David Miliband - President and CEO, International Rescue Committee HARDtalk

guess is David Miliband, head of the

UK-based International Rescue

Committee, and a former British

Foreign Secretary. Can this

politician turned Unitarian explain

why governments worldwide are

failing to meet the migration

challenge? -- turns humanitarian.

David Miliband, welcome to HARDtalk.

Thank you. To be back.

How

demoralising is it travelling the

world trying to persuade governments

that they should read doing many

things they are not doing to address

this global migration crisis?

Well,

looking at the statistics, it is

undoubtedly depressing. Record

numbers of people being displaced by

conflict and persecution, as you

say. But actually, the human stories

are of resilience and extraordinary

courage and even renewal in the most

difficult of circumstances. I think

it was a filmmaker who went to the

Congo and said if you look at the

statistics you are depressed but if

you look at the people you have

hope. As the head of an NGO, that is

certainly the kind of philosophy or

insight I get from the work we do

around the world.

I don't mean to

diminish the importance of a

one-on-one experience you have when

you go to this conflict zones, but

in the end, the statistics matter

more, because it is the collective

experience that really matters. If I

plucked out of the air one crisis

unfolding right now, that of the

Rohingya people, forced out of

Myanmar, now collected in appalling

conditions in camps in Bangladesh,

600,000 people at least...

In the

space of six or seven weeks.

What on

earth are you and all of the people

who work on these sorts of crises

able to do?

The truth is, we are

there to staunch the dying and

provide the basic modicum of

dignity. But it takes politics to

stop the killing. The humanitarian

sector is inevitably dealing with

the symptoms of political failure.

My argument is that we can do a much

better job at dealing with those

symptoms, even in the midst of the

kind of political failure that leads

to this massive exodus of people. So

there is a job to renew the peace

building, peacemaking mission that

should be at the heart of foreign

relations, but there is also a job

to do to reform and improve the

humanitarian aid sector, which is

heroic, but could be more effective.

That is why I come back to the

opening question about dissolution.

On both fronts it seems that failure

is so much more common than success.

On the political front, the Myanmar

government has not only not listen

to the calls from around the world

to stop earning those villages, it

is actually still continuing in the

face of condemnation. -- burning.

And while you say we have to focus

on looking at these people in the

short term, but then giving them

hope of a better life in the

long-term, governments around the

world are actually cutting their

budgets for this sort of thing come

in at expanding.

Some certainly are,

not only in the Western world, which

not only wrote the laws on refugees

after the Second World War, and is

the major funder of aid.

Slashing

budgets. Donald Trump has slashed

the aid budget by 40%.

His

administration wants to. Congress

has defied the administration and

rejected those budget cuts. Of

course, we would say that since the

needs are rising, the budget should

be rising. It is not true to say

that the budgets have been slashed.

That has been pushed back, in the

US. It is important to recognise

that there are some governments,

unlike the governments, which

actually show how to deal with this

challenge effectively. The

government of Uganda, to take one

example, the reason for mentioning

it, and million refugees from South

Sudan have gone into you go and in

the last year. What was the response

of the Ugandan government? Not to

build walls. The response was, these

people should be given land, every

family given land, these people

should be allowed to work, every

adult about to work. These people

should be given services, every kid

allowed into school. And that is in

a country with an average income of

$962 per person per year. So there

are examples of fear mongering and

loading being developed amongst

population is about the refugee

crisis. -- loathing. But there are

also stories of heroism and

determination to stand up. You are

right to point the finger at

governments that are not doing the

right thing. You are also writes a

point finger at relatively wealthy

parts of the world.

Well, that was

about to be my point. Surely, if one

is looking at those countries not

prepared to countenance bearing part

of the burden, the countries that

are the most culpable are those who

actually have the most resources,

because they are in the best

addition to offer long-term help.

I

agree.

Not just in terms of keeping

people alive, but the other things

you talk about, providing people

with jobs, providing their children

with education, giving them a

long-term chance to thrive.

And my

argument is that it is not just

morally wrong to ignore those

people, it is not just the trashing

of Western history, if you like, to

turn your back on the victims of war

and persecution, the innocent

victims of war and persecution. My

argument is also that in a connected

world it is actually a strategic

mistake. I have just come back from

Lebanon and Jordan. Those countries

have put about 2 million refugees

tween them, they have put them up.

They have had insufficient help.

They have been on a drip feed from

the international community, geo-

strategically shortsighted, as well

as morally wrong.

