ANY QUOTES USED MUST BE ATTRIBUTED TO MURNAGHAN, SKY NEWS

DERMOT MURNAGHAN: The Russian Ambassador to the United Nations has accused the United States of jeopardising the Syrian ceasefire after a US led coalition air strike reportedly killed up 80 Syrian soldiers and a senior White House official said the United States has expressed regret about the bombing which they say was intended to target Islamic State.  Well tomorrow a United Nations summit will be held about the refugees pouring out of countries like Syria and is seen as an opportunity to tackle the refugee crisis but will anything concrete actually come from it?  Well I put that very question to the former Foreign Secretary, David Miliband, who is now President and Chief Executive of the International Rescue Committee.

DAVID MILIBAND: I think you are absolutely right to say that the test of these summits is not the words but the actions.  The UN Summit happening tomorrow, Monday, is at the moment plagued by political division between different countries and that’s put the onus on a second summit on Tuesday that President Obama has called where practical concrete steps need to be taken, first of all to increase the amount and effectiveness of international humanitarian aid; secondly to raise the number of refugees, the most vulnerable widows and orphans who are resettled into richer countries; and thirdly to take on the people smugglers who have made such profit over human misery over the last year or two.

DM: Well the European Union talk of, and we know the pressures that have been put on so many members of that Union by refugees, talk of a global shared responsibility so do you see coming out of this global quotas?

DAVID MILIBAND: I think that it’s premature to talk about that because 85% of the world’s refugees are in poor countries and not in rich countries, it’s countries like Kenya, Pakistan, a middle income country like Turkey has over two million refugees, a country like Lebanon has over one and a half million refugees.  What I think we do need is a clear commitment from the richer countries that the smaller number of vulnerable, less than 10%, probably around [5%?] of the most vulnerable victims of war need to be resettled in countries like the US, the UK, across Europe etc, we actually need the Gulf and other countries to participate as well but there is an obvious need not just to deal with the symptoms of the problem, that’s the fleeing refugees, but also to deal with the humanitarian conditions in countries like Lebanon, Jordan, Pakistan, that are driving people to seek refuge in Europe in the first place.

DM: So what does that mean for the United Kingdom?  At the moment 20,000 or so refugees over five years, that doesn’t sound like a lot.

DAVID MILIBAND: You’re right to say that the UK commitment is very small.  What I always explain to people is that the current government’s commitment to Syrian refugees, the 20,000 over five years that you referred to, is the equivalent of six refugees per parliamentary constituency.  You know that I used to represent South Shields in parliament, there is no way that anyone can persuade me that six refugees is going to overwhelm the 65,000 people who are residents of South Shields and I think there’s quite a lot of scope for Theresa May to come to the UN and to the Obama summit on Tuesday and say look, the UK has got a really good record on international overseas aid, the UK is a leader through the Department for International Development on global humanitarian help but we can also make a greater contribution beyond the six refugees per parliamentary constituency.  Frankly the UK should be saying we’ll take 20 or 25,000 a year, so four times the current level, 25 refugees per parliamentary constituency rather than just six because countries like Canada are already doing that.  The Canadian government came in last year, I was meeting them just this week and they committed to take 25,000 people, it is a country with half the population of the UK so I think the UK could do more on the refugee resettlement side to match the frankly exemplary performance that the UK has on international humanitarian aid.

DM: Let’s focus on Syria now, first of all in relation to the first question I asked you, about the United Nations and how effective it can be or has been in trying to sort it out there.  Doesn’t it tell us everything about the UN that it is the United States and Russia who have by and large brokered this ceasefire?

DAVID MILIBAND: Well my organisation has 2000 staff inside Syria, we had five people killed in an Assad or Russian bombing raid about a month ago who were running a hospital in Dora in the south west of the country.  The reports that I am getting from the ground is that the ceasefire is more or less holding, there’s localised outbreaks of violence but the truth about the UN, which speaks to the broader question you’re asking, is that it is only as strong as the strong member states within it and how they work together so when Russia and America are divided as they have been on the Syria issue over the last five years, the UN becomes paralysed. We’ve seen the effects of that with the 500,000 killed, the five million refugees, the seven million internally displaced and Syria is a poster child for what happens when the great powers are divided on the big issues of the day and the fact that the US and Russia are finally working together is only the beginning because the truth is that all of us know that a short term ceasefire  needs to be complemented by a serious political process that addresses the fundamental problem of Syria, which is that the Assad government is illegitimate in the eyes of the majority of the people.  That’s something that needs to be addressed.

DM: So you know the next question then, where might it lead?  It is a big if of course in the early days of this ceasefire but in terms of a more lasting settlement that calms things down, in which people can hopefully return to the country, does it require the removal of President Assad?

