroy what took 80 years to build. But we resist. We resist, we reform, and we resist and we reform. We do not just protect 80 years of effort without being critical about those 80 years. We understand that they've had their limitation and that reform is required.

But we need to protect what must be protected at all cost because there is no Plan B. There is no Plan B right now that is being offered by Russia, by the United States, or by China, or by Argentina and others. The only plan they have is the rule by their weapons and the rule by greed. So it is more than time to resist and this is why Canada's position is important. And this is how we are situating Amnesty International. So lots of threads I want to pull on from what you were just saying, especially regarding you know international rule of law and that rules-based order.

Something that I wanted to talk about first that you mentioned was Gaza, which is probably the single issue which Amnesty has committed itself to most in the last couple of years, are certainly one of the top ones. Last year, Amnesty International published a comprehensive report on Israel's campaign in Gaza, which culminated in a determination by Amnesty of genocide. One, of course, which was polarizing. And, you know, these questions of occupation, apartheid, genocide, the violence of October 7th have all been discussed at length on our show here.

But I wonder, how did Amnesty come to a place of deciding to make that determination of genocide in Gaza? On the basis of international law, we had been monitoring and reporting on the situation in Gaza from and indeed on what happened on October 7. And it became increasingly clear around, I will say for us, probably around January, March 2024, that we needed to see whether the Genocide Convention could apply to the findings that we were making. It took us six months of painstakingly researched evidence, judicial analysis, review of the jurisprudence. It was not a conclusion that we reached easily. It took 300 pages to provide that evidence.

But we have absolutely no doubt that what is happening right now in Gaza amounts to genocide under the Genocide Convention in the same way that we had denounced before Israel's military occupation, something that the International Court of Justice has agreed, in fact, and described as unlawful. So there has been a number of other actors So there has been a number of other actors beside Amnesty that have concluded that genocide is happening. The International Court of Justice in January 2024 has found that the risk of genocide were real and very high.

We're now waiting for them to deliver their actual ruling on the crime of genocide, but this is gonna take quite a long time. So it was important for Amnesty to raise the alarm around the crimes being committed because the Genocide Convention calls on actors around the world to prevent it. And we could not just be the witness day in, day out of the crimes of genocide and not demand that governments around the world take the action that was required, including by stopping arming Israel, which a number have done, including Canada, which has taken steps in that direction,

not strong enough, but taken steps in that direction, not strong enough, but taken steps in that direction, Spain, Belgium, France, eventually. So a number of governments are, I think, without naming the nature of the crimes, are taking action that are close to seeking to prevent, but that's not enough. We absolutely know it is not enough. And what happened overnight with the Israeli cabinet agreeing to launch an annexation of Gaza is yet again another proof that years of impunity has only emboldened further violation of international law. The Israeli Security Cabinet has approved plans to expand its assault in Gaza and militarily occupy the entirety of the

Gaza Strip. Israel has begun calling up tens of thousands of reservists. The Army Chief says the decision is aimed at intensifying pressure on Hamas. Have you ever finished a book and just needed to talk about it immediately? Or wanted to know the wildest research an author has done for a book? Or even what booktalk books are actually worth your time? Hi, I'm Morgan Book. Yes, that is actually my last name. And this is Off the Shelf, my new podcast that covers everything related to books. Each Thursday I chat with other bookworms and authors or sometimes it's just me rambling about my latest book obsession. From book to screen updates to hot takes on

new releases and of course our monthly book club discussions, I've got you covered. So get your TBR list ready and listen to Off the Shelf wherever you get your podcasts. I wanted to ask you more about the mechanisms of determining whether or not a genocide has taken place. And I'll just preface this question by saying this is very much in good faith and out of a sense of curiosity about how the conclusions are reached. So our producer Matthew, who produced this interview, is from a part of Ethiopia called Tigray, where anywhere between a reported 800,000 to a million civilians are believed to have been killed across just two years. Just for our listeners, I'm going

to do a bit of a short recap of what happened there. So based on those figures, it's the single worst campaign of mass violence anywhere in the world this century. In Addis Ababa, where people from all over Ethiopia live side by side, neighbor standing against neighbor, friend against friend. All over the city, volunteers are signing up for vigilante groups who roam their local neighborhoods looking for ethnic Tigrayans.

