With Margaret Hoover is made possible by. Additional funding is provided by. Drporate funding is provi by. David miliband, welcome to firing line. Thank you, margaret. Good to be with you. You are the president and the ceo of the International Rescue committee, a Global Relief organization that was foued by Albert Einstein in 1930. Hard to do better than that, can you . You are also the fnk so. Foreign secretary of the United Kingdommb and a former member of the labour party in parliament. I first must ask you about developments in the news this week. President trump ordered thkilling of iran quds for Major General soleimani last wee heres what President Trump had to say about it. Solmani was plotting imminent and sinister attacksom on american dis and military personnel. T we caught him in the act and terminated him. In your opinion, was President Trump correct to do this . En well, obviously, we havt seen the evidence that President Trump referred to, in terms of the imminent attack on u. S. Forces orn u. S. Assets. I think the big question the consequences of this are. And i can only speak to you om the perspective of a humanitarian organization. I can tell you, we are preparing, across the middle east, forore chaos, more conflict, more civilian casualties and also theow not very remote ospect of western countries being driven out of the middle east. Thats obviously been th strategic goal of iran for a long time, and thats been brought closer by the votes in the iraqi parlient and by the rising tensionou american presence in iraq. Is it, you think, more likely that the west leaves the middle easts or leaaq in this case, or is it possible, to play devils advocate, that the assassination of Quds Force Commander soleimani changes the seriousness with which iran takes the United Statesmo and make i likely that iran returns to the negotiating table . An well, iell you from my own time in government that iran, who the u. K. Had full diplomatic relations with in the time, unlike the u. S. , they take to the United States very seriously, and they take the history hiof the u. S. Iran relatio very seriously. They take the power of thehe United States,ilitary power but also the broader i dont think they were expecting their major genel from the quds force to be assassinated in the iraqi airport. Thats a good point. D but thsnt mean that iran doesnt take america serious. And i think that the sense of iranian humiliation could obviously lead them to miscalculate. That would have very grave consequences. Those of us who were involved in the earlyays in trying to establish a Nuclear Agreement with iran obviouslfear that there is a return to a pathway to a nuclear weapon, that the terrible choice that all of us feared either iran gets the bb or iran gets bbed that that choice, we dont want and thats a fear of anyoneain, who studies the middle east at the moment. The United States, at thi point in history, has decided not to pursue a strategy of engagement withran. Is that a mistake, in your view . To engage iran. Its imperative iran is this country of 80 Million People. Its a historic civilization, but it also has an enormous range of interests across the region that have been, in a way, helped by some aspects of western policy, policy mistakes, over the last 20 years. I think that engagement Political Engagement is the only way forward, ultimately, because irans always going to be part of the mile east. Its not going to be removed from the middle east. And so recognizing that reality and then finding a way to have a balance of power t seemme, to be the only way in which to achieve some kind of stability the british newspaper the telegraph recently reported that, in 2007, when you were foreign secretary during theraq war, that you blocked an operation to kill Major General sol. This was a very odd story, which had no provenance at all. I would remember that. It wouldve been a etty big incident. Ive checked with some of my senior colleagues. They have no memory of it. , your tweet was that. So i checked with our with senior peoplewe wh involved with me. And no one remembers that . We would remember it i happened. Had you been presented with a plot, such as has been reported, would you have been against it . Senior state figurinate from other countries. Thats a british approachto hese things. Hed taken on a political role. And, obviously, the great fear today is of steady escalation with ultimately the nuclear question back on the table. Remember, the decision to withdraw from t joa, the Nuclear Agreement, was in large part premised on the argument that, in 15 years time, iran may return to producing a bomb. Where we are now is that the iranians are taking steps to produce a bomb tond thats obviously very worrying. To the instability in the region and your work at the International Rescue committee. So id like to take a step back and have you reflect on your personal history. Ih,gonna show you a photogr and id like you to tell me about it. Well, there are two men in the photo. One on the right looks a bit like me, and thats my dad,an the one on the left who looks a bit less like me is my grandfather. Thats a picture taken in 1940. They were refugees from belgium in london. They escaped when the nazisd invalgium. And heres another photograph. Yeah, thats my mother, also arriving as a refugee in the u. K. In 1946. She was a 12yearold girl at the time,rriving from poland. How has being the child of refees shaped your approach