| On 19 July 2007, Avaaz.org agreed to co-host the first speech of UK Foreign Secretary David Miliband - because he agreed to take questions from Avaaz members around the world. As you can see from the YouTube video, he answered three on the day. We also handed him a "book of global public opinion" with over 3000 pieces of advice, warning and encouragement, comments and questions.
We've now received from the Foreign Secretary another 20 answers to some of the most frequently-asked questions (posted below): many of these make interesting reading. |
Miliband called Avaaz "the best of the new diplomacy". So while there remains plenty of room for improvement in British foreign policy, this conversation is far from over. We will follow up these questions in our global community's future advocacy with the UK, a permanent member of the UN Security Council and a powerful state in its own right. We expect to be giving particular attention to Iraq and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, among other things.
If you want to continue the conversation here, email blog@avaaz.org and we will post responses which meet a standard of civility. Bloggers should feel free to link or repost. First, click on each of the questions below to see David Miliband's written answers, or click here to read the whole thing.
Question 1: Is it possible to have an ethical foreign policy?
Question 16: How do you see our future role within the UN?
Question 20: When & why would you decide to go to war?
___________________________________________________________________
Is it possible to have an ethical foreign policy?
David Miliband: We should certainly be driven by clear values, the UK abides by its international human rights commitments and acts to promote and protect human rights around the world. This reflects our values and our interests. I came into politics because I believe in the equal worth of every individual and that human rights apply to every individual in every part of the world. I also believe that abuses of human rights increase the risk of radicalisation and conflict, and undermine the UK's interests in stability, sustainable development, economic growth and trade.
But no ethical framework can give an easy answer to every foreign policy dilemma. There are balances to be struck between different ethical considerations - for example working to bring a conflict to an end and pursuing justice for the victims. There are also balances between responding to an urgent issue and tackling the roots of a problem for the long term. We also need sometimes to choose whether to engage with countries to pursue our goals or to break off dealings with them and to take a principled, declaratory stance.
Guantanamo is enormously damaging to our international reputation for justice and upholding international law - it should never have been allowed and must be closed.
David Miliband: I think it's important people remember the context in which Guantanamo was created: the attack of 9/11 was one of the worst known atrocities in history. Nevertheless, the British Government has long held that the circumstances in which individuals are detained indefinitely at Guantanamo Bay are unacceptable and that the detention facility should be closed. However, we recognise that closure must be subject to the proper handling of any security threat posed by those who might be released.
We welcome recent steps taken by the US Government to reduce the number of those detained. In light of these ongoing developments, and the need to maintain national security considered, the Home Secretary and I reviewed the Government's approach to five individuals who have links to the UK as former residents, having been granted refugee status, indefinite leave or exceptional leave to remain prior to their detention. We decided to request their release from Guantanamo Bay and return to the UK.
When is the UK going to take a lead against dictatorships and end human suffering in Darfur (Sudan), Zimbabwe, Burma to mention a few! It is outrageous what the named regimes are able to do to their citizens. Please bring peace and individual safety to these people.
David Miliband: The UK has actually been at the forefront of international efforts over many years to bring pressure to bear on the governments of Burma, Sudan and Zimbabwe to re-establish democracy and respect human rights. The situation in those countries is tragic.
Like most people across the world, I was sickened by the images of Burmese soldiers beating innocent monks and peaceful protestors. And I am pleased and grateful for the work that AVAAZ and its membership has done to continue to highlight this issue. It's important that this work continues and that the Burmese regime is not allowed to kid people that things are "back to normal". They're not. Upwards of 2000 people remain detained in horrific conditions. People sometimes question how effective it is to engage in e-lobbying and e-petitions. Let me assure you, it makes a difference in keeping an issue like this at the top of the international agenda.
For the UK government's part, we've been putting pressure on the regime from all possible directions. There has been the first ever formal action by the UN Security Council, strengthened EU sanctions and a strong condemnation for UN Human Rights Council.