There is a very narrow window now to prevent genocide. Thousands, possibly even tens of thousands of Tigrayan civilians were indiscriminately detained in state detention camps, which were locally referred to as concentration camps. We could not access the toilets. They did not give us any food or water. A lot of people were falling ill. There were some people that died from torture.

Experts have said that this campaign gave way to the worst bout of sexual violence and weaponized starvation in modern history. I've been working on this issue. My first research in the 1980s was into starvation. And I have never witnessed in my professional career, in my historical research, such systematic, such ruthless, such cruel starvation crimes perpetrated as those inflicted on the people of Tigray. internet and telecommunication in the region were intentionally cut for two years, a complete blackout. And if the estimates are correct, we're talking about, I mean, some potentially 40,000 people killed every month,

you know, an October 7th scale massacre every day for two straight years. And so given that, you know, given that this campaign was mounted against the people based solely on their ethnic identity, given the kind of rhetoric that was prevalent at the time with senior Ethiopian politicians referring to Tigrayans as animals and vermin. Prime Minister Abiy tweeted that the enemy is a cancer and a weed that needs to be uprooted, a statement that the UN believes fuels those tensions. I'm wondering how was it that amnesty did not reach a genocide determination in Tigray

but could make that determination in Gaza despite Tigray having several orders of magnitude more dead and it appears a lot of the same available evidence. Yeah. So amnesty has determined that crimes against humanity were being perpetrated in Tigray and we have issued some of our strongest report since 2021 on a number of occasions, including on the scale of sexual violence. We have not made the determination that it amounted to genocide for several reasons yet. It doesn't mean that we won't,

but at the moment we have not. The crime of genocide is not only, in fact the number of victims is not part of the crimes of genocide. It is not that important in determining whether a crime of genocide has taken place. It needs to fall within five categories of so was a genocidal intent on the part of the authorities and that this genocidal intent is the only reasonable conclusion that can be reached on the basis of the evidence provided. So the threshold for proving genocide is very complex and very high and the jurisprudence

around it is limited. We have had quite a lot of evidence of genocidal act being committed in Tigray. We have not made a determination that the intent to destroy in part or in all a particular group was the intention behind the actions being taken. The militia would even write on the houses that belonged to Tigrayans, this is ours, this is Amhara house. They told us not to belong to Tigrayans. This is ours. This is Amhara house. They told us not to speak in Tigrayan. He pushed me and said, you Tigrayans have no history.

You have no culture. I can do what I want to you and no one cares. The women that have been raped say that the things that they say to them when they were raping them is that they need to change their identity and then they've come there to cleanse them. Cleanse the bloodline? Cleanse the bloodline. Now, I should add that this has not been something that we have researched extensively for that

purpose, because we had already found crimes against humanity and we have campaigned extensively on the basis of crimes against humanity. So the situation is much more complex, I will say, than probably in Gaza. In the case of Gaza, we had the opportunity, the sad opportunity to spend several months monitoring and analyzing all the evidence that we were collecting, including regarding the deliberate targeting of civilians' infrastructures, the deliberate targeting of farmlands, of schools, of hospitals, the targeted killings of civilians at a time, you know, we could absolutely prove that the bombs being used were disproportionate to the setting and that they were being used at a time when there will be likely to have the greatest number of civilian victims.

We have spent a lot of time working on the humanitarian setting and found lots of evidence of Israel imposing conditions of life calculated to bring about their physical destructions. We looked at all those acts being committed and some of them could be explained by a military objective. But the ones that were the greatest part of our report had no military underpinning. The only reasonable conclusion that you could reach was that there was an intention to destroy in war, or in part, the Palestinians of Gaza that was further demonstrated by the official speech from the highest level of the government and the way Israeli soldiers used those discourses, those speeches to then explain what they were doing in their actions.

