welcome to hardtalk, i'm stephen sackur. holding governments to account for their abuses of human rights is hard. it requires focused, forensic investigation, impartiality, and no little courage. for six decades, amnesty international has been advocating for prisoners of conscience in the face of state repression. but in recent times, it's both broadened its focus, and faced unprecedented criticism. my guest is agnes callamard, secretary general of amnesty international. is amnesty facing a credibility crisis?

agnes callamard, welcome to hardtalk. thank you for having me. i'm sure you would agree that amnesty�*s international reputation depends upon impartiality, independence, the rigour of your research. how do you think amnesty�*s reputation stands across the world right now? look, based on the various travels i am doing in africa, latin america, asia, our reputation stands very high and firm. people from very remote areas, all the way to political leaders know that they can count on us

if it's needed. i was very recently in peru meeting with indigenous people who had confronted state violence, mothers and fathers who had lost their sons. who was there with them for months after the event, for weeks at a time? amnesty international. we went there and we kept being there for them. i was in taiwan two weeks ago. amnesty international has been in taiwan since the 1980s. we fought the white terror government. we are now in taiwan as an established ngo, but also an ally for the civil society more generally in terms of pushing for the rights agenda in the face of china's repression. so i will say that, around the world, in many places, or in the majority of places, our reputation, our credibility,

and the notion that we are there for people, we are there shoulder by shoulder with them, i think that is strong and it has not been... right, yeah, so what you've just emphasised to me is your presence, both yours and your team's presence in different countries with different human rights challenges. but i would put it to you that what really is telling about our world today is the long list of countries where you are simply not welcome, where you are barred, where governments, frankly, don't really care whether you write critical reports about them. freedom house tells us that repression is on the march in much of the world. absolutely. and, in a sense, that tells us that there are so many countries now which do not really either fear or respect amnesty international.

orfear or respect human rights. i mean, you know, more generally, beyond amnesty international. this is a crisis of global leadership. it's a crisis in vision. it's a crisis in our common humanity. but do you, as a veteran of this work, do you fear that — feel that there are more governments now that have no problem saying to people like you, "you know what? you can't come in, your teams are not welcome..." no, it's true. "..you are barred"? you are absolutely correct. there is a major crisis, actually, prompted by historical forces from climate to inequality, to the restructuring of the international system. china, the us, russia, vying for hegemony and seeking to instrumentalise a range of issues, including human rights. there is an increase in authoritarian practices around the world. we see that reflected in the fact that human rights work is becoming increasingly lethal — deadly. there is absolutely no doubt.

it does not mean that human rights is irrelevant. it's quite the contrary, it means that governments, politicians, have understood that human rights is an obstacle for their misuse, abuse of power, and they are prepared to do everything to prevent it. the importance of rights, you see that reflected, for instance, in the fact that the indigenous people i've just mentioned in peru, they talk about their rights. the people of taiwan who are confronting china's repression, what have they done? they've set up a way of domesticating international convention. the climate change... well, i'm going to stop you, agnes, because... i'm just giving you an example. no, no, iunderstand, and what you're saying is very important.

but isn't there an even more profound problem than just the fact that repression and human rights abuse appears to be on the march in so much of the world? there is another related problem that those countries which are broadly democratic and which proclaim to respect human rights, don't seem to care so much about dealing with those countries where repression is rampant. to take china — and you've alluded to taiwan several times, china is a country you write reports upon, but which, frankly, you and your teams are not able to work inside easily. often your reports are based on the accounts of exiles. and you have said — i mean, not long ago, you described china as a "dystopian hellscape on a staggering scale". you talk about the excessive repression of minorities in xinjiang and tibet. but the truth is, when you called, for example, for the eu to end its dialogue and much of its trade with china, the eu ignored you. macron, scholz, others, they rush to beijing, they want warm relations. absolutely, am—hm. the west doesn't care. the west is caring far less. the so—called democratic leaders are instrumentalising human rights. they are using double standards.

so when they care, when they care, when it's important for their own agenda, they will use the human rights platform. when it's not positive or something that doesn't match their agenda, they will ignore. this is the reality of the world we live in. we are fully aware of it. that does not mean that human rights is irrelevant. it just you're less and less effective. it means that we keep working, that we keep fighting. it means that we need to be present for those who fight. look at the number of protests around the world in response to this instrumentalization of rights, in response to this increase of violations of human rights, including by so—called democratic leaders, we are confronting a plethora of protests. people are taking to the streets. they have no other options. they are getting poorer. their rights are violated. they are far more insecure than they were a decade ago.

