February 29, 2008
Lunch with the FT: David Miliband
I am 35,000ft above Afghanistan. Beneath me, in the snowy hills, an insurgency is raging. In front of me sits David Miliband, Britain’s foreign secretary, who is leaning forward in his cream-coloured leather seat on a flight from Kabul to Dhaka, the capital of Bangladesh.
“Amartya Sen is a brilliant man,” remarks Miliband. “I think his argument that there is a fusion tradition – a liberal tradition that is concerned with social justice – is right. And I admire his work on capabilities, and on freedom as capability.”
At 42, Miliband is one of Britain’s youngest-ever foreign secretaries. As his musings on Amartya Sen [the Harvard academic and Nobel prize winner] suggest, he is also one of the most intellectual. The son of Ralph Miliband, a famous Marxist academic, he worked in a think-tank before serving as head of Tony Blair’s policy unit at 10 Downing Street. With the predictable British reaction to anybody who might seem a bit clever, Miliband’s colleagues in Downing Street nicknamed him “Brains”. He entered parliament in 2001 and rose swiftly. When Tony Blair was forced to step down as Labour leader and prime minister in 2007, despairing Blairites appealed to Miliband to run for the leadership against Gordon Brown. But Miliband resisted the temptation, and was rewarded with the job of foreign secretary when Brown formed a government.
A rise from the backbenches to one of the great offices of state in just six years demands real political skill. And a couple of days in Miliband’s company have convinced me that he is much more than a jumped-up intellectual. He has a politician’s knack for rarely saying the wrong thing – which makes him a tricky man to interview when there is a tape recorder running. He is also formidably energetic. His day began with an early morning visit to British troops in Kabul. It will end with a late-evening meeting in Dhaka, with politicians and businessmen. His schedule includes no “down time”. He doesn’t seem to sleep much, and his staff claim that they have to remind him to eat.
Miliband had been visiting Afghanistan in the company of Condoleezza Rice, the US secretary of state, and remarks wistfully that “Condi has her own 747 – two of them, in fact.” Britain’s foreign secretary has to make do with an eight-seater corporate jet, leased from a Pakistani company. Shortly before I sit down for lunch in the seat opposite him, a phone in the arm-rest next to Miliband rings loudly. The foreign secretary picks it up and says “hello, hello…” but cannot establish who is on the line. He hands the mysterious call to an aide. “Exciting,” he remarks vaguely.
When the hostess approaches to take our lunch order, Miliband asks for a sandwich. He is told that this is not possible. After a moment’s hesitation, he orders a Greek salad, some chicken and a glass of water. I go for a green salad and the chicken. The meal arrives swiftly. It is standard airline fare. Miliband eats quickly, without appearing to notice the food. The only moment of drama comes when he drops some feta cheese on his cuff. “Damn, damn, damn,” he says. This seems excessively emotional to me. But then, he will be greeted immediately by television crews and government ministers on the tarmac at Dhaka. A large oil stain on his shirt might look tacky.
Ever since Miliband was appointed foreign secretary, he has been teased about his youth. He is boyish-looking, slim and with only the slightest hint of grey hair. One British commentator has suggested that he looks like he is on work experience. Miliband has not helped matters by saying that he has to pinch himself every time he walks into the foreign secretary’s office – a remark that he repeats to me on the flight. But following him around it strikes me that the idea that he lacks authority is unfair. It helps that he is well over 6ft tall. He is also able to speak fluently and without notes on a range of topics.
I suspect he might have had to pinch himself a few times in Afghanistan, as he inspected the British troops there. His father, Ralph, who died in 1994, was a leading opponent of the Vietnam war and a loud critic of Nato, which is conducting the war in Afghanistan. “What,” I ask Miliband, “would your father have made of the Afghan war?” “He would have been less opposed to the Afghan war than to the Iraq war,” says Miliband carefully. “He bought into the idea of universal values. He wouldn’t have agreed that the Afghan people can’t cope with democracy. But I think he would have been suspicious of British and American intentions.” He smiles slightly, perhaps conscious that he himself is now the embodiment of British intentions.
