David Miliband

All eyes on Luxembourg

EU Foreign Ministers meet in Luxembourg today. There is one unplanned item on the agenda – the rejection by Irish voters of the Lisbon reform Treaty.  We will do our business from Kosovo to Zimbabwe but all eyes and ears will be trained on the next steps on the Treaty. It’s not pretty but it is necessary for the EU to give Ireland first of all time to take stock of how they want to respond to the no vote and what they want to do with their ratification process.  Instant answers are not usually thoughtful answers in this area. It is clear that if the Irish do not ratify the Treaty then the Treaty will not pass into law.

 I don’t understand the argument that the Irish vote means we should abandon our ratification. We need a view. The Irish have said they think we should carry on. I spoke on Saturday to foreign ministers from Sweden, Spain and Holland, all of whom are part way through their ratification process, and all of whom plan to proceed with ratification. Last Wednesday’s debate in the House of Lords included powerful speeches from Lord Howe, Lord Brittan and Lord Patten  about the virtues of parliamentary accountability except in unusual cases of major constitutional change. 

I have not detected a great drive either to exclude the Irish or to enter a new institutional negotiation or to revive an ‘inner core’ of European countries. In fact I have detected a great sucking of teeth; there really was not a plan B in a cupboard. I explored this on the Marr Programme yesterday

Posted at 10:49 16 June 2008 by David Miliband  |  Comments[16]

First Monitors into Zimbabwe

Over 100 election monitors are now in Zimbabwe. Not enough but a start. Not enough because the scale of violence and intimidation is massive – over 50 dead, 1000s injured and brutalised.  A start because it means there is a chance of a proper record – journalists and NGOs having been driven out.  There is a massive responsibility on Africa to support the brave people of the opposition, and a major responsibility on the rest of us to support them. We will do so, bilaterally, in Europe and at the UN.

Posted at 10:43 16 June 2008 by David Miliband  |  Comments[9]

Sir Robert Mugabe

I was asked on BBC Question Time about the knighthood given to Robert Mugabe in 1994.  It must be clear that no one would recommend giving the knighthood now - and some brave and clear-sighted people highlighted the scandal of murder in Matabeleland. And I have to say that my first reaction in the Foreign Office was that the knighthood should be removed. But Robert Mugabe's game is to present the election as a fight between him and Britain when in fact it is a battle for different visions of different Zimbabwean politicians.  Removing a knighthood will not bring food or help to people in desperate need - but will fuel Mugabe's game and we should not be party to that.

What it is right that we do is work internationally to get aid and election monitors into the country - and that is what we are doing.  But we also need to expose the blockage on both that the government of Zimbabwe is putting in place.  And that we need to do too.

Posted at 22:19 07 June 2008 by David Miliband  |  Comments[4]

The report of a Ship off the coast of southern Africa

The report of a ship full of arms off the coast of southern Africa destined for Zimbabwe sums up Zimbabwe's crisis in a nutshell. Four million people need food but the government is buying guns instead. Those guns will be used to hurt and threaten Zimbabweans who voted against Mugabe and ZANU(PF). The fact that South African dockers refused to offload the ship speaks volumes about how ordinary Africans feel about the Mugabe regime. We are in contact with both the South African and Chinese governments to underline our concerns.

Posted at 22:19 18 April 2008 by David Miliband  |  Comments[3]

Independence Day

Zimbabwe's "celebration" of 28 years of independence is more bitter than sweet. What should be one of Africa's economic jewels is destitute. It is a living rebuke against the values and aspirations that motivated independence in the first place and should continue to be the basis for change from the vicious circle of decline.

The recent calls from Senegal for action by African nations in defence of democracy (the Senegalese Foreign Minister said "...with regard to the situation in Zimbabwe. Unfortunately we as Africans once again answer with a deafening silence which can be heard everywhere,")and the ANC's Executive National Working Committee's definition of Zimbabwe's crisis as "dire, with negative consequences for the SADC region" have rightly raised the pressure on the Mugabe regime, as has the statement yesterday from the African Union. They have given lie to the allegation that British vocal support for democracy is a brand of recolonisation. It is not. It is a defence of the independence and democracy that was negotiated at Lancaster House.