We've also been encouraging Burma's neighbours to use their influence on the regime. China for example signed up to the Security Council resolution and has been instrumental in getting the Burmese junta to grant visas to the UN Secretary General's Special Envoy, Ibrahim Gambari, and the UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights in Burma, Sergio Pinheiro. At the same time, we've made clear that if there is a move towards genuine and inclusive political reconciliation, the international community stands ready to support economic and social regeneration with aid and other support. There are signs that the regime is beginning to feel this pressure and understand the depth of its isolation. We need to keep pushing.
We have been leading international efforts to bring peace to Darfur since the conflict began in 2003. We drafted and led the negotiation of UNSC Resolution 1769 which mandated the AU/UN Hybrid peacekeeping force. We are also one of the main donors to the African Union peacekeeping mission (AMIS). We are supporting the renewed AU/UN led political process, and are the second largest bilateral humanitarian donor to Sudan, providing over £275 million since April 2004.
We are extremely concerned that President Mugabe continues to pursue policies that hurt ordinary Zimbabweans already suffering from unemployment, food shortages and hyperinflation. But, we believe the solution to Zimbabwe's crisis must be an African one supported by the international community through diplomatic pressure and humanitarian support. That is what we are doing, working through the EU, UN, and with African organisations and States. We also support those working in Zimbabwe to bring about democratic change.
Mr. Miliband, I am grateful for the opportunity to ask you a question today. As an environmentalist who has been involved in international policy for thirty years, I welcome in principle the development of a "new diplomacy", because "old diplomacy" clearly has not worked for the majority of people on Earth, nor for the environment. As a key partner of the US, Canada and Australia, what is your game plan to convince them to accept a Kyoto 2 climate change regime for 2012 which includes what experts say is the only environmentally realistic emission reduction target of greenhouse gases: 50% by 2050 compared to 1990 levels?
David Miliband: A global transition to a low carbon economy is urgent, necessary and feasible. The gap between where we are and where we need to be is huge: the political conditions are not yet in place and that is why we need to change those conditions and
engage a wide number of people and organisations outside of the traditional "environmental" box, including industry, civil society and the wider political arena
One of the ways we are doing this is leading by example. The UK is the first country in the world to set a long-term legal framework for reducing emissions through the Climate Change Bill. The Bill will demonstrate decisive international leadership, showing the UK is committed to taking its responsibility for reducing global emissions, with the potential to help unlock progress towards a post 2012 global agreement.
We are also working actively with our G8 partners and the Heiligendamm Summit in June was a significant achievement. G8 leaders made a clear reference to at least halving emissions by 2050, underlined their commitment to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and to achieving a comprehensive post 2012 agreement by 2009. This provides an encouraging basis for the upcoming UNFCCC negotiations which should be launched in Bali in December 2007.
The UK is also working very closely with the EU to ensure the EU is a global leader in tackling climate change and we use the forthcoming international meetings and processes to engage and influence key partners to make progress. This has been backed up by vigorous bilateral diplomacy at all levels to communicate and build support for the EU vision for a post 2012 future framework.
The UK is also maximising opportunities to collaborate with forces in the US and Australia at State level which continue to be a major driver in action against climate change. It is of particularly significance that several States in both the US and Australia have followed the UK example and set legal targets for emissions and use of renewables. This can help in building the case for further action by putting further pressure on the Federal governments.
Please can you tell me the three things you learned from the resolution in Northern Ireland that you will apply in your role as Foreign Secretary?
David Miliband: Political progress in Northern Ireland has been extraordinary with many lessons learned over the years. It's not easy to summarise only three lessons but there are some that stand out which we can apply (and in some instances do already) to dealing with conflicts elsewhere and global terrorism.
Northern Ireland showed how important it was to understand the causes of conflicts. Ireland's complex history goes back more than 800 years but it was the feeling of inequality amongst Northern Ireland's nationalist minority that fuelled conflict in the 1970s rather than territorial claims and sovereignty. We tackled this through effective equality legislation and with the new constitutional arrangements set out in the Good Friday Agreement putting people and respect for their identity at the heart of a new political accommodation based on cross-community consensus. Crucially, it recognised the interlocking relationships between both parts of Ireland and between the UK and Ireland as a whole. This left no justification for terrorism so people chose democracy over conflict bringing the most polarised political parties to the negotiating table.
