World on the Move: Angelina Jolie Pitt in Conversation with Mishal Husain

to the BBC theatre were Angelina Jolie pate is making a keynote

speech on migration. Welcome to this special broadcast on

Radio 4 and the BBC News Channel in the UK. And welcome also to viewers

and listeners elsewhere. We are also being streamed live on the BBC News

website. It is an appropriately global audience to discuss a global

issue. The mass movement of people that has affected so many countries

over the last year. Some seeing an exodus, others and often unwelcoming

plugs. It is something that our speaker has seen first-hand for the

last 15 years. She is today the Special Envoy for the UN High

Commissioner for Refugees and she has travelled the world to meet

those who have fled their country is because of war and persecution.

Those whose independent journeys are part of the global migration

picture. She has also used her profile to campaign against sexual

violence in conflict. She will be speaking and then taking questions

from the audience here in the radio Theatre.

Please welcome Angelina Jolie. APPLAUSE.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you. I am very, very honoured

to be here. Over 60 million people are displaced today. More than any

time in the last 70 years. That is one in every 122 people. This tells

us something deeply worrying about the peace and security of our world.

It says that for all other advances this type of human insecurity is

growing faster than our ability to prevent or reverse it. The

international humanitarian system is supposed to work on the basis that

refugees will be protected. Largely in camps where they can be given

basic food, shelter and accommodation, as a temporary

measure until they can return to their homes. During this time, the

exceptional cases of the most vulnerable people can be identified

for asylum in a third country and then moved. That is how the system

has worked and how it should work. Today we are seeing it breakdown.

Not because the model is flawed or because refugees are behaving

differently. Because the number of conflicts and scale of displacement

have grown so large. In the past six years, 15 conflicts have erupted or

reignited. The average time a person will spend displaced is now 20

years. 20 years in exile. The number of refugees returning to their homes

is the lowest it has been in three decades. Africa has more people

displaced than ever before. And millions of refugees live without

sufficient food or proper shelter, let alone education, because UN

appeals are drastically underfunded. The UNHCR appeal for the Central

African Republic, for example, is less than 3% funded. With this the

state of today's world, is it any surprise that some of these

desperate people running out of all options, who see no hope of

returning home, would make a push for Europe as a last resort, even at

risk of death? The question is how we will respond as democracies and

an international community, to this major test of our values and our

resolve? The spotlight has been firmly on Europe. But the crisis in

Europe is only a fraction of the global refugee problem. And

therefore the solution is being discussed for Europe, our only a

fraction of the overall answer. We in the West are neither at the

centre of the refugee crisis, nor for the most part the ones making

the greatest sacrifice. The majority of the world's refugees live in

Turkey, Pakistan, Lebanon, Iran, Ethiopia and Jordan. My argument is

that unless we address the root causes of the crisis, we will not

see a slowing of the number of refugees crossing borders. And in

fact, quite the opposite. Countries around the world will be asked to do

more and more. European nations are currently negotiating to resettle

10% of refugees from just one conflict, Syria, while other

countries are bursting at the seams with millions of refugees from

multiple conflicts. So what we must do first and foremost, as citizens,

is to demand our governments show the leadership necessary to address

the fundamental causes of the refugee crisis at a global level.

This is the wider picture that I would like to address today. I know

that no one can speak for 60 million displaced people. And I know that it

is the democratic right of the citizens of each country to reach

their own conclusions about the right way forward. I therefore put

my thoughts before you with humility and respect, seeking to understand

all points of view. On one hand the refugee crisis has produced great

acts of generosity and solidarity with refugees, here in Europe and in

other parts of the world. And on the other hand, fear of uncontrolled

migration has eroded public confidence and the ability of

governments and international institutions to control the

situation. It has given space to a false air of legitimacy to those who

promote politics of fear and separation. It has created the risk

of a race to the bottom, with countries competing to be the

toughest. In the hope of protecting themselves, whatever the cost or a

challenge to their neighbours, and despite their international

responsibilities. But since no country can seal itself off from the

impact of the refugee crisis, such a free for all would lead to an even

greater set of problems. It would amount to the worst of both worlds,

failing to tackle the issue and undermining international law and

our values in the process. And there is another factor. At the moment,

when we need strong, collective action, we are questioning our

ability to cope with international crises. I'm sure that many people

listening feel this. We have watched the events of the last few decades

wanting to see progress, probably feeling we are doing our part to

make that happen. But after so many years of failed attempts by

governments and leaders to do the right thing, we feel angry, we feel

cheated, we feel confused. We are starting to think that maybe it is

simply not possible to make a lasting difference. But the worst

possible choice we could make is to decide to step back from the world.

