Foreign Secretary speaks about Burma on the BBC's The World Tonight Programme

14 May 2008

Foreign Secretary, David Miliband, was interviewed about Burma on the BBC Radio 4's The World Tonight Programme on Tuesday 13 May

Transcript from BBC Radio 4's The World Tonight

Robin Lustig, Presenter: Foreign Secretary, before we get onto your long-term priorities, I want to talk to you about the immediate term, and that has to mean Burma. The Prime Minister said yesterday: "We are determined to make sure that even with the lack of co-operation of the Burmese authorities they are pressured now into the unfettered access that should be available for all humanitarian operations." Pressured how?

David Miliband, Foreign Secretary: Pressured, I think, through every channel that is available. From the top of the UN, the Secretary General's engagement; from the regional contacts, critical countries like China, Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand; so, from a regional level; also from contacts with the regime, from the diplomatic community, from military contacts. Every single angle should be used, because this is a natural disaster, but it's being turned into not just a human catastrophe, but in significant aspects a man-made catastrophe as well.

RL: Because, you see, you said in a speech quite recently: "In extreme cases, the failure of states to exercise their responsibility to protect their own citizens may warrant military intervention on humanitarian grounds." Now I know you were referring then to cases of genocide or ethnic cleansing. Could it not also apply to cases of natural disaster?

DM: It... it certainly could, and we have been absolutely clear in New York over the last 12 days that all instruments of the UN should be available. The particular issue with the phrase that you quoted, the responsibility to protect, which was a landmark decision of the whole of the UN in 2005, did refer, as you implied, to questions of genocide, but it was interesting to hear Gareth Evans, who was then the Australian Foreign Minister, I think, or a former Australian Foreign Minister, who played a leading role in creating this responsibility to protect. He was on the radio this morning talking about how, in circumstances where government was foisting disaster on its people by refusing aid, that would come into the category of responsibility to protect. The issue that gives us an extra wrinkle, though, is that is a legal requirement, the responsibility to protect. It's obviously a political issue, but it's legal and well, and so there are legal questions, but I think politically all instruments, UN or others, should be used, and we've been arguing for that in New York.

RL: You could, for example, send in aid convoys without the permission of the Burmese authorities with military escorts.

DM: Well, you could try to, and it's certainly the case that all options should be looked at. I would say the Burmese regime has 400,000 troops in uniform. No one should think that there is an easy or quick answer to this, and you're right to press, and that's why we're pressing to, for all available means to be considered, but the test has got to be effectiveness.

RL: All available means is a piece of UN jargon which is...

DM: No, it's not.

RL: Well, it is usually held to imply the possibility of military action.

DM: Well, I wasn't... I wasn't seeking to... I'm not well enough... I haven't been in this job for enough years to be using jargon when in fact I'm using plain words...

RL: But you're not ruling it out, no, you're not...

DM: Certainly not. No, I'm saying all instruments, and it's a totally non-jargon way of talking about it. Of course we should be looking at all options. People have talked about aid drops, but it's interesting that the World Food Programme came out yesterday and said look, the trouble with that: we understand the frustration that is leading to people to say "for goodness' sake do something". The World Food said look, aid drops end up losing the vast, vast, vast majority of the aid that's dropped, doesn't go into the right places, but of course we should be looking at that as well, and we are.

RL: Because while you and your fellow political leaders and diplomats express concern, probably thousands of people are dying.

DM: Certainly thousands of people are dying. And the original deaths are the result of the cyclone, but the subsequent deaths are the result of what I have called the malign neglect of a regime that fears help from the outside world more than it welcomes it. And there's a fundamental truth here, not just about the regime, but also about the international system. Because the truth is that in New York we've been arguing that the international community has responsibilities and... as well as the Burmese government. But other countries do take a different view, and they're worried that interference in so-called internal affairs is not a matter for the Security Council, and that is a division in global opinion. And I don't seek to hide that from you; I think we should engage with that issue, because I believe that in an interdependent world, a smaller world, a world where the actions of one country spill over into other countries, we need to develop a notion of national sovereignty that accepts not just responsibility to the international system but responsibility to your own citizens.

RL: Is the option of some kind of military action in order to bring relief to the people of Burma actively under consideration?

DM: Well, I know that we've sent HMS Westminster into the area. It has... it has some aid. The French are sending aid as well. The Americans have got some military assets there. I think the right thing to say is that all options are being looked at, but the test is will they work.

Ends