The best celebration of Zimbabwean independence would be for the will of the people, for change, to be followed."

Posted at 14:25 18 April 2008 by David Miliband  |  Comments[3]

Still waiting for ZEC

It is now ten days since the people of Zimbabwe voted for a new government and five since I told the House of Commons that we were urging quick release at national level of results posted at local polling stations within 24 hours of voting. Opposition leader Tsvangirai has been stoical and statesmanlike in his comments but I know from discussion with foreign ministers that there is deep-seated concern about the ends to which the delay in announcing the result will be put. Though no-one can know for sure, since the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission has still not published the results, the suggestion is that a second round will be necessary as the results will show neither Presidential candidate with 50% of the vote. If that is the case then the importance of Zimbabwe's neighbours in Southern Africa increases in importance; they have benchmarks for the conduct of elections and need to argue strongly for them to be followed.

People can ask: why do we care? Above all because any human suffering on the scale in Zimbabwe is bad enough, but suffering on that scale in a country that does not need to be poor or torn is worse than a tragedy. It is not colonialist or guilt-tripping to seek to prevent avoidable suffering; it is just the right thing to do.

Torch Relay

I spoke to the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police last week about Sunday's Olympic Torch relay. He had a pretty tough job: protect the passage of the Olympic torch across 31 miles, and protect the right of people to protest. In a way the questions of whether we need a torch relay, who thought of the route, why it needed to be 31 miles, are beside the point. The important thing is to celebrate genuine Olympic ideals of sportsmanship and ensure that equally genuine concerns about human rights in Tibet and elsewhere are vented in Olympic Year as much as in any other year.

I think it is important that we show our commitment to the Olympics. We should be represented by our best sportsmen and women in Beijing in August. Not because we are the next Olympic hosts and not because sport and politics don't mix. Sport and politics inevitably mix; the question is whether a boycott would actually help the situation in Tibet or elsewhere, and I don't think it would.

The seriousness of our commitment to human rights comes from the fact that it is not restricted to Olympic Year but that it is expressed without fear or favour every year.

Ceaucescu's Monster

It was symbolic, heartening and dreadful to pace around former President Ceaucescu's gargantuan palace for the Nato summit last week. Apparently great swathes or Bucharest were bulldozed for its creation and it emptied the rest of Romania for its marble. But the venue did demonstrate how Nato has changed - in membership, in function - since the arrival of the former countries of the Soviet bloc.

I told a meeting of 150 Young Atlanticists that the changing role of Nato, supplementing common defence with out of area operations that reflect the modern nature of insecurity was an allegory for the the shift from balance of power politics to the politics of shared risk. The truth is that for a Nato summit to be (half) dominated by its operations in Afghanistan is a huge change; but that is necessary because the nature of the national security risk facing Nato countries has changed.

There are some clear next steps from the summit. Following through on a genuinely comprehensive approach in Afghanistan. Greece and Macedonia finding a way forward on the "name issue" so that Greece no longer resists Macedonia's membership of NATO. Ukraine and Georgia to take forward their reforms and Nato its assessment of their readiness to start the membership application process. And importantly Nato and the EU to overcome obstacles to cooperation - because these should be two complementary organisations with striking overlap in values.

Global Hub

I have never been trumpeted into speech before but the Annual Easter Banquet for the diplomatic corps turns on British style (well, City of London pomp) for the benefit of our foreign guests. Here is what I had to say about the modern role of UK foreign policy.

Who says countries can never agree on difficult issues

It is worth looking at the Nato declaration on Afghanistan. It defines clearly why we are there, what we are doing and how to judge progress. It should become a rallying point for all those who say that we need to do a better job at explaining what we are about in that country. At the meeting the PM and I held with President Karzai it was evident that he had been struck by the depth of solidarity, the long term commitment of the countries involved and the responsibilities on the Afghan government. The UN Secretary General's comments were clear and forceful about Afghan responsibilities and summed up a lot of the mood.

Posted at 09:15 08 April 2008 by David Miliband  |  Comments[12]