The last time there was this number of refugees was after World War II,

when nations came together to forge the United nations, the UN Charter

and the universal declaration of human rights. I believe this is

again that once in a generation moment. Nations have to pull

together. How we respond will determine whether we create a more

stable world face decades of greater instability. Add its extremes, the

debate about refugees in Western nations has been polarised. With

only 100 some people calling for open borders, on the other hand, for

the complete exclusion of all refugees, or worse, certain groups

of refugees. But policies should not be driven by emotion, by what might

be termed as naive humanitarianism. Placing the perceived needs of

refugees above all other considerations. Or by irrational

fear and unacceptable prejudice. Instead, we need to find a rational

centre. Rebuilding public confidence and ensuring democratic consent for

the long-term approach that will be needed. I believe each government

should make a new compact with its people. Setting out what their

country can contribute. Based on an objective assessment of the needs,

of the available resources and the capacity of local communities, to

absorb certain numbers of refugees where that is appropriate. It calls

for policies which balance the needs of local communities, with the needs

of refugees, which are properly funded, communicated and implemented

consistently over time. The point is every country must do its fair share

and no country can abdicate its responsibility. I suggest this

should be based on four principles. First, it is not wrong for citizens

in any country, faced with a sudden surge of people seeking refuge

within their borders, to want to know there are strong processes in

place to prevent law and order, to preserve and protect their security.

No one should be crossing a border and not registering and going

through an asylum process. Second, it is important to maintain the

distinction between refugees and economic migrants. And economic

migrant chooses to move to improve their lives and livelihoods.

Refugees have to move if they are to save their lives and preserve their

freedoms. However difficult the situation economics migrants are

seeking to escape, however understandable their motivation,

there is no blanket human rights to resettle in another country. And

there is no answer to global poverty and insecurity that involves the

mass transfer of people. To put it another way, all human beings

deserve equal human rights. But all people seeking asylum do not have

equal grounds for asylum. Everyone must respect the laws and asylum

procedures. That said, we must bear in mind that the distinction is

complex. And must never be used as a way of dismissing migrants who have

valid claims for asylum. I would add that we would fail the basic test of

humanity if we discriminate between refugees on the basis of religion,

race or ethnicity. When I made a refugee I do not see a Muslim

refugee or a Christian refugee or a Yazidi. I see a mother or a father,

a son or a daughter, a people with an equal right to stand in dignity

on this planet. Populations uprooted in the future of their countries.

These are decent families, registering and waiting peacefully

for a chance to return home. And the majority of them are women and

children. We should never make them feel like beggars. Or worse, like a

commodity to be traded between countries, a burden, or even a

threat, or that their children are not considered people to others.

Nobody wants to be a refugee. Nobody deserves to be a refugee. And for as

long as war is part of the human condition, none of us are immune to

becoming refugees. So all refugees merit equal respect and compassion.

And third, it would be naive to think that we can protect ourselves,

selectively, alone from the challenges of a globalised world by

pulling away from other countries or peoples. As with any global problem

in the 21st century, on co-ordinated national responses are not the

answer. An unstable world is a non-safe world. For everybody. And

there is no barrier high enough to protect from such disorder and

desperation. And not favour if you lock your

doors. Isolation is not strength. Fragmentation is not the answer.

Strength lies in being unafraid and working with others and living up to

our highest ideals. We must not change who we are because we face a

crisis. And finally, none of this would be enough unless we address

the underlying causes of the refugee crisis. Shouldn't we be asking how

to make the world more stable, rather than asking how to stabilise

a mass of displaced people? What are the failures and flaws of our

international system that are causing the number of refugees to

grow larger every day? We need to recognise that decades of broken

promises, double standards, impartial justice are fundamental

part of how we got into today's situation. If we look back and see

this many people displaced, and this much conflict, and so little

accountability, then we have two question the source of the problem.