We also established a direct relationship between words and speech and actions on the ground. Altogether, we could not conclude, we could not find any other conclusion, that there was an intention to destroy the Palestinians of Gaza. And I believe that the end of the ceasefire has further sadly demonstrated that indeed a genocide is taking place. Now, a charge levied by the Israeli government often against organizations like yours and others is that the power brokers within the International Human Rights Bureaucracy have a particular dislike of Israel, that they focus on Israel and not the behaviors of the Ethiopian and Eritrean governments in Tigray or the RSF in Sudan or even Hutu power in Rwanda, who are all guilty of many of the same kinds of acts that you are accusing the Israelis of and none of whom saw their behavior merit

genocide designations. And so, you know, how would you respond to that charge? First of all, the evidence proved that Amnesty International has documented many of the crimes being committed by the governments that you have mentioned, including the Ethiopian government. I should also add that Amnesty International has documented, on every occasion, the violations committed by Hamas against the Palestinians, and indeed, the Palestinians' authorities' violations

against the Palestinian people or Israeli people. We have documented, of course, that we violations against the Palestinian people or Israeli people. We have documented, of course, that we speak of Rwanda as amounting to a genocide. We speak of Guatemala as amounting to a genocide, of Srebrenica as amounting to a genocide. We have just released a very important report on the rapid forces of Sudan, a use of incredibly widespread sexual violence. I mean it's absolutely revolting what's happening in Sudan. We have also denounced the fact that Sudan has the largest mass displacement right now

and it's falling into complete indifference. You know, so that's the first response. I think our track record speaks for itself. We certainly have documented and denounced the violations of those governments. We have denounced China, crimes against humanity of the Uyghurs and so on and so forth as just one more example. With regard to the crimes committed by Israel, we are not particularly focused on Israel. What we are focused on is denouncing, documenting violation of international law. And Israel is one of those countries that have regularly violated international law. The military occupation of the West Bank, of Gaza, of East Jerusalem is established

in law. The violation is established in law. The International Court of Justice has denounced it and described it as unlawful. This is not something that we have created. We have determined that Israel was committing the crimes of apartheid. This is not the first time we reach that conclusion.

We also reach a similar conclusion regarding the Rohingyas in Myanmar before we did on Israel. We are not picking on Israel, but Israel is engaged into multiple violations of international law with the support of the Western world in general, the United States in particular, and between, as I mentioned, Russia's aggression of Ukraine and Israel's genocide of Gaza, right now international law is on its knee because both Russia, Israel, and the United States are insisting that international law does not apply to them. I'd like to talk more about that in the context of the US specifically. So of course the US is not a member of the ICC, but we're talking about the most economically, politically, culturally powerful country in the world here. And the United States has previously, for example, blocked the assets and imposed travel

bans on ICC prosecutors. There's even a law in the books in the US called the Hague Invasion Act, which permits the United States to invade the Netherlands, where the ICC and ICJ are located, in order to free US officials or any allied personnel being detained or imprisoned at the request of the International Criminal Court. I'm wondering how the US's intimidation power over the ICC, veto power at undermining, if not destroying, what took 80 years to build. I need to mention it because we are talking today on the 80th anniversary of the end of

World War II. And 80 years ago, plus one week, was created the United Nations and the International Court of Justice. The United States was a key architect of that system, as was Canada and many European countries. They are the very ones now that are savagely, I will say cruelly, destroying it, undermining 80 years of effort to build a system that is a bit more equitable and where abuse of power is being curtailed. So this could not be more serious. We don't have any Plan B, as I have mentioned. There is no Plan B. There

is only an organized campaign to destroy what was established 80 years ago because it does not appear to be serving the interest of the United States or a certain class within the United States and of certain individuals. That is what is keeping me awake at night. That is why I'm here. This is why we're spending no, sparing no effort at the moment to demand of leaders is a bit of guts to please step up because the implications of what's happening are absolutely dramatic now and for future generations. We are hanging at the edge of an abyss right now. We need to stand up.

Your government needs to step up. Canada has been an architect not just 80 years ago, but throughout the last 80 years. It has played a fundamental leadership role on issues related to women's rights, to peace and security, to human rights. Now is not the time to abdicate. Now is the time to step up and fight back. I want to ask you a bit about countries who are not, you know, actively working to dismantle these systems, we've seen Spain, Germany, and France, which are all ICC members, say in different ways that they don't

plan to honor the ICC's arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. I have never seen any of these countries say something similar about an African leader who had an arrest warrant from the ICC. And as someone who is producing this research, this data, you know, making these designations of genocide and obviously just in general working towards human rights and to see these systems upheld, you know, do you have faith

