Foreign Secretary on BBC Radio 4's The World Tonight programme

14 May 2008

David Miliband took part in an interview for the BBC Radio 4 programme The World Tonight on Tuesday 13 May. He answered questions on Burma, China, Afghanistan, Sudan and Kosovo.

Foreign Secretary, David Miliband, was interviewed on the BBC Radio 4 current affairs programme The World Tonight on Tuesday 13 May. Read his comments on Burma, discussed at the beginning of the interview, on a separate article on the FCO Newspage.

The other issues discussed during the interview were Afghanistan, Sudan, Kosovo, China and the European Union. They can be read below.

Robin Lustig, Presenter: Alright, let's move on, then, to the long term, the philosophy that underpins Britain's foreign policy. You've set out four priorities that you say should be present when you consider how British foreign policy should be developed. You've identified them as counter-terrorism, preventing and resolving conflict, encouraging a transition to a high growth, low carbon economy, and reform of international institutions . So let's start with counter-terrorism; in particular let's look at what we're doing in Afghanistan. I'd like to play you some comments that we collected in Helmand Province, where, of course, British troops are in action. We asked a few people there how much of an impact they think British troops are making.

Unnamed Man #1, Helmand Province: [Through interpreter] I don't see that they are having much impact, as each day there is more and more fighting. And if they were having an impact, the fighting would stop. There are only three districts in Helmand under government control; the rest is controlled by the Taliban. The troops are wasting their time. We don't see any advantages of them being here, because their bombing results in killing off people and the destruction of their houses.

Unnamed Man #2, Helmand Province: [Through interpreter] Foreign troops are having no impact on the Taliban. In fact, the Brits and the Americans are helping the Taliban. We want someone to defend us. We don't know what is happening. The Taliban killed my son-in-law and took away our car. Now his widow and orphans are with me. So foreign troops are not having a good impact. Districts like Nowzad, [unclear], Baghran and others are all under the control of the Taliban.

Unnamed Man #3, Helmand Province: [Through interpreter] Foreign troops are having a good impact. For example, the Taliban used to come to our houses and steal stuff. But now when they see the foreign troops' planes coming, they run away, because they know they cannot win.

Unnamed Man #4, Helmand Province: [Through interpreter] The foreign troops have no impact on the Taliban. The Taliban is getting bigger and bigger day by day. And whoever says that foreign troops are having an impact is wrong. The truth is that people are being kidnapped, and there, there is looting and other crime. So what kind of impact are they having? This district is not under government control.

Robin Lustig, Presenter: With one exception there, those comments paint a pretty dismal picture of British counter-terrorism policy in Afghanistan, don't they?

David Miliband, Foreign Secretary: Those comments did. I can tell you what our evidence is and our impression is. Helmand was ungoverned space by the government of Afghanistan until, in support of the government of Afghanistan, British troops went there. I think that there is clear evidence, first that in conventional military combat the Taliban are losing, not winning. And the best evidence for that is that they are turning away from conventional military engagement with our troops and seeking refuge in terrorist incidents in Kabul and elsewhere. Secondly, in respect of building up Afghan institutions, because in the end we're not creating a colony in Helmand Province; we're trying to create a self-governing society. The Afghan National Army now has a presence. The reform of the police force is absolutely critical. And obviously this is the fourth poorest country in the world. It hasn't got school or hospitals or any of the basics that we take for granted, and British aid is making a difference. And that's why it's important to look at British troops, yes, but at the whole British strategy.

RL: You have recognised in the past that any effective counter-terrorism policy has to be more than simply military; that you can't win on the battlefield; that you need, to use the old phrase, hearts and minds as well. Yet there are very real differences, aren't there, between the British Government and President Karzai, over how and when to engage diplomatically with the Taliban?

DM: Well, I wouldn't say that, actually. He is the democratically elected leader of Afghanistan. And actually, I've sat with him in his office, twice, in Kabul, and discussed with him that any Taliban who want to work within the constitutional system of Afghanistan should be brought in, and those that refuse to should be marginalised; and that is a common position.