When a security council member uses its speed to win killing civilians,

when civilians are being killed by their own Government, all we turn

away from a conflict to soon, all the cases referred to the

international criminal court and we don't give it sufficient support,

when we don't help nations trade fairly in the world so they can

stand on their own, or partially meet UN aid appeal and think we have

one, in all these cases, the consequences are deeper conflict and

wider instability which leads to the type of mass displacement we are

dealing with today. If these things continue to happen, there will be

further displacement, and more people on the borders of Europe, and

elsewhere. The long-term answer involves bounding our world on laws

and accountability, held at the distant that idea, and genuinely

working towards the common interests, achieving this will be

the work of generations, but it underscores why we cannot step back

from the effort to build a more stable world beyond our borders, and

a better future for our children. Yes, it is a difficult time in

history, where there are people bent on pilots, with no thought for the

lives they will ruin by their actions, but we have been through

tough times and we have faced the worst of humanity on a global scale

with people intent on destroying our democracies, and we have fought back

from that. We have more awareness and we have matched big enemies, and

if we learn anything from the past, this is what should rally us

together, not withdrawing, but decided to come together and show

leadership. This is a duty that falls on all of us, to the next UN

Secretary General, to civil society, to governments, to everyone of us.

And whether we succeed will help this -- to find this century. You'll

turn to is chaos and further displacement. -- the alternative.

Institutions buckling under the strain of human catastrophe that we

could have prevented. Thank you very much.

APPLAUSE Angelina Jolie, you are listening to

a special broadcast on BBC Four, BBC world News, part of the day of

programming that we are calling World On The Move, looking at global

migration from many different angles. Angelina Jolie will be thou

taking questions, including from our audience. I'd like to ask you, how

different it is today, our perception of migration and refugee

issues. Probably many people think of it as a moment of crisis,

compared to what it was like when you started working 15 years ago?

There have always been many millions of people displaced since the dawn

of time. When I started, there were millions then, but it was very

different. There were many returns, and I was fortunate to be a part of

those returns. And when I would visit a refugee camp, the focus

wasn't on the country asylum, it was on how to balance the camp, get a

secondary school in the camp, appeal for food, funding needing topped up.

You are able to work with the displaced people in a way that there

was more order. There was more funding. There were less numbers,

and now, it's very distressing when I go to the situations in these

camps, where it doesn't feel in any way like it used to, and it feels...

I know that we want to say that we are -- we are doing at that, we have

enough, but we are underfunded for far too long, and the crisis around

the world, we are really trying to make up for lack of appeal is being

met, and we aren't able to give people what they need. You've talked

about a risk of a race to the bottom of the countries to be really tough.