to the refugee crisis you now manage . My generation is, if you like, a transitional generation, in the sense that we remember people who survived the holocaust, who survived the second world war,t ive beyond them. We outlive them. And so its incumbent on us to tell their story. And telling their story takes a number of forms. T one of them t, the people who are fleeing from conflict and violence around the world todayab t 70 Million People, 30 million refugees, 40 million internally displaced they live in different parts of the world. Theyre from the middle east, theyre across parts of africa but their stories are strikingly similar. Theyre about fear, theyre about loss, theyre aboutey mistrust, e about hatred, and theyre about the consequences for innocent people, including children. Halff the worlds refugees a childr. So there is a coection between my parents story and what they went through and today the story of todays rugees, even though the circumstances, in many ways, are very different. How do you define a refee . A refugee is someone for whom its not safe to go home or stay at home. And the reasons it might not be safe is that theres a war going on, someones trying to persecute you, or someones trying to beat you up and s. It doesnt include economic insecurity. Exactly. I chose my words carefully. Its not someone who would prefer not to go home. Its someone for whom its not safe to go home. D ere are, more or less, 30 Million People in that category around the world. And refugees are found, in the main, not in countries like the u. , where im based, or the u. K. , where im from. Most refugees are in poor or low or middleincome countries like jordan or lebanon, like ethiopia or uganda or bangladesh. Its the poorer parts of the world that bear the greatest, if youke burden or responsibility for hosting refugees, and its a double burden, veif you like, because theot needs of their own populations, arriving from next door. Ations so, just this week the irc has releasedat its 2020 list. Here you can see the top 20 countries yemen, syria, v nigeriezuela, democratic republic of congo are the top five on the list. And whats striking to me is how little this list changes from year to year. These are crises that last for many, many years at a time. You often have children who are born into refugee campso wht know their home country. Thats a very good point. Hy is it that the need is so protracted and sustaining . E i think are two reasons that are really important. The first is that weve go a genuine crisis of diplomacy. The tools of diplomacy that are developed for relations between states which are suffering just arent equate to wars within states. All of those conflicts that youve shown on the map are socalled civil wars theyre wars within states. Ke second thing that i th is very important is, were living in a world where power has been fragmted right around the world. And if you look at the u. N. Security council its not just split, its deadlocked. And thats how i think you end up with these longlasting conflicts that recur beyond generations. Youve said were livine in an impunity, whe bad actors are free to cause great sufring. What do you mean by that . I mean that you can, if youre a conflict player today, commit war crimes and get away with it. You can bomb coaches of schoolchildren andet away with it. You can besiege a city and get away with it. And the terrible thing about this age of impunity is that, once ittarts, its very hard to reverse. So, then, how do you make the case, as the leaderof he irc, especially against this rising tide of economic nationalism some people call it populism thatheres not just a moral obligation of wealthy countries to aid suffering people but is there an econom case, as well . Yes. And i make the case with head as well as heart. s easy to say, here are people in need. Weve got to help them. Thats the moral ce, especially when theyre innocent. So whats the but the case for thhead is to say that, in an interdependent world, in a connected world, problems that start in the middle east dont end in the middle east. Problems that start in Central America dont end in Central America. The problems from the middle east come to europe. The problems from Central America comee u. S. Southern border. And if you neglect humanitarianh crisis the product, as sure as night follows day,it is pal instability. And political instability does not remain within t countries within which it starts. So, you have run the International Rescue committee now under two president s, president obama and President Trump. And in the past, theun ed states has been a leader in Refugee Resettlement. E but our refu Resettlement Program today have shrunk significantly. This year, it has be capped at 18,000. What is the impact of the unit states taking in fewer refugees . Well, shrunk is a very nice word to use. Ort ofes it sound like a natural phenomenon. Theyve been shrunk. The refugee Resettlement Program that averaged 90,000 refugees a year over the last my initial note said decimated, if makes you feel better. [ both laugh ] so its been quite an active decion by the Trump Administration to reduce from 90,000 to the 18,000 figure you mention, the number of refugees allowed in. Now, the csequence of that is very clear a large number of people who are thmost vulrable people who are eligible for refugee in limbo outside the country. But secondly, other countrie who followed americas lead in raising their Refugee Resettlement numbers have followed americas lead in reducing the Refugee Resettlement numbers. But heres a final thing that i think is really interesting. President trump didnt just reduce to 18,000, the number ofi refugees allowo americ he said he wants to give every state the right to say, no, they didnt want to have any refugees come. Whats happened, so far, 41 out of 50 states have replied the preside. 