in the institutions even as they stand, even as, stand, even for the countries who are signatories to them and say they want to uphold them, to carry out the work that you're part of in some way? If countries who are party to this court don't even appear interested in upholding an arrest warrant? Look, I have faith, maybe not in the leaders, in the individuals, but I have faith, reasonable faith that the institutions will step up. The last year, I've shown that both the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court are able to function and are functioning. What it means is that international justice has become a battleground because they are functioning, because they are delivering. Let's not forget President of the Philippines, Rodrigo Tuterte, who is right now sitting

in front of judges in The Hague. And I worked on the Philippines. He was the most powerful leaders of Asia. No one would have expected him to ever be where he is now. So that is a proof that it works. And this is why Donald Trump and the like of Donald Trump are going after the ICC. Yes, we've had a few, I will say frankly, idiots speaking where they should not have spoken, suggesting that they will not arrest President Netanyahu. But guess what?

It is not for them to make that decision. It is not for the president of Belgium or France to determine whether or not President Netanyahu should be arrested. There are judicial institutions that will play their role, and there are activists and individuals, citizens of the country that will be prepared to go to court to demand that he be arrested if he set foot on the territory.

So those institutions will function. Hungary is an example of a place where the authoritarian practices of the president have undermined any kind of institutions at the moment, any kind of independent judiciary. So for Netanyahu to choose Hungary was, I will say, a safe bet that nothing will happen there. In a defiant gesture towards the International Criminal Court, Benjamin Netanyahu is visiting Hungary. The Israeli Prime Minister is wanted for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity in the Gaza Strip.

You stand with us at the UN and you've just taken a bold and principled position on the ICC and I thank you, Victor. This is not only important for us, it's important for all democracies. It's important to stand up to this corrupt organization. I don't think he can do that in many other places around the world. I doubt very much he can do that in the rest of Europe. And indeed, in response to what the president of France or Belgium or Italy have said, there has been leaders in those countries saying actually he will be arrested if he comes. But it is a battleground.

International justice is a battleground. International justice is a battleground and the double standard of the Western world has brought us to where we are now. There is nobody in the Western world will think twice about arresting President Putin, for instance, or at least if they are, they are not saying anything. And that is, you know, that is what is undermining any kind of credibility that this world may have had in terms of upholding international rule of law. It is not just about combating Donald Trump. It is also about combating what has been seeded in our system and countries for too many years.

You've spent so much of your life bearing witness to the worst things that human beings do to one another. And I mean, you've just been talking about how some of these things, you know, some of these issues of repression and impunity are on the rise, but the underlying issues we're talking about here, the scale of suffering, impunity of the powerful inadequacy of the mechanisms we have to deliver justice. I'm wondering, I mean, you know, having like, none of that is new. And so I'm wondering what keeps you going?

And what still feels possible to you? Resilience and observing and meeting with people who are far in far worse position than I am and who keep fighting. You know, working with extraordinary individuals, days in, days out, I have an enormous privilege in my work because I'm working every day with people who resist and people who are prepared to go very far to ensure that others and the rights of others are protected. And I will say also that courage and hope comes through the action and the collective

action in particular. I would want to suggest to people who feel sometimes depressed and searching for answers, I am suggesting to them that the first thing to do is to join a collective, is to join a group to understand that you are not alone. It can be amnesty, it can be any other groups around the world because through the collective action of others, you will find determination and resilience. And there are solutions. There are solutions to protect international justice. Canada can implement universal jurisdiction right now.

Canada can step up and say, we will support investigation into any crimes of international law, whoever has committed it. Canada can commit to enforce arrest warrant. Canada and others can commit to sanction those who dare sanctioning the international justice. And these are calls that we can make and we can fight for. We can do far more even domestically to ensure that rights are protected nationally, not only internationally. We have, I'm going to meet with more Canadian officials, and we have a number of recommendations for them, recommendations too that Canadian people can work with,

they can become their own advocacy. It is in everyone's potentials to become an advocate for a better world, to become an advocate so that never again, like we said 80 years ago, never again, that means something. It must mean something for everyone around the world. And it is up to every individual to step up and stand up and to do that as part of a group, as part of a collective. I tell you, you'll find resilience, you'll find courage, and you'll find hope. Agnès Calamard, thank you so much for this conversation. Thank you very much. All right.

That is all for today. I'm Allie Jaynes, filling in for Jamie Poisson. Thanks so much for listening to Frontburner and we'll talk to you tomorrow. For more CBC podcasts, go to cbc.ca slash podcasts.