Interestingly, you

have introduced this word moral into

the conversation. It is a word that

appears time and again in this book

you have written, called Rescue. How

come having been in politics for so

long you have now become so, if I

may say so, naive and unrealistic

about the degree to which qualities

like empathy and ultras can drive

policy-making? -- altruism.

Well,

hope people will not just read the

title, rescue, but also the

subtitle, refugees and the political

crisis of our time. The refusal to

live up to international

humanitarian law, never mind higher

moral standards, is a real one. I

don't mind to be fair to myself, I

will take the hits that are coming,

but when I was Foreign Minister I

went to the Jaffna peninsula, I met

Sri Lankan women who had pieces of

paper from a government with the

names of their husbands who had been

taken away, and they were asking me,

when will I see my husband again?

And of course I didn't have a good

answer to give them. I don't think

it is made to call others

humanitarian issues. One of the

things I have learnt in this job is

that while it is true political

failure causes humanitarian crisis,

my point is also that it is

humanitarian crisis which then leads

to political instability. The real

money that he is to think you can

ignore humanitarian needs, whether

it is in north-eastern Algeria,

Nigeria, Pakistan, the Middle East,

and not expect to have political

repercussions.

It seems you are out

of touch with the popular mood and

70 countries. Arguably native

country, the UK, the country you

live in, the United States, the

continent that is your home, Europe.

Let me make me if I am -- let me

say, the ideal of treating strangers

are brothers and sisters can and

must be maintained. In part, you say

that by welcoming refugees into our

own countries and embracing them in

our places of work and our centres

of worship and around our own dinner

tables, are you really in sync with

the way people in the rich Western

world are feeling?

I think the truth

is I am in sync with some. People

often ask me what it is like to lead

a humanitarian organisation when

people help refugees and displaced

April, at a time of backlash against

refugees, which is basically what

you are saying.

It is.

My answer is

that every person who fears refugees

or doesn't want to give humanitarian

aid, because most of the will be to

people who are far away rather than

entering European countries, for

every person like that who is

fearful, there is somebody else

saying, hang on, this is my family

history. This is the history of my

neighbour. This is something that I

am proud my country does. You see

that polarisation rather than a

simple backlash. My argument is that

actually, the refugee crisis is

manageable not insoluble, that it is

to succumb to the worst form of

fatalism to believe it is insoluble,

and whether you are in business or

politics whether you are a private

citizen, there is a role for you to

play, and that is what the book

explains.

If you are still a --

still an MP for South Shields, an

industrial seat in northern England,

which voted overwhelmingly for

Brexit, and all the social surveys

that choose -- social attitudes

surveys suggest that was driven by

an anti-immigrant feeling, if you

were still an MP, do you think you

would have the same faith in the

arguments around altruism?

I have

lots of faith in the common sense of

people in South Shields. This is

what I would say if I was there and

P. I would say that at the moment,

the UK takes six refugees her

Parliamentary constituency. Then I

would say to the people of South

Shields, no way are you going to

persuade me that six people are

going to overwhelm or "Flood" a

constituency of 50 5000. And

actually, Britain can do more on the

refugee resettlement fund without

ever falling into the fallacy that

written is going to take the 1.5

million refugees Lebanon has taken.

Have you pause to consider why

sermon is successful nationalist

opposition 's, such as in the Czech

Republic the United States, have

succeeded, in large part by

delivering a message which is about

building walls, closing borders and

telling immigrants they are not

welcome? -- so many successful

nationalist politicians.

Yes, and

one of the reasons for writing this

book was the complacency among

people who think that well-managed

refugee systems are agreed across

partisan lines. We need to puncture

that complacency. We need to make

the argument about why it is not

just a question about having a big

part but also a sound head, to say

that managing the refugee crisis is

not just the right thing to do, it

is the smart thing to do.

I keep

coming back to this point. It is

much easier for you to say this now,

as the head of an NGO, than it ever

was for you as Foreign Secretary or

an MP representing an industrial

zone in Britain.

The allegation

against the government I was part of

is not that it did too little to

those people. It did too much. The

allegation is that when the European

Union expanded to include eight

countries in 2004, the argument, and

it is a correct argument, if that

were should have had a transitional

plan for the arrival of those

immigrants, not simply allow the

free movement of labour.

Let me

pause you there. That is

interesting, what you have just

said. It is indeed true that Tony

Blair's government, which you are

part of, said open borders to the

accession countries, all the those

workers who came from countries that

make you are arguing I would not

have done that in government.

