David Miliband

Afghanistan Debate

The Prime Minister's comprehensive explanation of the situation and the strategy yesterday is important. Our view is that while the aim is a transition to full Afghan control, this cannot be done from thousands of miles distance. Afghans need to lead; the Afghan constitution needs to provide the framework; Afghan politics needs to take over; but all of that needs our military and civilian support.

The Government strongly welcomes more debate about the situation in Afghanistan - why we are there, what we and others are doing, how we achieve the transition to greater Afghan self sufficiency especially on the security side. There are no easy answers, but balances of light and shade in a diverse country.
      
The debate in Europe and the US does not respect traditional political dividing lines. There is a good example of this in the following articles in the US. You can judge for yourself where you stand. George Will  comes from the right: he wants to rely on drone attacks and an "offshore" strategy to defend America. The Wall Street Journal editorial of 3 September is a strong rebuttal  and explains why an offshore strategy won't work. Max Boot of the Council on Foreign Relations on 2 September gave further ammunition on this in the same paper.  Finally David Ignatius of the Washington Post thought there was a middle way on 2 September.

Petraeus on reconciliation

Michael Gerson's article in  yesterday's (4 September) Washington Post  has an important insight into US modern military thinking in his quotation from General Petraeus on reconciliation as a political counterpart to military attacks on the insurgency.  Worth reading to see how counter insurgency is not the same as counter terrorist strategy.

 

Posted at 19:02 05 September 2009 by David Miliband  |  Comments[5]

New Bargain on Foreign Policy

I argued in my Wilberforce Lecture  that "for a new multilateralism we need a new bargain. The US must be prepared to share power and act in collaboration. But China, India, Europe, Brazil and Russia must be prepared to take on more responsibility as global players. This can be the basis of a new rules-based international order."

I will be in Washington on Wednesday following up the argument in Hillary Clinton's speech two weeks ago , when, among other things, she talked about "the need for a different global architecture - one in which states have clear incentives to cooperate and live up to their responsibilities, as well as strong disincentives to sit on the sidelines or sow discord and division."
 
The global society won't be run by global government - in the form of world elected government - but it does need legitimate, representative and effective international institutions that reflect intergovernmental views and share sovereignty where appropriate. We should not fear such institutions; they are the way to address shared risk and grasp shared opportunities.

Posted at 14:23 28 July 2009 by David Miliband  |  Comments[6]

November 4th - Middle East

As America votes and the world waits, I will be speaking about the Middle East. My speech, on the 13th anniversary of the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin, sets out the case for a comprehensive approach to the problems of the Middle East. Comprehensive in the sense that it recognises that the Palestinian state will not be delivered in negotiation with Israel unless other problems, notably over the Golan Heights and stability in Lebanon, are not resolved at the same time.

European foreign ministers have put the Middle East at the top of their shopping list for the new US administration.

Posted at 11:35 04 November 2008 by David Miliband  |  Comments[11]

EU and US: focussing on working together

Despite the impression given by some press reports this morning, EU Foreign Ministers meeting in Marseilles agreed our own priorities for joint work with a new US administration, including Middle East Peace Process and Afghanistan/Pakistan. Not a shopping list of asks, still less demands. The focus is on how the transatlantic alliance can work together. And that means Europe living up to its responsibilities. And we have not written an open letter.

Posted at 10:00 04 November 2008 by David Miliband  |  Comments[4]

Will the economic downturn fell the climate change campaign or can the climate campaign help fight the downturn?

This US think tank report provides one answer, along with Lord Stern's article in the Guardian last week. The headline is that the report suggests spending $100billion over 2 years to fundamentally change US production and consumption of energy which would create 2 million new jobs nation-wide. It suggests spending would eventually be paid back to the Treasury by a future cap and trade programme. Green issues feature in both US Presidential campaigns.
 

Posted at 15:47 27 October 2008 by David Miliband  |  Comments[8]

UNGA Re-Cap 3: Friends of Pakistan

I have spent more time on Pakistan than any other issue in the last few weeks, including two meetings with the newly elected President Zardari. He has one of the toughest jobs in government around the world. In the wake of the Marriott bombing in Islamabad governments around the world want to help - on the economic as well as the security front.

Friday saw the launch of the new 'Friends of Pakistan' group Britain participates but so do the Emiratis, China, the US and half a dozen others. The agenda is central to the success of the new civilian government: economic modernisation, with real investment especially in young people on the back of economic stabilisation, alongside security enhancement to address the huge challenges Pakistan faces. No one can now fail to see that the terrorist threat to British service personnel (and diplomats and aid workers) in Afghanistan is also a threat to Pakistan and its people.

Posted at 12:11 01 October 2008 by David Miliband  |  Comments[3]

The Doha Round is About More than Trade

Once again the world's trade negotiators are trying for a decisive breakthrough.  "Last chance" meetings have come and gone. It is not easy to be optimistic after seven years of negotiation. No multilateral trade negotiation has ever failed.  Many commentators now suggest that Doha will be the first.
 