Can you understand those countries all around the world, because they

taken in refugees, or they taken in many numbers, might not feel welcome

in? Of course I do. When it is not explained to you. When we have media

and politicians preying on our fears, saying that everything wrong

would be this person's fault. Migration is the root of all that's

going wrong, when they don't to explain who these people are, or the

vetting process, they don't help you to understand what people go through

in order to get here. I stepped people through the process. I've

watched as they wait month by month to get the right paperwork to do it

the right way, and get on the right lists. And when we go through that

process, there is a process to see this person is -- has grounds for

asylum and should be listened to. A lot of people don't feel that they

is not that order in place. People aren't met borders with the right

amount of manpower, they aren't understanding the process, and some

people are pushing to pass by that process and not get registered, and

it is bad for everybody. That's about the responsibility direct

Yuji, migrants, and the Government. They need to understand how to

manage it, communicate better, because there are many ways in

which... We all know that migration can benefit a community. Let's turn

to our first collection from an Afghan born refugee who is now

broadcaster. I want to know about your distinction between migrant and

refugee. I fled the Taliban, but there were lots of reasons why we

fled to Britain. I don't know how helpful it might be to create these

silos in which we put people, whether it's economic migrants,

asylum seekers, refugees. I'm wondering whether you think these

terms are helpful? I do think it's important because first of all there

is a difference, which is that an economic migrant, we spoke about,

absolutely admirable in their need for a better life, the desire for a

better life, and if it was me I would do the same for my family in

that situation. A refugee, and certain migrants, are coming because

of persecution and various other reasons, though I think... Well they

are running for their lives and its immediate, an emergency. When

there's a massive 6 million people, when I'm in a country with this 4

million people and that there's a certain of people that should be put

forward first because they need space. So, Afghanistan is a country

I love, I have so much respect for Afghan people. I've never been asked

for help by an Afghan. Which is extraordinary. Most of them have

said they wanted do help themselves. So, it's important, your point, when

you are saying, if I'm coming from a country of war, am I a refugee? I've

been in a camp on the Macedonian border. A lot of people there, you

can't tell the difference. They can suffering and -- they are suffering.

How can you tell? If the country is not technically at war in this way

like Syria, people in that particular situation would say,

we're not excepting Afghans. Which is a horrible thing. Because I met a

beautiful family there who absolutely had grounds for asylum

and had been following the process by the law. They went to live in

Syria as refugees, and now they are saying, we don't care where we go,

we just want somewhere safe for a temporary period of time. That's

wiping registration is important. We need to understand and have the

manpower to listen to each case. There are people who absolutely have

grounds for asylum, and it is unclear. It may not be war, maybe

it's persecution because of your ethnicity. Girls are being attacked

in the area -- various countries because of FGM. It's very, very

important that we don't make blanket distinctions. What I'm talking about

is that there is a very particular economic migrant, but I wouldn't

consider Afghanistan to be that. As an advocate, has the journey of a

pure economic migrant become more difficult? I met recently, when I

was meeting people in a camp in Lebanon, actually, it wasn't a camp,

an abandoned warehouse where they were illegally working because they

couldn't legally work and have their papers, which is being worked on.

They were living in a place where there was so much asbestos, that one

child had already died. Others were developing asthma. These people have

been waiting patiently, registering patiently. They've got grounds for

asylum and they are not pushing forward, but they are from an area

of Syria that is absolutely destroyed, and they are single women

and children, on their own and in need. Now, I would like those people

to be considered. Among them are sick and elderly. I'd like them to

be considered a priority and make sure that someone from maybe another

country that is seen this moment is an opportunity to push forward and

have a better life for themselves but is not in such dire straits, in

such an emergency, I would like them not to step in front of the person

who is most vulnerable. David Davidson, a Conservative MP, has a

question. He's just come back from a camp in Syria. Recognising your

compelling speech the need to go to the source of the problem, wearing

down countries with the ongoing problem. After the Second World War,

America, by its leadership and resource on to the source of the

problem and solved it. Will they go to the source of the problem now?

With money, not bombs, but with economic resources? Particularly

after the coming presidential election? Well, all I can say is

that they absolutely should, and they had better. Not alone. They

need to work with countries round the world as before, but that is

what they must do, and it's something that we, as an American, I

will be pressing my own Government, speaking loudly about it. But I have

been very disheartened by my own country's response of this

situation. People like Donald Trump? Who's talked about building a fence

on the border with Mexico but banning Muslims from the United

States? It's hard to respond to that, you know. To me, America is

built on people from around the world coming together the freedoms,

especially freedom of religion, and so, it's hard to hear that this is

coming from somebody who is pressing to be an American president. We turn

to Yvette Cooper, Labour MP and chair of the Labour Party refugee

task force. Thank you for a powerful speech. Can I ask you particularly

about children in child protection, because you rightly told about the

importance of registration. And accompany children aren't being

registered, they are slipping through the net completely, often

falling into the arms of trafficking gangs and are at huge risk of abuse.

We know that in some areas on a part of the reason they are being

registered is that the agencies might be detention, or stop them

because there's no proper provision, so, as a result, there is a

stand-off between agencies and the authorities and the children just

disappear. Could you say anything more, given the work you've done

around sexual violence, about what could be done more for child

refugees? I'm very glad you mentioned that. As we've said, more

than half of the refugees are women and children. Half of these children

are out of school. The amount of unaccompanied children is very, very

high. I work with a group, speaking of migration, I worked years ago

with a group called Kids In Need Of Defence, I went to the Bore da and

found that there were far too many unaccompanied children who didn't

have any legal representation. There was nothing there for them. They

were recommended -- representing themselves, including a

four-year-old. In order to see your claim, you had to talk about certain

kinds of things that are difficult to -- for anyone to speak of, never

mind a child who has experienced sexual abuse. So, we started a

programme where there was a matching pro bono legal firm to try and raise

a number of lawyers to get cases moving. I believe this group is

going to start a UK chapter as well. I think that's what we have to do.