Actually, we did do that in

government. We did have open access

for the eight accession countries.

The whole argument is about

refugees. Desperate migrants. These

are not desperate migrants. They

were people who, according to the

rules of the EU, could come. I am

always interested when a former

politician confesses to the stakes.

You think it was a fun mistake?

Absolutely. We didn't anticipate the

number that would come in. You are

right, though, to make the point

that a refugee as distinct from an

economic immigrant or an economic

migrant. A refugee as someone with a

well founded fear of this fusion.

The six 5 million figure that you

quoted at the beginning of the

programme, 25 million refugees, 40

million internally displaced, are

people who fled their homes because

they are not safe in their own

homes. Those people have greater

rights in international law, and

their responsibilities greater, the

states have a great responsibility

towards them, and I would argue for

good reason. It is not that refugees

are good and immigrants are bad, it

is that they are different. If you

are not safe in your home it is

right that you should have rights

under international law. We need to

defend them for reasons of morality,

to use your word, but also for

reasons of common sense.

That's talk

about security. You slipped in a

reference to it in one of your

answers and suggested it was wrong

for politicians in the west to pose

immigration as a security challenge.

But actually, if you look at the

facts on the ground, a holy book

politicians -- whole heap of

politicians, starting with Donald

Trump but one can look at France and

the Netherlands and elsewhere, have

realised that if they connect

immigration to security of our

mining and incredibly fertile area.

Two points I would make on that.

One, and your question, if I may say

so, did this, when the issues of

immigration become mixed up with the

issues of refugees, that is a recipe

for trouble. Because there are very

large numbers of people who want to

emigrate, and relatively speaking,

smaller, a quarter or even one fifth

the number, who are refugees. So the

first thing is, the refugee regime

is different from the immigration

regime. The second point, that is

really important, is that refugees

in the US, and I think you have the

quota there, Donald Trump called

Syrian refugees the Trojan horse

that was coming to America. Now, it

is harder to get to America as a

refugee than any other route. It

takes 18 months of vetting, 12- 15

government agencies, you are put

through the mill to make sure you

are not going to be a threat to the

United States when you come as a

resettled refugee.

The truth is they have become a

tragic Americans because they know

the value of freedom. And don't they

do it when they get the chance.

Let

us switch from the refugee crisis

to, perhaps a computing, a personal

journey you have been making in

recent years, or way from Britain

and politics dashmac clunky. Your

decision to go to New York, to take

the job at the head of International

Rescue, was it part of dealing with

a grievously painful process, you

needed to get out, you needed a safe

haven of your own.

I was a backbench

MP in Britain who had previously

been Foreign Minister. I would not

want to claim safe haven.

You know

what I am saying.

Coming out of my

mouth that might seem like I am

trying to claim a degree of high

ground that I don't deserve. I was

clear that they faced, by 2012,

2013, I was in the situation where

either I was silent about the

position of my party, or I was

accused of dividing my party.

For

those who do but, you ran for the

leadership of the party, were

favourite to win it, you ultimately

beaten by your younger brother, Ed

Miliband. It was in a sense,

rejection, and Fady in the face of

your own family member, but a

rejection from your own wider

family, the Labour Party, of which

it had been a member all of your

adult life. It must have been

extraordinarily difficult to deal

with.

Yes, yes. But part of being an

adult rather than a child is that

you learn to deal with these things.

Many adults find it very difficult

to do with rejection.

I always say

whether you are running three double

go for the leadership of a party, if

you feel like you cannot consecrate

-- at the consulate is a project you

should do it. You need to think

about what you would do if you win

but also what you do if you don't. I

was in the position where we lost

the general election in 2010, I lost

the leadership election. I wanted to

make sure I could put into practice

what I had learned. What I have had

the privilege to do for the last

four years is to lead a humanitarian

organisation that has not has grown

in size, helping 26 million people,

not just in budget, we are a now

$750 billion organisation, but is

also charting a new course for the

way in which humanitarian aid can be

adapted to the demands of the modern

world.

We have talked about your

ideas on that already. I now want to

stick with what you left behind,

that is the Labour Party, your

career, and the personal issues. Why

do you think you lost?

I think that

people wanted more of a change. They

decided that they wanted more of a

shift from the governing philosophy,

I say in the book, that I made the

transition from governing to

campaigning to slowly.

You mean you

were not a good enough retail

politician?

Maybe. You can say that.