Miliband also makes a clear distinction between Afghanistan and Iraq. He is steadfast in arguing that the Afghan war was justified and must be won. But he is more circumspect about Iraq. I ask if Tony Blair had made the right choice in going to war in Iraq. Miliband replies: “He made the right choice, given what he knew at the time … Everybody thought there was WMD.” He adds swiftly that there is no point now in re-fighting the arguments of five years ago. The point is to deal with the situation as it unfolds over the next five years.
But the experience of Iraq has clearly left a mark on his thinking. I notice that he uses the word “neo-con” as a term of abuse, arguing that the struggle to create a democracy in Afghanistan is not a “neo-con” project, but involves the support of “deeply progressive values”.
It seems to me, however, that Miliband’s thinking and background have more in common with American neo-conservatism than even he might realise. Miliband’s father was a Jewish refugee, who escaped Belgium just before the Nazis got there. Many of the American neo-cons also had Jewish forebears who were European immigrants steeped in the thought of the far left – although they tended to be Trotskyites, rather than Marxists. Like the neo-cons, Miliband is a firm believer in universal values and in the idea of promoting democracy in the world – and he does not rule out military intervention as one of the options available. One of his tasks in Bangladesh will be to put pressure on the caretaker government to stick to its promise to restore democracy by the end of 2008.
In Afghanistan he spoke warmly of the country’s new democracy, of the provincial councils set up all over the country and of the need for “clean and efficient government”. I ask him whether the effort to set up a democracy in the world’s fourth-poorest country might not be a slightly quixotic venture. He is having none of it: “You can’t make a simple transplant of a democratic system. But … it’s not quixotic to think that people want to govern their own affairs.”
As the chicken is cleared away, and a fruit platter is carefully placed on the table between us, we move on to the general subject of democracy promotion abroad. Miliband is giving a speech on this subject in Oxford, two days after we get back from Bangladesh. An aide across the aisle is working on the address, as I talk to his boss. It is a very Miliband effort – quoting everyone from Victor Hugo to the inevitable Amartya Sen. It displays a fondness for fancy new ideas and concepts that may reflect Miliband’s past as a star student at Oxford and the MIT.
Miliband outlines some of his current theories to me. The modern age is characterised by the fact that people feel simultaneously more free and more insecure. Something called a “civilian surge” is taking place. This involves the rise of the “better-informed citizen … who is more able through technology to produce and distribute information, more able to hold power to account”. I glance down at the snowy mountains of Afghanistan miles beneath us and wonder what the Taliban would make of all this. I suspect it would be way over their heads.
I ask the foreign secretary why he feels the need to intellectualise foreign policy in this way. It is all about political persuasion, apparently. “You’ve got to try and tell a story to people,” he suggests, “and, in the end, stories are not about policies, they’re about ideas.” But isn’t this particular narrative a little too intellectual for the average British voter? For the first time in our conversation, Miliband looks faintly hurt. But after a moment’s pause, he acknowledges that this is perhaps a fair criticism.
Miliband’s fondness for theory shows that whatever the differences between the Marxism of Ralph Miliband and his own New Labour values, he is very much his father’s son. But listening to the foreign secretary speak, it strikes me that he is also very much the political son of Tony Blair. It is not just that they share many ideas. It is also that Miliband’s accent and mannerisms are distinctly reminiscent of his former boss. He has the same way of clipping the end off his sentences; the same mix of posh and proletarian pronunciation. When he tells me, “you gotta win hearts and minds,” the accent and intonation are pure Blair.
I ask Miliband how strongly he had been tempted to try to succeed his mentor by running for the Labour leadership. Sipping his coffee and ruminatively unwrapping a mini Twix bar, he says: “I thought about it, but I was never tempted to do it.” I am not sure I believe this, since Miliband had allowed many weeks of public speculation in the spring of 2007 before finally ruling himself out of the race. But he is emphatic. “You’ve got to follow your guts, and it just wouldn’t have been the right thing to do. I’m happy where I am.”
I do believe him on this last point. He seems both comfortable and enthusiastic in the role of foreign secretary.
The crew inform us that we will be landing in Bangladesh in an hour. Miliband glances anxiously at the red box containing his briefing papers, and it seems courteous to let him get on with it.