We can speak about it and how unjust it is and you can't help getting

angry, but I think we had to find a way to make sure that there is

enough manpower to reach these children, and we have to look at the

ways that they are being held in these detention centres. We need to

understand how inhumane they are. Also, I think we have to look to...

I understand the desperate situation that people are in when they feel

like they have nothing and their world is falling apart and they are

living in a war zone, and the only chance they feel is that they can

send their child forward. But that is also something to hope that these

children that are so young, and with the world in the state that it is,

to keep families together, or make sure that we can reunite them, or

make sure some adults stays with them and they aren't encouraged to

go off on their own. As you say, it leaves open for trafficking or other

sorts of violence. On the subject of children, I'd like to turn to one of

our young people in the audience here who has been involved in the

BBC's school report. You are from Poland 's? As a school in Kent we do

charity fundraising work. Do you have any ideas of how we can support

young people coming into a community? That's a lovely question.

You know, I think I would say is that the best thing you can do,

especially at your age, and school is hard, regardless, isn't it?

Fitting in is difficult, so the greatest thing is to be a real

friend. Beat this new person as you would want to be treated if it was

you in that situation, and reach out and ask them about their culture,

where they came from, and help others around you. If you see

bullying, or people who are not understanding in that respect, the

new community lead by example and embrace them, and give them the kind

of welcome they deserve. Do you think that the rational centre, that

rational discussion about how this crisis can be addressed, is it

really possible to find that that can cope with the scale of migration

as we have it at present, with the scale of this crisis? It has to be.

There's no other way we're going to deal with this crisis. If we deal

with it piecemeal, or irrationally, or with this idea river in having

their individual and the genders -- of everyone having their individual

agendas, we still need to do with it. Yes, we have too. It's the only

way forward is is to look at this, the letter of the law, asylum recede

jurors. Look at what is causing countries post-conflict not to

stabilise. Where they are unable to have good economic futures because

we have given them the support in the right way that we should have,

for a substantial amount of time. Fair trade, all of it. You can't

just look at one thing, you need to look at all of its. Not having

politicians fighting over whose idea it was, or how to get elected. You

talked about not basing policies on emotion, and part of what you're

saying is about a rational conversation. Suggestion that Angela

Merkel made, was that based on emotion? Is that not the way to

proceed if we are going to address all of this in a long-term way? I

can think -- I think it came from a beautiful, emotional place. Maybe

people would say at that time, it needed somebody to push forward and

show because it was so much negativity and closure, that she

wanted to show that there is an openness, in such a way, but I think

it's important like situation, when people are coming into a country,

that it has to be done... That the best way for it to be done is to be

done very carefully, so that the people of the country are prepared,

understands and that each person who crosses border goes through a

certain system, and those who do not qualify are safely returned. I think

it would grow more confidence of the country that is receiving. It would

grow for better relationships, less hate, if we can do it in that way.

I'm not saying it wasn't one in that way, because I don't know the

registration procedures that each individual person in Germany, but I

think it was a beautiful thing that said something to the world. But, I

do think that we need to have a real order, and we need to be blaming how

things are being done -- explaining. You talked about this being a test

of our values. The way we approach this that will -- will be something

that defines our century. As the international community, is it a

test we are failing? Yes. Yes. I think so. Do you have hope,

nevertheless, that it can be changed? I think you have to have

hope. If you look at the history of man, we've been through darker

times. This country has faced very dark times and has risen from the

ashes to build a stronger country, building the United Nations, new

ways, and news future, strengthening our result. I think this is a time

we can come out of stronger and better, but it's going to take that

kind of clarity and leadership, but I mean it when I see that it's not

something that an idea, I believe is something we know we must do because

we are really at breaking point. We are just about out of time. That's

all we have time for on this pet broadcast. Thank you to all who has

-- have been listening and watching, and thank you very much to Angelina

Jolie. Thank you.