Equally important was the need to establish a political framework to negotiate a solution, which allowed for inclusive dialogue between all those parties committed to a peaceful and democratic path. Leaders were brave and creative, and when necessary sought the help of external mediators and partners. Tony Blair, Bertie Ahern and all of Northern Ireland's political party leaders took political risks to reach a solution. International help was accepted from Bill Clinton, President Bush and countries such as Canada and Finland, for example to enable the decommissioning of paramilitary weapons in an environment of trust. The political structures established under the Belfast Agreement allowed all aspects of the "Ireland question" to be addressed by all sections of the community without the need for violence in order to be heard.
Finally, it is important to plan for long-term peace, stability and prosperity. In Northern Ireland the British government has committed to support the future devolution of policing and justice to the new Assembly. The International Fund for Ireland is helping regeneration. It has committed £576 million to around 5,700 projects, between 1986 and mid 2006. This commitment has created the potential for around 55,000 direct and indirect jobs. Projects have included support for workspace for small businesses, space for community dialogue, community leadership programmes, tackling youth unemployment and sharing academic expertise.
How will your foreign policy get involved in the necessary "dialogue between civilizations" that is the only long-term solution to the current conflicts between the West and the rest?
David Miliband: I think it's wrong to suggest that there is conflict between the "West and the rest." The real difference that I see is between, on the one hand, the vast majority of people, from all countries, who share common human values and the wish to see a safer, more just and more prosperous world for all, and on the other hand, the extremists who pursue a negative vision of a world of division and conflict.
This is why we are supporting a range of work aimed at encouraging dialogue and increasing understanding among communities such as the Scholars Roadshow (http://www.radicalmiddleway.co.uk) which provides platforms for influential international mainstream Muslims scholars and thinkers to address audiences of young British Muslims nationwide and tackle self-serving extremist interpretations of Islam. We also organise a programme of visits by British Muslim delegations to a range of Muslim majority and European countries with large Muslim communities. The aim is for them to be able to share their experiences as Muslims in Britain today and engage in constructive dialogue and debate. I want Britain to build upon our international network of alliances to be a real force for good in the world.
Is ending world wide poverty a priority for your government and if so will you commit to at least 0.7% of your GDP to help? How will you encourage other Western countries like Canada to contribute more international development aid?
David Miliband: Speaking to the United Nations about progress towards the Millennium Development Goals, the Prime Minister said, "The greatest of challenges now demands the boldest of initiatives. To address the worst of poverty we urgently need to summon up the best efforts of humanity. I want to summon into existence the greatest coalition of conscience in pursuit of the greatest of causes."
We do indeed take international poverty reduction extremely seriously. All EU member states have pledged to give 0.7% of their gross national income as overseas development assistance by 2015. The UK is well on track to meet this target, currently giving 0.52% and expecting to hit the target 0.7% by 2013.
At the Gleneagles summit in 2005, the G8 and other donors made a landmark commitment to provide $50 billion extra aid per year by 2010, of which half would go to Africa. We work constantly within the G8, EU and with other partners to deliver the promises made at Gleneagles and elsewhere. The Government recognises the role played by civil society in calling their leaders to account on these commitments.
The longstanding injustice suffered by the Palestinian people is at the root of much conflict in Palestine and beyond. Injustice breeds immense anger and distrust and acts of violence between those who experience the injustice and those who deliver it. What are you as Foreign Secretary, going to do to (1) help re-establish trust, (2) work for a lasting justice for both Palestinian and Israeli peoples, and (3) begin to break the cycles of blame and counterblame, wherever they might be?
David Miliband: Making progress in the Middle East Peace Process is vital, not only for Israelis and Palestinians, but also for the wider region. The bedrock of the Government's approach will be threefold: first to be unstinting in our support for a two-state solution in the Middle East; secondly, to support those who are committed to peaceful progress in the region; and thirdly, to support economic and social development across the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPTs).
We are now working intensely, bilaterally and with international partners, on the political, humanitarian and economic issues that the Palestinian people face, including in Gaza. Together with the Quartet Representative, Tony Blair, and EU partners, we are developing the conditions for urgent practical and financial assistance, including direct financial support to the government and intensive efforts to build the institutions of the future Palestinian state.