The cost of failure would be huge.  New trade from the deal would be worth tens - even hundreds - of billions of Euros annually. A shot in the arm the global economy desperately needs.  At a time of global economic uncertainty Doha would lock in new economic opportunities around the world, for developed and developing countries alike.

If Doha fails these benefits will be lost.  But the effects will go wider. 

Doha is the first world-wide negotiation to reflect the new global economic order.  Brazil, India, China and other emerging economies are equal players in the WTO, as central to its success as the EU, US and Japan.    It is right, therefore, as Peter Mandelson has done, to demand that they make a fair, proportionate contribution to a world system from which they greatly benefit.

If Doha slips away,  a unique opportunity to strengthen the multilateral, rules-based system will be lost - that  would be a big knock to international confidence.  If we cannot reach a trade agreement after seven years, can we really expect to succeed next year on a truly global successor to Kyoto?  How will we generate a global commitment needed to shift to low carbon growth? 

We need international institutions that accommodate the shifts of power and influence in the world and can deal more effectively with both familiar and new challenges.  We still need to manage international disputes and resolve conflicts.  But we also need collectively to address climate change, global economic shocks, food and energy insecurity and terrorism. The old institutions, created in the aftermath of the second world war,  are insufficiently geared to   meet these challenges.  India, China, Brazil and others must take a proportionate but bigger share of responsibility for world problems in return for a bigger say in world institutions. In the WTO they already have that bigger say. So Doha is, therefore, a test case.   It if fails, sceptics will see little chance of improving the UN's ability to respond to post conflict situations. Or reforming the IMF to give better early warning of global economic shocks. Or turning the World Bank into a bank for the environment as well as development. 

The EU should lead by example.  We should negotiate hard for our interests, but with an eye on the bigger picture. Our grand-children will not blame us for making the small concessions needed to achieve a trade deal.  They will blame us, and rightly, if we miss the opportunity in the Doha Round to build a platform for managing the complicated and uncertain world they will inherit.

Posted at 10:15 24 July 2008 by David Miliband  |  Comments[5]

North Korea: Sanctions Working?

The declaration from the Government of North Korea on its nuclear programme is significant, and the multilateral process led by the US and regional players ("Six Party Talks") deserves enthusiastic support. We can only hope this means that one of the most closed regimes in the world may be concluding that its nuclear programme's not worth the candle. There is a mass of work to be done on the verification of denuclearisation - no one is naive about the regime - but the diplomatic track, however slow, has shown itself powerful. People sometimes say we always reach for sanctions but they never work (South Africa in the 1980, sometimes admitted as an exception); here is one example where the pressure may be telling. Sitting in Japan - where children were abducted by North Korea agents in the 1960's - the slow and tortuous process of engagement looks like a delicate piece of bomb disposal. And today there is hope that it may be working.

Posted at 15:40 27 June 2008 by David Miliband  |  Comments[2]

Memories of San Francisco

I haven't been to San Francisco since 1978 when I spent a year in the US as a junior high school student and my parents took us to California for a holiday. Four or five hours doesn't make up for 30 years. I remember the trolley cars from 1978 and didn't get onto one this time. Last time I didn't meet the mayor; this time I did meet Gavin Newsom who has just been re-elected. He hosted a seminar for me on San Francisco's experience as the (admittedly self-appointed) US gateway to China and the common cause he is trying to forge over climate change policy.  He reports that 860 US cities have now signed up to the Seattle Mayor's initiative which effectively gets cities onto a Kyoto emissions reduction track.

Posted at 11:22 28 May 2008 by David Miliband  |  Comments[2]

Stanford Cardinal

My tour guide at Stanford - from sports fields to labs - was Condoleezza Rice, former Provost, professor from next January. The attached photo may give the impression that my attempt to audition for a US football special team as a kicker was successful; in fact the kick was straight but landed well short and too low.

The stadium hosted Chelsea last year, but is bigger than Stamford Bridge....possible because the university raised $800 million last year. Admission is "needs blind".

And so the socio-economic make up is more mixed than £30-40K fees would suggest. And the university is the powerhouse for all the venture capital I saw.

PS "Cardinal" is the name of the team.

Posted at 11:15 28 May 2008 by David Miliband  |  Comments[2]

"Badge of courage"

Silicon valley brings together money, ideas and people in a way that typifies but generally beats successful economic conurbations around the world. I am visiting with Secretary of State Rice to understand the economic and social dynamic in this leading part of the US (and the world - it would be the 4th largest economy if it were a country) and in part to get a sense of the foreign policy conversation beyond the east coast.

It was surprising but I suppose obvious to be told that it is the attitude to failure not success that is key.  "Badge of courage" as a CEO said to me. Smart.

Posted at 16:33 23 May 2008 by David Miliband  |  Comments[1]