From the portrait you have painted, seems Mr Miliband has the same sanctimonious attitude towards international affairs as that of his mentor Blair, but without the charm.
Posted by: RCS | March 2nd, 2008 at 5:29 pm | Report this commentStop funding the terrorists!
No more Oil Wars!
Energy Independence Now!
Drill in Anwar.
Build more nuclear power plants
Use More coal.
Use more natural gas
Turn trash into energy
Double the efficiency of windmills and solar cells.
If France can do nuclear power so can we.
If Brazil can do biomass/ethanol power so can we.
If Australia can do LNG power so can we.
Domestically produced energy will end the recession and spur the economy.
Stop paying oil dollars to those who worship daily at the alter of our destruction.
Preserve our Civil Rights and defend our Freedom by ending dependence on foreign oil.
Posted by: poetryman69 | March 2nd, 2008 at 8:38 pm | Report this commentIt seems to me that this column is somewhat in danger of disappearing up its own fundamental. A Jewish journalist interviewing a Jewish politician, comparing him to various other Jewish politicians, and being commented on by a Jewish blogger. I can get this in the Jewish Chronicle or the Forward.
Serious topics this weekend: Chavez / Colombia, the riots in Armenia, Turkey / Iraq, the Russian elections - any thoughts on them? Although maybe not, as there’s not an obvious Jewish angle.
Posted by: AYC | March 2nd, 2008 at 8:43 pm | Report this commentpoetryman69, “Stop paying oil dollars to those who worship daily at the altar of our destruction.” You said it, bro.
Posted by: AYC | March 2nd, 2008 at 8:45 pm | Report this commentYes, there is not shortage of serious topics this week, including the continuing genocide taking place in Gaza or Israel’s defence minister calling for a new Holocaust against palestinians. Topics seemingly ignored by this foreign affairs blog
AYC, i think you have a distorted perception of reality with regards to who wants who’s destruction. Over the last 50 years the US and Israel have been murdering arabs and iranians to the tune of 300 per 1 American/Israeli.
Nobody is forcing you to buy foreign oil, bro. Why dont you keep your dollars and sleep safe at night rather that worry about us muslims at out altar
Posted by: Reza | March 3rd, 2008 at 4:55 am | Report this commentDear Reza (Pahlavi?),
I suggest you send a petition to the FT — or else start your own blog. There you could go on unhampered with your hysteria.
I would like to ask: why is Middle Eastern petroleum considered to “belong” to the Iranians or the Arabs? This is a global resource which by rights should belong to the whole of mankind. Why is a minority of humanity entitled to exact rents on the world’s energy simply due to an accident of geography? Petroleum exploitation should be invested in the hands of the United Nations, and any supranormal profits put in a global fund to invest in poor countries’ infrastructure and alleviate poverty.
Posted by: RCS | March 3rd, 2008 at 6:39 am | Report this commentRCS,
I wonder if your marxist sense of global communal property rights applies to other resources and the rights of Palestinians as well…
What about fresh water, coal and metal. How about letting the UN take control of these resources too so we in the middle east can take our fair share from you in the US and Europe
And what about land?..
Land is also a global resource which belongs to the whole of mankind, however, by practicing imperialist racist aparteid, the Zionists have misappropriated this resource for themselves. Why must this land “belong” to Jews . Why is an alien minority from a different region entitled to colonise foreign land and displace an entire indigenous peoples and steal their property while simultaneouly exterminating them from the face of the earth simply due to the storyline of some hysterical fictional fantasy written centuries ago.
Indeed this land should also be invested in the hands of the UN so people of all faiths can enjoy its fruits
Posted by: Reza | March 3rd, 2008 at 9:39 am | Report this commentReza, one point - the resources curse. Hasn’t exactly helped the Arab states or Iran, has it? Re: land, why must Arabia belong to the Arabs? Why is it Judeinrein? Don’t talk to me about racism. This is an issue that Miliband should take up ahead of Durban II. Will be interesting to see if the Saudis welcome him, won’t it. Needless to say, Aymagonnanukeya would invite him as a Jew if he denouces Israel and denies the holocaust. Beyond that, I should think he would be persona non grata in Tehran.