On 19 June, the UK announced an additional £1 million bilateral contribution to the International Committee of the Red Cross' work in the West Bank and Gaza. On 16 July, the UK also announced a contribution of £3 million to the Palestinian Authority for private sector debt arrears. In 2006/07 the UK contributed £30 million to the OPTs, the same amount as in 2005/2006. The EU gave over €690 million, their largest ever commitment to the OPTs.
We welcome the continued dialogue between Prime Minister Olmert and President Abbas, which we hope will include meaningful discussions on permanent status issues. Continued dialogue between the parties is the best way forward.
A negotiated and two state solution is manifestly the best way forward, and it is in all of our interests to make rapid progress towards it. The conflict between Israel and the Palestinians is the root cause of much of the instability in the region.
Will the UK henceforth take a major role in forming a united foreign policy for the European Union which will have real influence on US policy as 'the West' strives to recover, through enlightened multilateralism from grave damage world wide caused by the present Bush Administration?
David Miliband: The UK will continue to play a major role in the formation of the EU's common foreign and security policy. There is no doubt that a common foreign policy makes the EU and its Member States more influential global actors, though as I said in my speech, multilateralism does not replace the need for strong bilateral relationships.
The EU and US have a fruitful strategic partnership which continues to provide for close co-operation on a range of foreign policy challenges. For example, the EU and US have:
• co-sponsored UN resolutions on Belarus, Burma, Iran and North Korea;
• worked closely together at every stage to address the concerns raised by Iran's nuclear programme;
• continued to be primary contributors to reconstruction in Afghanistan;
• consistently supported UN Special Envoy Ahtisaari in his approach to determining the future status of Kosovo.
This is evidence of the strong recognition on both sides of the value of co-operation in order to deliver on foreign policy goals.
Will the British government respect any governments that are democratically elected, regardless of their political affiliation? Will England respect the right of the people to be governed by the political parties of their choice?
David Miliband: The British government is committed to democratic rights. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights states: "Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives." But this does not mean that we support the policies of any government, just because it was elected. Nor does it mean that we are bound to offer it material or financial support. The fact that a government came to power through an election, even an election that was free and fair, does not exempt its policies and behaviour from assessment by the international community against international norms and standards.
Avaaz Question #11
How do you propose to deal with democratically elected governments in the Middle East that hold unpopular views in the West. I am thinking about the Hamas government in the Occupied Territories and the government of Lebanon that includes Hizbollah members?
David Miliband: We have made clear that we will respond to significant movement from Hamas. We have not said that we will never talk to them. But there have to be some ground rules. That is what the Quartet principles aim to provide and they are no more than what was demanded of the PLO in the 1990s as the essential basis for progress. Only on the basis of commitment to a peaceful negotiated two-state solution can we hope to make progress.
We recognise the role that Hizbollah plays in the political process in Lebanon. However, we believe that for Hizbollah to be able to participate fully and credibly in democratic institutions they must abandon their status as an armed group, in compliance with relevant UN Security Council Resolutions. We will continue to call for them to do so.
People in so-called third world countries are wondering when rich countries are going to stop subsidising their goods, so that our products can enter their markets the way theirs enter ours? The current situation is unfair and it will destroy our economies.
David Miliband: We are working hard to remove trade distorting subsidies and other forms of protectionism, throughout the world. For example, we continue to press for further reform of the EU's Common Agricultural Policy; we are encouraging others, including the US, to remove their protectionist subsidies; and we are working hard for an ambitious, pro-development outcome to the Doha Development Agenda (the current WTO Round) which will lower trade barriers for all.
We are doing this because we believe that maximising the opportunities for international trade is in all countries best interests. Protectionism, on the other hand, brings few benefits but imposes substantial costs. Trade barriers in the form of tariffs distort domestic markets, push up the prices faced by consumers and insulate inefficient sectors from competition, thereby wasting a country's resources.
Developed and developing countries alike have much to gain from trade. However, the UK recognises that developing countries need support to maximise the benefits of trade. That is why we, along with EU colleagues and others are working to make Aid for Trade (development assistance targeted at removing physical or technical trade barriers in the developing world) a substantial part of our development assistance. On a practical level the UK Government has brought together its trade and development policies under one Minister, Gareth Thomas, demonstrating the importance we attach to ensuring the two areas of policy are well co-ordinated.