RL: The other element, surely, if you are serious about trying to deal with possible future terrorist threats to this country, is to deal with the issue of the border area with Pakistan, what's happening across the border in Pakistan, the whole Pashtun issue. Now, how much attention are you actually giving that?

DM: A lot. And you are absolutely right, that there is no solution in Afghanistan without stability in Pakistan and vice-versa. Stability in Pakistan - remember the border, it's 2,600km. Across the border, one of the key areas is the federally-administered tribal area, a bequest from Britain 60 years ago that has never had its own politics. It's always been run from Islamabad. We are very engaged, and actually, I went to the North-West Frontier Province when I was in Pakistan two or three weeks ago; went to Peshawar, met the local political leaders who want to get involved in politics there. And it's absolutely critical that we have an Afghan government that isn't simply shunting problems onto the Pakistan side of the border, and a Pakistan government that's shunting them the other way. We need complimentary strategies on both sides of the border. And straight after this interview I'm going off to speak to the Pakistani Foreign Minister precisely about this.

RL: Alright. Well, let's move on, then, to your second foreign policy objective, which you call Preventing and Resolving Conflict. Back in the 1990s, Rwanda, Somalia were both appalling examples of what can happen when conflicts are not prevented; arguably, Sierra Leone, Bosnia, Kosovo were examples of where international intervention has helped at least to stop violence even if it hasn't resolved underlying conflict. However, what about Darfur in Sudan? Five years of conflict, more than 200,000 people estimated to have died, more than 2m displaced from their homes. We asked the writer and analyst Alex de Waal, who was a member of the African Union Mediation Team on Darfur for his thoughts.

RL: Foreign Secretary, you and your colleagues have put a lot of effort in trying to get a UN peacekeeping force deployed in Darfur; Alex de Waal says that they pave the way to a problem from hell.

DM: There are 10,000 UN or African Union troops there, on the way to the 26,000, too slowly. But Alex de Waal is absolutely right to say that those of us who have good intentions should reach first for a political solution, and then use military to back it up. And it's an immensely complicated problem in Darfur. Yes, there's a... the question of the relationship between Khartoum, the capital of Sudan, and Darfur. But there's also the relationship between Sudan and Chad, the second aspect of this. And the third part of the jigsaw is the north/south issue within Sudan, the Comprehensive Peace Agreement that is now being monitored by the former British Ambassador to Cairo. Our push has been on all three of those political fronts, as well as the Prime Minister sponsoring, with President Sarkozy of France, the UN Security Council resolution to bring in the AU/UN force.

RL: There is this new UN doctrine: the responsibility to protect vulnerable citizens. And yet Alex de Waal says it's only an empty slogan, and surely the truth is that unless you get a consensus at the UN, which is not likely - certainly on this particular issue - it is simply an empty promise.

DM: Well, the problem on this issue is not actually in the UN, because there is agreement on a UN/AU force. The problem is on the ground, and it's in negotiating with the government in Khartoum and ensuring that rebels live up to their responsibilities as well. So actually, I don't accept the accusation that it's the UN's nations that are at fault, at least in this particular aspect of this case. And the emphasis on humanitarian aid is absolutely right. £340m given by British taxpayers has gone in, precisely to reduce the death rates and improve the conditions of people in Darfur. So of course it cannot be a military strategy alone. But preventing killing is an important part of the strategy.

RL: In your mind, though, is this new doctrine the responsibility that the international community has to protect people who are at risk? Is that a moral imperative, or does it always come down to pragmatic considerations along the lines of those that were outlined back in 1999 by Tony Blair when he made his Chicago speech about circumstances in which what he called humanitarian intervention was justified?

DM: Well, I think it's both. The moral impulse is important but it's got to be effective. There's no point in having a moral impulse if then what you do either makes the problem worse or doesn't make it better. So I think there's a dual test. But I think that the responsibility to protect does take us into new terrain because it recognises that what states do to their own citizens isn't just a matter for them. It can have consequences beyond its borders, and we need to recognise that.

RL: In the context, then, of this responsibility to protect, where do you put Kosovo?