Posted by: AYC | March 3rd, 2008 at 10:16 am | Report this commentDear Reza,
Very amusing. I am willing to share Israel’s land and resources in return for a proportional slice of Iran’s. Israel has “grabbed” so much land that the whole country is almost indistinguishable on any standard sized globe.
You are the one taunting myths; the Jews are not alien to Palestine. I suggest you review your history: for instance, look-up the Maccabean kingdom of Roman times — definitely not some Old Testament “fictional fantasy”.
Finally, as a Middle Easterner, I have no objection to your suggestion regarding western coal and metal.
Have a nice day!
Posted by: RCS | March 3rd, 2008 at 10:16 am | Report this commentHi RCS,
Your caring-sharing ideas are very interesting. Why stop at oil. Why not share every resource and bring down every border so tere is a complete free for all? Who needs those pesky immigration controls? Why do people insist on any property rights? After all, “god” created all the land, water and all things in them.
For that matter why have any patent rights? After all, when something is invented, it is put in the world and the United Nations should hold all patents for the the benefit of mankind. (Don’t believe all that red herring about people not bothering to invent things.= in that case. They will for the challenge and fun of it.)
I also don’t like the institution of marriage. Why should attractive peopl be locked in exclusive relationships? They should be “internationalised” and let everybody else have a slice of the fun.
Way to go bro.
P
Posted by: Pacifist | March 3rd, 2008 at 10:52 am | Report this commentAYC,
i think the only racism you know about is the hysterical fantasy kind that you make up in your mind. As an Iranian growing up in the US, i can tell you a few things about the reality though…
As for the Saudis, nobody ever accused me of defending them on any issue. You are welcome to say whatever you want
the Iranian president Ahmadi-nejad however, whom i find myself defending only out of the sheer ignorance of certain comments, is absolutely right to criticize racism and aparteid, wherever they may be. As for the holocaust, i dont recall him ever denying it, rather questioning why it is a closed topic and why palestinians are paying the price for it
RCS,
YOu are welcome in Iran. We have plenty of land for Jews and Gentiles alike. If fact, there are many already living happily in Iran.
Also, as a student of history, i can tell you that the European Jews you reference here cannot functionally or legitimately trace any part of their ancestry back to Palestine in the Roman era or any other era. My persian ancestors migrated to central asia from eastern europe, but you dont see me trying to colonise Hungary and take budapest as my capital, let alone exterminate the hungarians and kick them out of their country. This is simply a ridiculous argument, otherwise we should give Turkey back to those who claim to be the decendants of the ancient hittites or england back to the druids….
As a point of interest, if you live in London, please visit the british museum and look up an Ancient persian artifact called the Cyrus Cylinder. It is considered the first document of human rights in written history and in fact explicitly calls for the emancipation of the Jews after persia’s conquest of babylon (where jews were slaves), calls for their return to jerusalem and mandates the construction of a hebrew temple with state funds. It is also well know in history that persians liberated the jews again from the roman empire.
Posted by: Reza | March 3rd, 2008 at 11:00 am | Report this commentReza, “We have plenty of land for Jews and Gentiles alike. If fact, there are many already living happily in Iran.” Haven’t I heard something very similar to that somewhere before…let me think…oh yeah, Germany in the 1930s and early 40s. Look what’s happening to the Zoroastrians, Baha’i and Sunni Arabs. Tells me all I need to know.
Perhaps Iranian racism would be a good topic for Miliband, and others, at Durban II, you could almost subtitle it “The eradication of the Baha’i and other minorities in Iran and the wider call to genocide from Tehran”.
Posted by: AYC | March 3rd, 2008 at 11:31 am | Report this commentFACTUAL CORRECTION.
Posted by: Brendan O'Leary | March 3rd, 2008 at 12:22 pm | Report this commentGideon Rachman needs a refresher course in intellectual history. He says that the American neo-conservatives “tended to be Trotskyites, rather than Marxists”. Trotskyists were, and remain, Marxists. Perhaps only surviving Stalinists think otherwise.