While supporting and advancing the UK's interests abroad, how important will the voices and needs of the people impacted by policies be in your priorities and decisions? How will you work to hear and respond to the needs and concerns of the voiceless?
David Miliband: It is impossible to advance the UK's interests in the long term without understanding and responding to the needs and concerns of the people affected by our policies. We believe that it is in the UK's overall interests to work for world-wide respect for human rights, democracy and the rule of law. This means that it is important to engage with civil society as well as with governments in all our policy making and international action. We do this through encouraging governments to become more responsive and accountable to their own people; through working with NGO groups and through the FCO and embassies engaging directly with local peoples.
I think the world's biggest worry for the near future will be if the USA decides to bomb nuclear facilities in Iran, or if it allows Israel to do it for them. My question is then what is your attitude about this issue and how would you respond if the Americans decided to go ahead with an attack on Iran?
David Miliband: Iran has every right to be a secure, prosperous country. But it doesn't have the right to start a nuclear arms race in the Middle East or to undermine the stability of its neighbours. The whole international community wants a negotiated, diplomatic solution to the Iranian nuclear issue, and we and our international partners are working very hard to achieve this.
The British Government is committed, together with the United States and the other members of the E3+3 (China, France, Germany, and Russia) to a twin-track diplomatic approach, intended to encourage Iran to engage in negotiations on a long-term agreement to address the international community's concerns over Iran's nuclear programme.
On one track, the E3+3 have offered Iran everything needed to develop a modern civil nuclear power industry, and additional political and economic benefits, if international concerns are met. Iran has not engaged with these proposals.
On the other track, the UK and US were at the forefront of work on UN Security Council Resolutions 1737 and 1747, which apply pressure on the Iranian regime to engage in negotiations. If Iran continues to refuse to comply with its international obligations, we will pursue a further resolution.
What positive future British foreign policy will be developed that will allow ordinary Iraqis to rebuild their country without the physical presence of British military forces? Can you envisage an inclusive coalition for commonsense with other countries?
David Miliband: The fundamental strategy of the UK government is to boost the capacity of the Iraqi Government to deliver, security and basic services to the Iraqi people. The UK's total pledge for humanitarian and reconstruction aid for Iraq now stands at £744m. Since March 2003, the UK has committed over £100 million to infrastructure regeneration projects, £78 million of which has been spent.
The UK is also working with the United Nations and the European Union, to encourage closer co-operation and engagement from the international community to provide technical and financial assistance in line with Iraq's requirements. We are also working to encourage Iraq's neighbours to provide tangible support, including through the Neighbours working groups on refugees, security and fuel imports.
How do you see our future role within the UN?
David Miliband: The United Kingdom remains a strong supporter of the UN. We will continue our efforts to shape a UN capable of responding effectively to security issues, and in addressing development, humanitarian, and environmental challenges.
As a permanent member of the Security Council, we take seriously our responsibility for maintaining international peace and security. Recent achievements include the UK/France inspired resolution on Darfur; UK initiatives on climate change in the Security Council and the General Assembly; our role with key partners on addressing the threat from Iran; and a UK lead on efforts to address terrorism.
We cannot hope to sustain economic globalization, agree solutions to climate change, fight pandemic disease, manage migration, nor reduce inequality and insecurity unless we tackle poverty. In July, the Prime Minister launched a major initiative at the UN to refocus international attention on the need for a global response to the international development emergency. Our aim is to ensure that the Millennium Development Goals, agreed by the international community in 2000, are met fully by 2015.
What positive steps will the new British government be taking to reduce, and eventually outlaw, nuclear weapons - not only in so-called 'rogue' states like North Korea - but in all countries, including Britain and the USA?
David Miliband: The Government remains committed to working towards a safer world in which there is no requirement for nuclear weapons. We have an excellent record in meeting all our disarmament obligations, including those contained in article VI of the NPT. The recent Government White Paper on the 'Future of the UK's Nuclear Deterrent' announced a decision to reduce the UK's stockpile of operationally available warheads by a further 20%, to less than 160. Significant enough though this is, it is just the latest in a series of dramatic reductions to the UK's nuclear weapons. Since the end of the Cold War, the explosive power of UK nuclear weapons will now have been reduced by 75%. UK nuclear weapons account for less than 1% of the global inventory.
