David Miliband Can't Speak About British Politics Any More

David Miliband in Ethiopia

David Miliband is a busy man. Since losing the Labour leadership race to his brother Ed in 2010, he’s moved from the UK to New York and become head of the International Rescue Committee (IRC), one of the world’s leading refugee-relief charities. Taking his new role in September of 2013, he was immediately faced with the unprecedented amount of humanitarian disasters to have hit the world over the past few years, dealing with crises in countries from Iraq, Syria and Gaza, to South Sudan, Nigeria and Libya.

For someone who’s no longer a politician, it struck me that he still behaves very much like one, agreeing to interviews but refusing to answer certain questions. He’s guarded and worried that what he says will be taken out of context – presumably a direct result of being in politics for so long – but I thought I’d try to coax some opinions out of him anyway.

VICE: Hi David. First off, have you been watching the VICE Islamic State videos? What do you think about the situation out there and the plans to arm Kurdish fighters?
David Miliband: Absolutely, I've watched them – they've generated a very big conversation online. It’s a frontline portrayal of a jihadist group that needs to be taken more seriously. Their advance is a source of massive displacement and distress, as well as death. The IRC work across the Middle East in areas controlled by many different groups, so I’m not going to get into the politics of arms supplies. What is important, though, is that the international community does all it can to stand in solidarity with minority communities who are fleeing violence and persecution.

Okay. In that same vein, what's your stance on Hamas and the Israelis?
I think that it's very important to assert that when war is fought, the rights of civilians don't fall away. That's an important message to get across, both to the people who are using civilians as “human shields” and to the Israelis that are trying to target the infrastructure that's being used to attack them. There is a generic trend – which is very worrying – that the notion of a non-combatant is being eroded. They are people that are on neither side and are clearly under unbelievable duress, and it's very important to assert their interest, whether it be people in Gaza, Syria or South Sudan. What everyone fears is that there are no winners out of this.

What should the world do about Syria? Should we get involved militarily? And on whose side? Is Putin on the right side of history by supporting Assad, as supporting the rebels is technically supporting IS?
Obviously, the cataclysm in Syria – the implosion of the country and the violence that has been associated with it – has been primarily driven by the Assad government, and no one would like to believe that's the right side of history. I think there are some easier things and some hard things. The easier things are the neighbours of Syria, and the people in them need a huge amount of help – and they're not getting enough of it. The much harder question is, "What is the political settlement that brings the war to an end?" And what you're seeing is the cost of inaction, so people are going to have to weigh up that there are always risks with action and there are always risks with inaction, and this is a case study of the risk of inaction.

Islamic State militants in Syria

Can we trace this all back to Western military intervention in Iraq? Would you agree the operation there was a colossal failure that's massively destablised the whole region?
Well, no one's got a crystal ball, but equally I'm not going to duck. There's no question that in various aspects things went terribly wrong in Iraq; people are right to think that. It was much easier to win the war than win the peace, and the decisions that were taken after the fall of Saddam have had very serious consequences for the stability of the country – for the lives and the livelihoods of the people in the country – and that's absolutely clear. That has long term consequences. Not everything that's happening in Iraq today is driven by that, but it's a significant part of the story, no doubt about it.

From Ukraine to Syria and Gaza to South Sudan, not since WWII have this many people been displaced across the world. Why do you think we're in such a state of upheaval?
International institutions are relatively weak, the age of empire is in retreat, the rise of non-state actors is a new phenomenon that big and powerful countries find very hard to contain. It's also a fact that we live in a global, connected world. We're living in the decade of disorder, and that has real roots in the break up and uncertainties of the Cold War and the divisions that now exist between Russia and the West. One reaction would be that it's all so complicated we should just all get out and retreat into ourselves, but I don't think that's the right reaction because we live in a connected world. There's no opting out of the world's problems. Anyone who says we don't need to care about poverty or conflict or underdevelopment in a far-flung part of the world should look at the Ebola example – even if you don't care morally, you should care for material reasons.

Isn't this all making you want to be in a position of power?
It’s different. In politics, at the stroke of a pen you can sign a treaty or enact legislation to build schools for the future and create a whole new group of secondary schools, or you can remodel a teaching agreement, or you can develop an idea for city regions, or you can pass a climate change bill. Those are big standing legislative and executive actions. The danger, obviously, is that the individual gets lost in the big picture. In the work I'm doing now, the individual is paramount, and the danger is that you lose the big picture. But I haven't left politics in order to knock politics. I think politics is very, very important, and I don't want to sort of assert some greater moral virtue in one sphere or another. But the electorate are the ultimate arbiter in politics, and the electorate had their say, so I'm trying to make a difference in another way.

Miliband in the Mae La refugee camp, western Thailand

You work a lot with refugees. Do you think the Tory government is merging the idea of benefit scroungers and illegal immigrants with refugees?
There's no question that the word refugee and the word immigrant has not exactly become a term of abuse, but the sense of innocence associated with it has been lost. For centuries, Britain has welcomed immigrants and refugees into the country, and it's a stronger place for it. Of course there's got to be rules and the system has got to be fairly applied, but there's no question that the sense of innocence that was associated with it has been lost. It shouldn't take Nigel Farage to say that Britain should take some refugees from Syria.

What should they be saying?
I've made it a pretty golden rule not to implant myself in the middle of the political conflict in the UK, because almost anything I say gets twisted and taken out of context, so I don't really want to get into it, especially as I'm not poring over twists and turns of the Today Programme every day, with the greatest of respect to the Today Programme.

I'm not going to twist what you say.
I know you're not, but then it becomes, "Oh, Miliband piles in on one side, or he piles in on the other." And since I'm not following every twist and turn, you know, I think I've got to have a bit of a self-denying ordinance.

So do you feel like you can't speak about British politics at all?
Yes, that's the position I’m in, and that's one of the reasons I left. It became impossible for me to say anything. You can't be in politics if you're not able to say anything.

Do you think you'll return to British politics?
It's flattering to be asked the question, but I'm committed to my job here. You don't move 3,000 miles as a short-term manoeuvre. I've made a big commitment – my family are here. But British politics has to play out. Obviously I'm passionately committed to one side, the Labour side.

And do you think they'll win at the next election?
I hope they will. The best thing to say is that it's open; clearly the game is on. I would say the certain thing in politics today is that nothing is certain, and it’s open and there's all to play for. I hope we take the right decisions and are able to convince people that a Labour future is a better future.

Okay. Thanks, David.

@tessreidy

More from VICE:

Why Does George Osborne's Ex-Dominatrix Friend Keep Getting Arrested?

We Need More Common Slags Like Me in British Politics

Labour Is Still Kicking People Out of Their London Homes