lgbt rights are being trampled. for all those reasons, we are seeing a multiplication of protest. what does it mean? it means rights matter. 0k, well, let's. .. it matters to people. it matters to those who want to fight for their own humanity and that of their children. and we need to be there. yes, we may not get it right, but does it mean we should move away? absolutely not. we need to be there, you say. but what matters, if you are there, is your reputation, your credibility. would you accept that the way you have handled the unfolding disaster in ukraine following the russian military invasion of february 2022, your reporting and your handling of the abuses within that war has been a disaster. it's been deeply counterproductive to your reputation. no, no, no, no, no, no, no. let me be very... i will be the first to acknowledge

where we got it wrong. but let me begin by where we got it right. within a week of the invasion, we had a team on the ground. we have been documenting russian war crimes from february all the way to now, and we continue to do that. we have even documented what we believe amount to a crime against humanity. we have produced a more than 400—page report documenting russian war crimes, whether it's in bucha, borodyanka, mariupol. .. no doubt you've done that, no doubt you've done that. when i refer to a disaster, i'm not referring to those reports, which of course are echoing the work done by the un investigations team, the icc. exactly. we know all of that. but what you chose to do in a report... no, no, no... hang on, what you chose to do in august 2022 was release another report which pointed a finger directly at the ukrainian military — yeah? yeah. ..in which you said, quote, "the ukrainian army is endangering the life "of civilians by basing

themselves "in residential areas." "we," you said, "have documented a pattern of ukrainian forces "putting civilians at risk, violating the laws of war." that was august 2022. now, with some distance, would you say you got it wrong in that report? no, i will not say that. i will say, because let me be very clear, those findings were notjust our findings. you mention the un, they've documented it. i can mention a number of ngos who have documented it. where we made mistakes, we have made mistakes. first of all, we did not contextualise properly what was happening. we did not provide sufficient evidence. we were... why didn't you — hang on, this is important. just give me quick, concise answers.

why didn't you contextualise properly? because your own staff, in your own office in ukraine, led by oksana pokalchuk, were telling you of the context, and telling you that this high—profile report from august 2022 was a grave mistake. why didn't you listen? that's absolutely an accurate question and an appropriate question. and we are learning from that particular mistake. we did not hear properly, we did not act properly. we did not contextualise properly in the name of what we believed, or what my colleagues believed, what i believed was the right thing to do, which was to protect the people that were near the location of those militaries. the ukrainian government responded — if i may — the ukrainian government responded with this. the minister of defence, alexi resnikoff, who's been on this programme several times, he said that attempt to question the right of ukrainians to resist genocide was a perversion. and i come back to this problem you've got. your credibility and your reputation is your currency.

on the other hand, you have also mentioned impartiality as being a key. and i want to insist on the fact that, absolutely, many of the critiques that have been made at that report are accurate and appropriate, and we are taking the steps to address it. that does not mean that the key principle of impartiality is not appropriate either. it also does not mean that international humanitarian law does not apply to ukraine. of course it applies to ukraine. but let me be very clear. the key focus should be right now on russia's war crimes, on what we believe in terms of what has been done with... because for a while, that focus shifted, because of your report — i just want to be very clear about this — did you consider resigning? people called upon you to resign. no, i did not. never entered your head? no, i did not. the only people who can

ask for my resignation is the international board of amnesty international. they have not done so. there are many grounds, i will imagine, for people to, you know, for them to assess my performance. and that's certainly one of them. but that has not come into the conversation. what has come into the conversation is... let's not make it entirely personal. let's then talk about the bigger picture, cos you are a veteran of human rights advocacy over many decades, and you just talked to me about that notion of impartiality. do you think it applies in a war like the russia—ukraine war? do you think amnesty international has a duty to stay entirely impartial? why don't you ask the question to people in africa, to people who are looking at what's happening in ethiopia, why aren't you asking those questions? why are you not going to peru and asking them whether impartiality...? there's a phrase called whataboutery, when you avoid a difficult question by alighting upon a different question.