Looking to the future as my predecessor, Margaret Beckett, announced in her speech to the Carnegie Institute of June this year, the UK will act as a "disarmament laboratory" for the thinking and practical work required to move forward global nuclear disarmament. We are supporting an independent International Institute of Strategic Studies (IISS) in-depth study to help determine the requirements for the eventual elimination of all nuclear weapons. We have also tasked the Atomic Weapons Establishment (AWE) at Aldermaston with some detailed work on key stages in the verification of the reduction and elimination of nuclear weapons.
Equally, the UK will work proactively in the multilateral disarmament fora. We are pushing for a prompt start to negotiations of a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty at the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva. We continue to highlight the importance of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and encourage those countries that had not yet done so to sign and ratify the Treaty. In addition, we continue to call on the US and Russia to make further progress on disarmament through their bilateral arms control agreements.
Would you, Mr Miliband, consider closing DESO, the government organisation that supports and promotes the business of British arms manufacturers abroad and replace it with an organisation that supports and promotes the development of green technologies that could help to reduce potential future conflicts over sources of energy and other natural resources, and those arising out of the effects of global warming?
David Miliband: Nations have the legitimate right to protect their people, as enshrined in Article 51 of the UN Charter, and in order to do so many will need to purchase defence equipment. An effective defence can play a powerful role in deterring aggression and enhancing stability. Our policy of supporting legitimate defence exports serves our wider international security interests.
Our defence industry also plays a crucial role in our own national security to defend against threats. It is significant in providing employment, contributes around £5bn a year to the economy, and its expertise is recognised world-wide. It is important to be clear however that we tightly control UK defence exports, refusing export licence applications which do not meet strict criteria, including the risk of use for internal repression or of provoking or prolonging armed conflict. The UK is leading calls for a new international treaty, an Arms Trade Treaty, to ensure all countries operate similar high standards. In 2006 we secured the start of a UN process to take this work forward, with the support of 153 States.
Competition over natural resources, and over the revenues they generate, is a driver of conflicts in many parts of the world. We recognise that unless we act effectively to tackle climate change, these problems will only increase. We are working now to tackle environmental causes of conflict around the world. In the Middle East, we are supporting work to resolve conflict over shared water resources between Jordan, Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPTs). This has often been a major factor in tensions between the three. Increasing groundwater pollution poses a potential health hazard for the peoples in these lands. The UK Government is currently funding a project to help establish common pollution monitoring regimes and offer the three parties the opportunity to work together on common approaches to solve regional problems.
The UK recently chaired the first ever debate at the UN Security Council on the links between climate change, security and energy. It attracted more participants than any thematic debate in UN history. We will continue to press the international community on these issues. The UK has put climate change at the top of the global agenda, and is working to ensure that there is global agreement to ambitious collective action to address the challenge. This will include accelerating the deployment of low-carbon technologies.
If you refuse to extradite former Russian citizens whom the Russian government wants to prosecute - why do you expect Russia to extradite to the UK people whom you want to prosecute?
David Miliband: In the UK extradition requests are dealt with in strict accordance with the law. We are bound by our obligations under the 1951 Refugee Convention and European Convention on Human Rights. There are also stringent safeguards in our extradition legislation, including express reference to human rights, and a ground for refusal of politically motivated requests. These issues are decided by the UK's independent courts.
I recognise that the Russian Constitution currently bars extradition. However, this is not unique, and other countries have amended their constitutions to give effect to requests for judicial co-operation, for example, to give effect to the European Arrest Warrant. I believe that this better serves the interests of international justice and of victims.
The murder of Alexander Litvinenko was a horrific crime, which killed a British citizen in the heart of London and put at risk hundreds of residents and visitors. The evidence and the witnesses are in the UK. Therefore, the trial should be here too.
When & why would you decide to go to war?
David Miliband: A decision whether or not to resort to military force is one of the greatest responsibilities a government can have.
I think that there are four key questions to consider - concerning legality, alternatives, the interests and values at stake, and chances of success.
RSS FEED