I was surprised to read that Gideon needed to interview Miliband in order to discern that he might not be a Neocon.
Presumably, David Miliband’s team is closer to Clinton’s Strobe Talbott than to either the Neocons or Obama. Ditto for the EU. So, if Obama wins big tomorrow, …
–What change in direction can be expected in London and Brussels?
–What is the likelihood of a close fit between Miliband and the Obama team?
–Where IS Tony Blair? His mistakes/failures should be dissected, chronicled and given to Obama who risks letting the same adrenalin high distract him from core principles.
Posted by: WCM | March 3rd, 2008 at 1:13 pm | Report this commentDear Reza,
The origins of Ashkenazi Jews trace back to northern Italy. In fact, the descendants of these proto-Ashkenazis still live in Tuscany, as for instance the family of Primo Levi. Jews were widely dispersed throughout the Roman empire — some estimates put them at 10% of the population. However, their religious centre was in Palestine — from whence they originated and which functioned as their religious centre even after the Great Revolt of AD 67 and the destruction of the second temple. See here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Jewish-Roman_War
The Jews were not slaves in Babylon (you are mixing the Babylonian captivity with the story of the enslavement in Egypt). The ancient Judeans were deported by the neo-Babylonians in 586 BCE and then partially reinstated in Palestine by Cyrus’ decree (that famous cylinder) in 537 BCE, after he had conquered the Babylonians. It is assumed this was part of a general Persian policy of granting respect to the various ethnic groups and their deities, intended to garner their support for the imperial administration. See here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babylonian_captivity
As for visiting the British Museum: in contrast with the other commentators on this blog, I am firmly planted in the Middle East — which is where I was born and where I live.
Posted by: RCS | March 3rd, 2008 at 2:01 pm | Report this commentAYC,
Again, the hysterical and ludicrous fantasy in your mind about Iranian racism is unbelievable and just simply sad. Since when are those who speak out against racism themselves accused of it. FYI unlike 30’s germany, there are no Jews being rounded up and exterminated in Iran. Gaza, however is one single large concentration camp and the horrors that are being commited there by the racist murderous evil Israeli regime are truly equivalent to Naziism. That is the undeniable reality. Back to Iran, i will remind you that for a country that has been around for 3 thousand years, we have a pretty good record with minorities. Things are not perfect in Iran , but we do not shoot the babies of Zoroastrians in the head or murder Sunnis muslim teenagers while they play football nor have we until just 150 years ago enslaved any population due to the colour of their skin and forced them to pick cotton. Racism my friend, is a white European invention exported to the rest of the world to create strife and maintain control over global resources
I will leave it at that because i can see already how senseless it is to have an intelligent and reasonable debate here. Peace and all the best
Posted by: Reza | March 4th, 2008 at 1:58 am | Report this comment“NEO-COLONIZATION FOR IRAQ/AFGHANISTAN NEEDED!”
For nation building ‘to work’ & for the instilling (in nations) of democratic, rule-of-law governance, ‘national plans’ are required. Plans that are publicly accessible & regularly openly evaluated by objective bodies.
In other words, comprehensively detailed, bench-marked written directions that say:
- what needs to be achieved;
- where (in the country) IE city/province/state-level;
- when;
- by whom/what agency/intervening-country; and
- with costs projected.
Without such, United Kingdom & western nations’ good-intentions accompanied by their generous expenditures & man-power/military deployment in places like Afghanistan and Iraq can not reasonably be expected to result in ’success’.
Although the establishment, of ‘national plans’ may smack of socialism or colonization- if this approach is what is required for success, then politicians/bureaucrats and others ought to swallow their pride, and facilitate a multi-national
conference(s) tasked with establishing ‘national plans’ for Iraq and Afghanistan.
Massive evidence from the last 1/2 decade of G8/developed-world nations’ involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq says pretty unequivocally that, without specifically articulated ‘national plans’- plans that the international community buys into and endorses-these two countries are not on the way to stability, rule-of-law or to becoming reasonably well administered democracies…
The United Kingdom is well placed internationally to be leading discussions on how best to get national plans established for Afghanistan and Iraq… plans that are supported by the international community with funding, man-power and related resources.