impartiality concerns the entire world. you are standing here and you are adopting a very narrow perspective on what matters to the world. i can assure you that if you go to senegal, if you go to zambia, if you go to south africa, if you go to peru, if you go to taiwan, if you go to thailand, people will tell you, "no, that does not matter." what matters is impartiality. what matters is the capacity of amnesty international to stand firm and to denounce violations by whoever they are done and wherever they are happening. our landscape is the world. it is not the uk policy, it is not the us policy, and it is not even the ukrainian policy. it is the ukrainian people. this is why i have repeated that, yes, we made mistakes with this report, but we are also moving strongly into wanting to hold the russian government to account, wanting to contribute to holding the russian government to account. for us right now, the priority must

bejustice for the ukrainian people. this is where we are devoting our time and energy right now, not engaging into intellectual discussion as to what impartiality means. impartiality means we need to support the ukrainian people and we need to support the ethiopian people, and we need to support the people in the drc that are largely neglected by our western leaders and by the western media. we need to support the people in peru who are being killed by their governments, all the people of colombia whose lands are being taken away by armed groups. that is the world. just one more question on impartiality. in terms of a different part of the world and a different conflict, is it representative of your impartiality to consistently call israel an apartheid state? it's representative of the fact.

you know? apartheid is, of course, blatant out—and—out, systemic racism. so you're in essence saying israel is a racist state? yes, the state of israel is practising a crime against humanity, of apartheid against the palestinian people. we have investigated those violations for four years. we've produced this report in february 20...last year on apartheid, calling on the state of israel to be fair. to be fair, notjust one report. many reports accuse israel of systemic apartheid in everything from the operation of its security forces in the occupied territories, to its more recent use of surveillance technologies. you characterise it consistently as apartheid. but listen to the impact your reports have had inside israel. for example, former senior figure in the government there, yair lapid. he says, "amnesty doesn't call

syria, where the regime's murdered half a million of its own citizens, an apartheid state, or iran, or other murderous regimes around the world. it is only israel." look, this is not the first time amnesty international has used apartheid. we've also demonstrated apartheid in the context of myanmar. we have certainly denounced the massive crimes against humanity committed by the syrian governments. but the fact that we are criticising and denouncing the policies, laws and practices of the israeli government does not amount to anti—semitism. of course, anti—semitism must be denounced. of course, amnesty international will and does denounce it. we are also producing... do you think you get it proportionally right? i mean, we started this interview talking about the many problems around the world. we could have mentioned, specifically myanmar, or ethiopia or a whole host of others.

you picked, i did not pick. no, no. you picked. so i'm just saying, when you consider the amount of resource, the amount of time that you devote to israel—palestine, do you think it is proportionate to the problems that we see in so many other parts of the world? absolutely. has your producer looked at our reports on myanmar, how many we produced over the last few years? far more than we did on israel. no, you know, we are focusing on israel at apartheid because this is a massive human rights violation that must be denounced. i was in israel myself to launch this report. i have to tell you, i have never been in an environment where i confronted so much hopelessness. and the absurdity of how apartheid is worked itself, in the context of the occupied territories, and israel is mind—boggling.

all right, you've made that point. let's move on, because we don't have much time left, and we don't want to just focus on particular countries. i want to make a broader point. amnesty international was founded to fight the repressive abuses of governments around the world. you characterise it as defending prisoners of conscience, fighting against torture and the death penalty. today, amnesty releases reports about climatejustice, saying more oil equals more problems. you enter into debates about global economicjustice. do you think you're in danger of diffusing the strong and focused message of your organisation? absolutely not. the basis for amnesty�*s work is the udhr. in fact, we're celebrating... the universal declaration of human rights. yeah, we're celebrating its 75th anniversary. and now is not the time to suggest that it cannot be

the basis for the work. the udhr recognise a range of human rights. amnesty international is not only focusing on civil and political rights, even though that's where we started. but agnes callamard, there are a host of organisations focused completely and solely, for example, on the urgent need for climate change action, on the dangerous warming of our planet. what extra can amnesty international provide in a field like that when you have so much to do, as we've discussed, on core human rights? i mean, i can show you. what is vanuatu doing right now? what is the general assembly doing on climate change? the only important thing that was done over the last six months, it mandated the international court ofjustice to provide an advisory opinion on climate change as a human rights issue, 0k? what happened less than a year ago? less than a year ago, the general assembly of the un adopted the notion

that there is a right, the right to a clean environment. the human rights agenda, the human rights framework is absolutely central to climate injustice and to fighting for it. well, that's a powerful message. it provides a standard, it provides law, it provides adjudication, and it provides activism. it's a powerful message. are there any territories within the widest sort of interpretation of a human rights remit that you are wary of entering? i'm thinking, for example, of arguments about sex and gender, and the rights of the transgender community across the world. is there a danger that if amnesty treads into some territories, it will get caught up in global cultural wars and arguments which aren't helpful to your core message?

