A prominent figure in the defense of human rights around the world, the Secretary General of Amnesty International, Agnès Callamard, was in Montreal this week. Former United Nations special rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, the French-born was in Quebec to participate in the United Nations Conference on Biodiversity (COP15) and to meet with indigenous communities. Interview by Magdaline Boutros.
You are in Montreal to participate in COP15. Is the notion of climate justice now part of human rights?
Yes quite. For us, the climate crisis is a human rights crisis. It results in unlawful deaths, insofar as they could be prevented. It results in armed conflicts linked to access to resources, food and water.
We need only think of the Middle East, where water is a considerable issue, the latent conflict between Egypt, Ethiopia and Sudan linked to the management of river resources or the conflict between farmers and pastoralists in Nigeria.
Experts on the climate crisis are well aware that this is one of the root causes of conflict. There are ways of life, cultures that are endangered. And all this takes place in an environment where access to weapons is facilitated.
It is important to remember that among human rights defenders, the main victims of murder and disappearance are climate justice defenders. They can be defenders of indigenous peoples, defenders of access to land, activists against mining activities or defenders of rights against large landowners.
Why do you link biodiversity protection and Indigenous rights so closely?
First, because indigenous peoples have historically been — and I’m not romanticizing — the stewards of our planet’s biodiversity. It’s not the same everywhere, but in general, indigenous nations have been much better guardians of biodiversity than states.
Second, the implementation of conservation and protected areas by States has been one of the causes of violations of the rights of indigenous peoples. In the name of conservation, indigenous peoples [ailleurs dans le monde] who lived in symbiosis with this environment were forcibly expelled. Protected areas should not be fortresses where no one can enter, neither non-Natives nor Aboriginals, who nevertheless have a historical and cultural relationship with this environment.
And third, when these protected areas don’t include the people who know them intimately and historically very well, not only does that result in violations of their ancestral rights, but also in a violation of biodiversity itself.
For the first time in its history, Amnesty International has departed from its duty of reserve and neutrality to denounce Russian aggression in Ukraine. Why did you make this decision?
In general, human rights organizations do not take a position on the reasons for the use of force. We take a position on the use that is made of them, and therefore on the violations of rights that accompany them.
But for the first time Amnesty International has decided to take a stand that the Russian invasion itself constitutes a crime — in addition to the war crimes and crimes against humanity committed in connection with that invasion. This is a proven violation of the United Nations Charter which prohibits the use of force against a country at peace and a violation of international humanitarian law.
Like others, Amnesty International is calling for the establishment of a special tribunal to try this crime of aggression — something the International Criminal Court cannot do.
For this special tribunal to have international legitimacy, the United Nations General Assembly would have to adopt a resolution to set it up. We strongly hope that this tribunal has a mandate that allows it to judge future crimes of aggression, and not only that of Russia, in order to give it a preventive value.
Significant violations, and even fatal, human rights have been documented in Qatar. Eshould we boycott the World Cup?
Amnesty International did not call for a boycott of the World Cup for several reasons. For us, this is a huge potential for mobilization and campaigning. It allows us to highlight what is happening in Qatar, as well as FIFA’s responsibilities.
It allowed us to show that Qatari practices in relation to migrant labor probably resulted in thousands of deaths linked to the World Cup and that there was no investigation. We also highlighted the fact that FIFA did not ask for guarantees of protection of human rights and workers’ rights when it awarded the World Cup to Qatar.
With this World Cup, FIFA will put more than US$7 billion in its coffers. It will give around 440 million to the winning teams. What we are asking is that it also give 440 million to the “team of migrants”. They are not playing, but without them there would have been no World Cup.
So far, FIFA — which is determined to deny ethical and legal responsibility — has refused to do so.
In Iran, opponents of the Ayatollahs’ regime have been sentenced to death in recent days. Do you fear an intensification of repression against the protest movement?
Without a doubt. The Iranian government is using all the means at its disposal — violence, lethal force, illegal detentions, torture — to put an end to this revolt, and it is not succeeding.
And now, it is the imprisonments, hasty judgments and death sentences against people who protested. This will be one of the main themes of Amnesty International in the weeks to come: the use of the death penalty to suppress legitimate protest movements.
Amnesty International did not call for a boycott of the World Cup for several reasons. […] It allowed us to show that Qatari practices in relation to migrant labor probably resulted in thousands of deaths linked to the World Cup and that there was no investigation.
This interview has been edited for clarity and conciseness.