I think it was a time shortly after

the financial crisis, the beginnings

of the tumult in politics, and

although I have tried not to spend

all my time reflecting on the past,

it is a perfectly legitimate

question to ask, but I think there's

two factors eyesight are probably

the right ones.

Is not just

personal, it is also political. --

it is not disposal. Your brother did

not win either. The Labour Party now

chosen leader, Jeremy Corbyn, who

was avowedly socialist and avowedly

of the real left, not the

centre-left, the Blairite left.

We

are the centre-left.

You would never

call yourself a socialist stop-go

hapless fan of socialist values.

There is a social democratic

tradition.

I always vote Labour and

encourage people to vote Labour. The

truth is, politics is open. He did

better in the last election and many

of us thought, but there are No

civil -- silver medals and politics.

The question now is where does

Britain go. I think that is not just

a question about Labour versus

conservative, the truth is Britain

faces an even bigger question before

it faces a Labour versus Tory

election. What is its future as an

economic, social, and political

power in the world? That is wrapped

up in this Brexit issue, which goes

beyond the party politics.

Your old

boss, Tony Blair, has very much and

the fray on the Brexit issue. He

speaks about it a lot. He says there

is No question in his mind that this

is not settled, that the British

public has a right to change its

mind and he still believes there is

a serious possibility that Britain

ultimately won't leave the European

Union. Do you feel the same and are

you prepared to fight the fight in

the way that Tony Blair is?

We don't

know how this is going to play out,

this Brexit phenomenon. This Brexit

decision. We also know that

democracy cannot be allowed to die

the day of a referendum. The

referendum on June 23, 2016 cannot

be the end of debate, scrutiny,

questioning about whether this

Brexit decision is in the interests

of the people.

It is a decision. We

know we are leaving. Article 50 was

triggered a long time ago.

It is a

very British thing to think that

because you have ordered a milk you

have to eat it, even if it comes to

your table in a very different form

from what look like on the menu.

What do you think the chances are

then... ?

I will not give you a

percentage. Written is on a course

to leave. But that does not mean it

is certain that is going to happen

-- Britain. Every week there are new

facts that come before the British

people. That's about the fact that

we will have two create our own

repertory structures. Facts about

the political implications. I have

described this is an act of

unilateral political disarmament.

Our withdrawal from the European

Union.

Let me quote the words of

William Hay, a former Foreign

Secretary. He said this reflecting

on the notion that there might be

some change of heart in Britain, a

new referendum will study said,

"There is no alternative to making

Brexit work will. Millions of people

would be enraged by an elite tried

to overturn their opinion." Mindful

of how the people of your old

constituency voted, can you not see

that he is right and it would be

damaging and corrosive to the UK to

reopen this?

The question is whether

it would be more damaging than

proceeding to drive off the cliff.

That is what we are being asked.

Wiliam Hague, having voted to

remain, he says he would vote to

leave in the interest of

consistency.

I think in the

interests of the health of the

country.

The truth is, it would be

wrong, I think I says an elite to

cut under decision of millions of

voters. My point is, millions of

voters, first of all, Parliament

should be able to compare life

within the European Union and light

outside. And they never had what

life outside will be presented to

them. It is essential that it is.

The fact that Brexit are becoming

clear. Europe is changing under the

leadership of Mr Macron and Mrs

Merkel. There is a new dynamic.

Final thought. Wearout of time. Phil

Collins, it someone you know well,

he said "Imagine a third force in

British politics now, David Miliband

comes back from New York to lead it,

it would be attracting new people

into politics. Could that not too

well? I believe it could. I doubt it

is just me. It would be exciting to

find out." So how about it?

The real

lesson of Emmanuel Macron is

different...

Never mind the lesson

of Macron. I want to know if you

will listen to Phil Collins, come

back, and because Labour doesn't put

you any more, think about a third

party?

I am not spending my time

thinking about a third party, for a

couple of reasons. The British

Parliament system is very different

from the French presidential system.

The two mean British political

parties got more votes between them

that any election since Bettoni

five. The third issue is the Brexit

issue which goes beyond the question

of new parties. It is about existing

parties and existing MPs coming to

grips with their responsibilities.

Is that a categorical no Casilla I

did not city part in which, there is

already a central particle the

Liberal.

The real issue is for

progressive centre-left thinking to

renew and are a vital as itself --

centre-left party. It is the

pressures that face industrialised

Western countries.

We have to enter.

David Miliband. They being on talk.

-- thanks for being on HARDtalk.