Roderick V. Louis
Posted by: Roderick V. Louis | March 5th, 2008 at 4:13 am | Report this commentVancouver, BC, Canada
ceo@patientempowermentsociety.com
Addendum to above: the drafting and utilization of cohesive, comprehensive ‘national plans’ would be appropriate ONLY for countries which have been invaded/occupied by developed world/G8 nations, in this case- Iraq & Afghanistan.
For less-than-optimally democratic countries- esp ones that are hostile to developed world nations- such as North Korea & Iran, passive, ‘broad-minded strategies’ need to be employed which have the potential to ‘voluntarily generate’ “democratic,
rule-of-law & economic-development INERTIA”!!
Broad-minded strategies would warrant world-leading nations such as the United Kingdom and the USA attempting to “constructively address” the obvious motivations of Iran’s & North Korea’s aggressive over-sensitivity toward the developed world and as a consequence their proceeding with nuclear & ballistic missile programmes:
- objectives to feel “heard”, & respected as viable nation’s; &
- wishes to be viewed (by other nations) as equal, & valued, players at “the head table” of the world stage…
…. This would be instead of- in a perceived-as-bullying, hostile way- opposed.
The main policy-objective of leading-world nations like the USA, United Kingdom & France re Iran’s & N Korea’s nuclear programmes & their oppositional relationship with developed world nations, ought to be these 2 countries’ ‘planned
development’, in ways that enable their productively interfacing with the world.
This requires setting a “direction of development”.
Underpinning such with structures & international agreements that mandate these nations to work towards well defined
long-term objectives with the comprehensive participation of developed-world countries, is vital.
How?
Led by the UK, USA & leading EU nations such as France, the developed world ought to:
- Offer Iran the 2016 Olympics, with guaranties of significant logistical & financial support. Other states in the region could be approached for participation, with a “regional” Olympic games the optimal objective.
- Additionally, offer to pay for, & partner in the building of significant infrastructure for North Korea, & possibly Iran, of a type that will instill national-prestige, as well as facilitating an improved connectedness- both physical & psychological- to the outside world.
Japan’s govt advocates more assertiveness & a greater global role for Japan.
These objectives could be accomplished productively, by Japan supporting strategies like the 2016 Olympics, & participating in the paying for & construction of a Japanese-type high-speed “bullet” train to connect North & South Korea’s capital cities to each other & to China.
A pan-Korean peninsula high-speed rail link could only contribute to, & make more permanent the existent, but very limited, trade & industry connections between these two culturally similar states.
If accepted by Iran & North Korea, altruistic overtures such as the 2016 Olympics & high tech infrastructure mega-projects, would enable global stages where these 2 egotistically defensive country’s (& many Islamic nations) could feel that they can show their positive potential & achievements, & as well- meeting the developed world’s political objectives- would
effectively require these countries to “fit”, & “work with”, the world community.
Furthermore, & most importantly, offering Iran & N Korea the the 2016 Olympics + simultaneously committing to pay-for & partner-in-the-building-of much needed infrastructure would go a long way to eliminating their (+ many Islam nations/people’s) perceptions of threat from developed world & “Judeo Christian” country’s- removing their leaders’ main argument for alleging a requirement for nuclear weapons & long-range missile programmes.
_________________
Posted by: Roderick V. Louis | March 6th, 2008 at 1:01 pm | Report this commentRoderick V. Louis
(near) Vancouver, BC,
Canada,
ceo@patientempowermentsociety.com
Reza wrote “Racism my friend, is a white European invention exported to the rest of the world to create strife and maintain control over global resources”
Reza, this is just a plain silly assertion! For someone who otherwise appears to write cogently, surely you’re judgement isn’t so clouded?
Irrespective of what’s going on in Iran or Gaza, racism is as old as the hills and the historical record shows that it’s an ugly part of human nature that needs to be actively resisted in all societies, along with non-racial violence and other unpalatable traits of human behaviour.
Do try to retain some balance and perspective, otherwise you undermine the credibility of the rest of what you write which would be a shame.
All the best
Posted by: DKM | March 10th, 2008 at 4:53 pm | Report this comment