DAVID MILIBAND: I think that the critical issue is that while the current government which has been responsible for the majority of the deaths has ultimate power, then there is going to be an ongoing civil conflict of an absolutely fundamental kind and the issue that needs to be addressed is what the so-called transition, the original agreement in 2012 in Geneva talked about a transition from the current government and the big question is what’s it a transition to?  The Russians have always argued that it is going to be a transition to chaos and there hasn’t been a proper enunciation of what the new power structure will be.  Various proposals have been made by civil society groups but from our position as a humanitarian organisation it is not our job to choose the government but it is our job to say that the civilians deserve a government that will respect their rights and is one that both the great powers and the regional powers are willing to respect.

DM: Let me ask you for your political analysis of the effects of the refugee crisis, do you see it being linked to the rise of nationalist anti-immigration parties?

DAVID MILIBAND: I think there is no question that the fear among many voters that borders are not controlled has contributed to a rise of what I would call the polarisation around the politics of refugees and immigration.  Secondly, I think it is also the case that the confusion between a refugee who is fleeing for his or her life and an immigrant who is fleeing for a better life, it’s not that one is good and the other is bad it’s just that they are different, the confusion of those two categories has also made the politics very difficult.  Thirdly, I think it is reasonable to point out that in the wake of the financial crisis, the straitened economic circumstances of Western countries has contributed to a sense of disenfranchisement and disenchantment.  From my point of view the absolutely essential view is that we preserve the fundamental fact that refugees are fleeing for their lives. You only take to the boats of the Mediterranean in absolute desperation.  

DM: You see a dollop of those sentiments of alienation presumably in the Brexit vote in the UK, do you think that ultimately will have to come to a second vote even if it’s just about the shape and form of the Brexit settlement?

DAVID MILIBAND: I think the truth is that not only does the government of the UK not know how the Brexit negotiations are going to be conducted or even what their negotiating platform is going to be but none of us know how long this is going to take or what the eventual outcome is going to be.  People have clearly voted by 4% to leave the European Union, that has to be respected the government has to take forward its commitment in that regard and I think for people like me who argued very strongly, including on your programme, for Britain to remain a member of the European Union, we’ve got to respect the result. It would be a dead end for me to start saying how this is ultimately going to end up, what I do think I should say is that there need to be some very clear negotiating tests for the government.  The government has a responsibility to have a negotiation that does maximise the economic opportunity for Britain both in terms of the market for goods and services but also in terms of inward investment.  It does have to address the immigration issues that have been raised in the course of the campaign which were clearly part of the result.

DM: Mr Miliband, let’s ask you about the American political scene, we know how closely you and Hillary Clinton worked together when she was Secretary of State and you were Foreign Secretary, are you offering her any advice on her current campaign?

DAVID MILIBAND: That’s charming of you to suggest that I should do so but she’s got plenty of advisors and most important, she’s got a very clear idea of her own about the campaign that she wants to run and about the way in which she wants to lead the country.  I can tell you what I’m sure you’ve covered which is that this is a tumultuous campaign, the only rule is that there are no rules at all and I think the election is going to come into focus over the next three or four weeks.  One thing I tell people here that is different from the Brexit referendum is that in the Brexit case the status quo was quite well known and in many ways not liked, but the alternative – Brexit – was completely unknown and that was the referendum.  In an election campaign, especially one like the one in the US at the moment, both sides are very well known.  Both Mrs Clinton and Donald Trump have been fixtures of the national scene for 25 years and so this is very different from the Brexit situation, it’s a competition between two very well-known quantities and I think that in the end will be important in the final decision that people make.

DM: Does speculation about jobs concern you, Mr Miliband?  If you are retaining your British citizenship is a return to the Labour party, is that off the agenda as well?

DAVID MILIBAND: I’m focused on my job here in the US, I’ve just finished my three years here.  Obviously it grieves people like me that the Labour party should be so far from power, a country like the UK desperately needs – I mean any advanced industrialised democracy frankly desperately needs a credible committed alternative government and that’s not just good for democracy but it is actually essential for the functioning of the political system and at the moment the UK voter doesn’t have that kind of option.  We’ll see what happens in the Labour election that’s coming up but there is a fundamental argument that needs to be had in centre left parties and it is not just about the tactics to win, it’s about the values that we stand for and the way in which we take forward those values and radically change circumstances.  The argument with Jeremy Corbyn is not just about his electoral tactics, it’s about the fact that many of us think he is wrong on key issues, whether it be opening coal mines, reopening coal mines or Britain’s role in NATO.

DM: Mr Miliband, great talking to you, thank you so much.  David Miliband.

DAVID MILIBAND: Thank you very much indeed.