This is the second of a three-part interview with Amnesty International Secretary-General Agnes Callamard. Read the first here. She warns of an emerging “predatory world order”, accusing powerful world leaders of undermining international law, weakening human rights protections and replacing diplomacy with force.
Callamard, who was in Bangkok on a working visit, singled out US President Donald Trump, Russian President Vladimir Putin, Chinese President Xi Jinping and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. She also condemned sweeping cuts to international aid, warning that vulnerable populations, including refugees from Myanmar living in Thailand, are already suffering the consequences.
Part II: The global human rights crisis and the future of international solidarity.
The predatory world order
“What do we mean by the predatory world order? We mean that there are currently world leaders that we call predators.. Donald Trump, Vladimir Putin, Xi, Benjamin Netanyahu. Those individuals are rejecting 80 years of effort to build a more equitable and rights-based international multilateral order.
“How are they doing it? They are doing it by withdrawing from international conventions, by attacking multilateral institutions, by sanctioning international justice, by sanctioning civil society, UN special rapporteur. They are doing it by undermining the United Nations in peace and security. They have paralyzed the Security Council, but now are saying the Security Council doesn’t work.
“They are creating parallel processes such as the Gaza Peace Initiative, which are the antithesis of a multilateral approach. They are normalising attacks on civilians. That is certainly the case with Russia and with the United States and with Israel.
“They are replacing diplomacy with war. That is a predatory world order. At a normative level, they are seeking to undermine the glue that we have tried to strengthen in terms of bringing the international community together. That glue is called international law, human rights law, international standards. They are trying to undermine, particularly human rights, because human rights is about questioning relations of power and demanding that citizens and people have stronger protection against abuse of power.
“These predators, these monsters, to use Ramsay’s expression, are undermining international human rights. That is true for all of them, including the Chinese government. What are they replacing human rights with? They are replacing it with an ideology that is based on the power of the guns, the power of the profit, that is rejecting equality, racial equality, gender equality, that is suggesting that there is a hierarchy of people with white men on top. It is hyper-racist, hyper-misogynist, hyper-awful.
“You can well imagine that such a system, such a predatory vision, is looking at civil society and human rights defenders and independent journalists as the enemy. In terms of engagement with these states or predators, what is the experience of AI? Have you been simply shunned by them or are some of these states or state leaders more willing to at least engage or entertain in some forms of dialogue with Amnesty International? None of the four I mentioned. In fact, we of course always approach them, write to them, but they are either attacking us nominally, criticising us, stigmatising us.”
“Last week or two weeks ago, the U.S. State Department referred to us as a fraud. Benjamin Netanyahu attacks Amnesty very often. For them, we are antisemitic. We are supporting terrorists. Vladimir Putin roughly ignores us, but they have declared us foreign agents and they have expelled us from Russia two years ago. And China doesn’t like Amnesty.”
Scam Compounds
“On the question of the scamming, actually it has been a constructive entry point into and with China, which we welcome. But for everything else, no. So we engage, but they don’t. We’ve also received a question around the Trump administration and their approach to international institutions and cuts to foreign aid and how they affect the human rights work.
Trump’s cut to aid funding
“When Donald Trump gained his second power, he lost no time in implementing new policies that have really created a major upheaval for international services and for NGOs.
“So we know that they completely, at the beginning, at least cut USAID. In fact, USAID no longer exists. International aid has been extraordinarily reduced.
“And when they did that, many other governments have followed suit. In other words, they have in many ways enabled other governments to also decrease their international funding contribution.
“So it has been extremely cruel for civil society around the world, including, for instance, those working in Myanmar.
“We know we’ve met NGOs working with political prisoners, NGOs working with refugees from Myanmar who’ve lost all of their fundings. We went to a refugee camp in Thailand where the school, the medical facilities are functioning on a shoestring budget with really very negative implications for the refugees. So it’s not just theoretical.
“In your own country, it is actually what is happening. People that are the most vulnerable have been deeply affected by the cuts from the Trump administration and not just their cuts, everyone else’s cuts. If I’m speaking about my own government, they have decreased their international budget year after year after year.
“Same with the United Kingdom. It is a global, it is sadly a global phenomenon. International solidarity is no longer on the agenda.”
Khaosod English: Is there any light at the end of the tunnel on this issue? I mean, do you even see some group of countries like the Nordic or the EU or South Korea or Japan reacting by increasing any of their funding?
“Not as we would have expected. They have raised to some of the challenge around
abortion, you know, because that has been and more generally sexual and reproductive health.
“But in general, the cuts to humanitarian assistance, to long term development assistance, to civil society has not been sufficiently mitigated by the generosity of other states.
“So there is no real light at the end of the tunnel. I mean, of course, it demands a complete rethinking of the business model of international solidarity, of international assistance. And maybe in the long term, we will find a way of responding to it. But in the short term, people are dying. You know, that’s the thing. In the short term, people are dying.
“I think civil society is remarkable. And we will find a way of adapting to the changing environment. We will change, we will reform, and we will adapt. But that will take a long time. Meanwhile, the services provided by those NGOs are being cut.
“And it means the most vulnerable populations are suffering.”
Khaosod English: Would you expect any significant change if the Democrats resumed control of the U.S. executive branch, as in the next president will not be Trump’s protégé, or successor, but someone from the Democrat Party?
“You know, this is what we will need to assess. But, of course, we hope that some of the most radical, disruptive, and cruel policies from the Trump administration will be undone at some point. But not all. Definitely not all. And on the current policy issue, I’m not so certain. You know, I think the worst of these cuts may be offset a bit.
“I think there is a huge community in the U.S. that strongly believes in international solidarity. And there is a very important political community that understands the soft power issue coming through international support. So, together, they may have some impact.
“But I don’t think we’ll return to the level of international support that was there two years ago. About the current situation, we’ve witnessed about racial and political polarizing across the world.
“Like it happened in Europe, in France, Milan, or Spain. How can we, the human rights civil society, prevent another level of violence?
“Just to wrap up on these questions around international accountability, there was also a question around what kind of mechanisms could actually secure accountability when major powers are violating international law as well. Any additions to that? Yes, of course, this is why we need to defend with the strongest possible determination: International Criminal Court, International Court of Justice, and international law more generally. I have to say that sadly, the era of the predators has also been the era of the coward.
“The predatory world order exists right now because the international community in general has been very afraid of responding strongly to the predators. Afraid of losing market, afraid of losing profit, afraid of losing military support, afraid of losing geostrategic roles, which are all good reasons, but not good enough to appease the predators because you don’t appease bullies.
“At the end, what happens is that you end up on their menu.
So we need to defend international law, which is our last strong recourse. We need to defend the international institutions that deliver international justice. We need to insist that for 80 years we’ve tried to build a system that was safer and more equitable.
“It was not perfect and it needs to be reformed, but it does not need to be destroyed. So for Amnesty International and for others, we have to prioritize the defense of the international institution mechanisms, the Human Rights Council, the UN General Assembly, the ICC, the ICJ, Europe Regional Instrument. I’m not sure about ASEAN, but why not? It is something that is there.
“It needs to be strengthened. We need to do all we can to ensure that those mechanisms are able to deliver justice, fairness, protection, particularly to the most vulnerable. And that needs to happen at international level, at regional level, and at national level. National level means the protest. It means standing up and saying no to our coward government.