DM: Well, Kosovo has got 16,000 Nato troops. It's also got a declaration of independence recognised by 42 countries, and it's got a regional political perspective of the seven countries of the former Yugoslavia looking towards Europe. So I think it's a good example of how if you deploy hard power you can actually prevent crises emerging, prevent conflict emerging before they do, and give room for a political solution that we're working for.

RL: Foreign Secretary, let's move onto your third priority, which you say is encouraging a transition to a high growth, low carbon economy. And of course, what that largely boils down to is finding some way to limit global carbon gas emissions without harming the prospects for economic growth, particularly in countries like China and India. Now, you were in China recently, and our Diplomatic Correspondent Paul Adams was with you.

RL: Back here in London, Foreign Secretary, the problem you have is that you're keen to engage with the Chinese on issues like sustainable development, enabling economic growth without increasing climate change concerns; you also know that there are very widespread concerns about their human rights record. How do you reconcile those two things?

DM: I think by speaking plainly and honestly. In respect of climate change, I think there's been a big change in the last ten years, because the changing climate is now seen as a threat to Chinese stability and actually to Chinese growth. I don't think that there is a... any incompatibility between speaking plainly about cooperation on those issues, and at the same time speaking plainly about human rights in general and specific issues in particular, which I did on my visit.

RL: You don't think you have to soft-peddle on human rights if you want them to take seriously what you say about development?

DM: That's not my experience, no. I think the most important thing, though, is that we are consistent about what we say on human rights and that we say the same thing in public as we say in private; that we don't posture with a megaphone but we actually engage seriously. And the argument I try to put is to say that if you care about the stability of your society, you have to give vent to popular frustration, vent to popular ambition, but also a recognition of popular rights, and human rights is an important part of that. And that's an argument that one has to make from one's own history: recognising a different situation in China but one that nonetheless I think speaks to those universal values.

RL: Let's move on, then, to your fourth priority: reforming the international system. Gordon Brown was talking about it in Boston not long ago. He called for new global agreements and strengthened global institutions. He identified the United Nations, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, as the sorts of institutions that he had in mind. But as you will know, there are people who do wonder if reforming bloated international institutions really is the best way to make the world a better place. So I sought the advice of one of Britain's most eminent former diplomats, Sir Crispin Tickell, who was the UK Ambassador to the United Nations in the late 1980s; one of the first people to warn about climate change.

RL: David Miliband, if I were a Chinese diplomat or a Russian diplomat and you started talking to me about a rules-based system in international institutions, I would say to you: where was your belief in that when you went to war in Iraq? Where was your belief in that when you recognised Kosovo?

DM: Well, Kosovo, let's take that case. Resolution 1244, passed in 1999 in the ruins of the former Yugoslavia, established the process that led to the independence of Kosovo, including a UN-backed plan, 14 months in the gestation, from the former President of Finland, Mr Ahtisaari. So I would say we followed the rules. We acted on the basis of international law. We acted on the basis of principal and pragmatism, and I don't see the two as opposed. And of course any country will say 'well, why should we listen to you?' What I'm trying to say is there should be common cause here, whether you're a strong country or a weak country, in having institutions that have the legitimacy and credibility from being aligned with the nature of the modern world and not the world as it was. And the core point of Gordon Brown's speech in Boston was, whether it's the United Nations or the European Union or the International Monetary Fund, they were set up in the post-Second World War period for a different world; a world of the Cold War. And the Cold War is gone; there are new problems; we... there's a new distribution of power in the world; that needs to be reflected.

RL: Let me ask you about the European Union. You have spoken warmly of its potential in the past. But you don't seem very often keen to talk about it in this country. You talk about it in Brussels, you talk about it in Bruges. Why don't you sing the praises of the EU here in Britain?

DM: Well, I certainly do, and there are very few speeches that I make that don't emphasise that Britain is better off in the EU and the EU is better off for Britain being in it; better off economically, better off politically, better off in a whole range of ways. So there's no hesitation about saying we should be pro-European and pro-reform in the European Union.

RL: David Miliband, thank you very much.

DM: Thank you.