the cultural wars are part and parcel of fighting for human rights. the fact that lgbti, that women, that trans, are being targeted by authoritarian leaders, authoritarian practices around the world does mean, does demand that amnesty international be present. the uganda anti—homosexuality act, the anti... another law passed by hungary. the anti—trans laws adopted by many states in the united states. the rejection of gender. of course we need to be there — why? because those laws are suggesting that lgbti people are not human, that they don't have the same humanity as us, and that is absolutely undermining the entire human rights system. we need to be there with them shoulder to shoulder.

you radiate energy and passion, but ijust wonder in your heart of hearts whether right now you are overwhelmed by gloom and pessimism? because, as we've established from the very beginning of this interview, the tides and the currents across the world are running against the rights that amnesty international has been fighting for for so long. i don't, and you know why? because that is the only way, in my opinion, to prevent the world from falling into an abyss. at the moment, this is where politicians and leaders are bringing us, through a lack of common vision and common humanity. human rights is the only way at the moment we can make some claims and try to present the world with a differentjourney. we cannot afford to lose that battle because, if we lose it, it's the entire world that is losing. but you are losing it.

well, and then we need to keep fighting, and we need to keep fighting harder. like the people of peru, like the people of taiwan, like the people of senegal, who are fighting for their rights and democracy. like the people of ukraine that are fighting for their independence. we need to keep fighting, we need to resist. all right. we need to disrupt, and we need to transform. these are the three absolute commitments that we have to make, to the world... all right, agnes callamard... ..and to our children and grandchildren. it's an important message. i don't mean to interrupt it, but we have to end. thank you for being on hardtalk. thank you very much. hello there. generally, over the next few days, it's going to be a mixture of sunshine, but also some showers. over the last 2a hours, we have seen quite muggy air heading our way from the atlantic. it's brought with it a lot of cloud, had some rain around as well. but before the rain arrived in eastern england,

it was quite warm on wednesday, suffolk was a woman's it was quite warm on wednesday, suffolk was the warmest place in the country with temperatures of 2a degrees. but this was the cloud that's been streaming in from the atlantic. it's been bringing with it some steady rain as well. all on these weather fronts here, the worst of the rain is going to get moved away out into the north sea. it dries off later on in the night, but there's still a lot of cloud. and so it's going to be a much warmer start to thursday with temperatures typically 14 or 15 degrees, buta dull, misty, damp start and fog over the hills. the rain may continue on and off through the day in northern parts of mainland scotland, possibly through the english channel and along the south coast, where it's going to be breezy. elsewhere, the winds do become lighter. it may well brighten up a little bit, as well. some sunshine coming through that could trigger some showers, a few sharp ones in the north east of england. but it should be slightly warmer across northern ireland, wales and western areas of england, with the highest temperatures again in eastern parts of england.

first day of the fifth, the test match begins at the oval and it may well be a bit frustrating. some help for the bowlers, but there may well be some rain around, especially in the afternoon. as we head into the end of the week, and we're going to keep an eye on this area of low pressure that's sort of dominating the weather at the moment. but it gets closer and brings more showers in on friday to northern ireland, especially later on in the day, perhaps into western most parts of scotland. otherwise, a few mist patches, some sunshine at times, a few showers developing here and there, but probably not too many. many places, i think, we'll have a dry day on friday. and those temperatures could still reach 2a, maybe even 25 degrees across east anglia. but another weekend, another area of low pressure that's going to dominate the weather again. it'll slide its way eastwards across the northern half of the uk. and this is where we may well find some persistent rain at times and there'll be some stronger winds wrapped around that area of low pressure initially in northern ireland, then moving over the irish sea into the northwest of england and northwest. so, maybe the wetter weather for northern parts of the uk. whilst there'll be some sunshine

in the south, there will be some showers and it's not particularly warm.

welcome to newsday, reporting live from singapore, i'm mariko oi. the headlines. # nothing compares 2 you...#

the irish singer and activist sinead o'connor dies at the age of 56. president biden�*s son, hunter unexpectedly pleads not guilty to two charges of tax offences. hollywood actor kevin spacey says he's grateful and humbled after being found not guilty of sexually assaulting 4 men. 70 years since an armistice ended the fighting in the korean war we speak to a south korean veteran who was held captive in the north.

the acclaimed irish singer songwriter sinead o'connor has