41 states have said, no, we want to carry on taking refugees. And i think that says something important about america. So i think what youre observing is tha potentially, the leaders of the states of the United States actually dont represent the well, even if theyre in his party, which is interesting. So what youre saying is, prident reump isnt esenting the United States. Look, im not an american citizen or an american voter, so im not gon make a political comment. Ay what im gonnas very striking is that the bipartisan commitment tRefugee Resettlement remember, president reagan admitted more refugees than any other president. Pa and so that isan commitment seems to still have a beating heart in states around the country. Up so are you optimistic . I mean, you sounfted by this. And what i was itially gonna ask you cause im quite surprised by this, too, is have you observed the politics in immigration and refugee this country, and having observed the rhetoric shift between one president and the other, how you understand that as i mean, yove been in the United States now for seven years. How do you understand the politics of refugees . Well, i think the first is that, as you indicated, the policies of refugeesas got mixed up with the politics of immigration. And theyre related, but they different, because refugees are fleeing for their lives. A immigran seeking to move for a better life. But theyve both been vilified by the president. Theyve both been vilified, and theyve got mixed up t togeththe benefit of neith. The politics of immigrationre angees is not untethered to the rise in nationalism, the rise in global populism. Which brings me to brexit. The United Kingdom is scheduled to leave the European Union at the end of this month, thanks to Prime Minister boris johons llry large victory at the last month. You recently wrote in the guardian, i am convinced that brexit is the biggest Foreign Policy disaster since appeasement in the 1930s. Thats a very strong statement. Sundering, the breaking of 45 years of membership of the European Union and 55 years of attempts to get into the European Union. But my argument my side of the argument lost. And Boris Johnsons got his majority. We are going to brexit. We dont yet know what brexit will mean, and one of the arguments that weve made is tha far from getting brexit done on january the 31st, all well have done is well have checked out of the e. U. Hotel, but we dont know what hotel weve checked into. And thats the big question that makes people like me say, look, were gonna be dealing with the consequences of brexit, the consequences of checking out of the e. U. Hotel, for many years to come, because the trade negotiations, the security arrangements, the education and research commitments that we made to each other, all thats gonna be negotiated over the rest of this decade. And do you lack confidence in the United Kingdoms ability to negotiate new trade deals and new arrangents . We havent needed to negotiate a trade deal for 40 years. People dont undstand this. Britain hasnt had a trade negotiator for 40 years because the European Unionha been the trade negotiator for all the 28 members of the European Union. But do you lack confidence in the United Kingdoms abity to do it . Of course not. But if you looe competence not the confidence, the competence ss with which suce british governments over the last three years have tried to negotiate with europe, yd say could they have made a bigger hash of it . No, they couldnt. , yone who tells you that theyre convinced its gonna be a breeze really doesnt know what theyre talking about. So then explain to us why your former constituents in south shields, northeast england, voted for 65 for brexit. I think they wanted to givesy the politicaem a big kick, and they felt that the economics had turned against what in america would be called a rust belt cotituency, what i call a fantastic place to live and work. , but thatthink, the essence of the story it was a chan to kick the system. We referenced last month your party, the labour party, suffered a pretty spectacular defeat at the polls, thanks to the farleft candidate, Jeremy Corbyn, theres a belief othe lefter. In british and american politics that the most progressive policies are the ones that can win broadly, d its a debate actually that has been happening on the left for some time, including on this program in 1980, when william f. Buckley jr. Hosted tonbenn, a Key Labour Party leader who made that case to william f. Buckley jr. Lets take a look. Happened with the labour party. In 1951, it had over a million duespaying members. Laboureekly estimates it has 284,000 today. So there is some, presumably, populist sense of dissatisfaction with it. And i thi there is a sense of disappointment among a lot of labour peoplee thaty one thing in opposition and do Something Else in government. And the real rean, or one of the major reasons, why were going for party reform now is to try and restore credibility and tegrity to british politics. Because the labour party is a socialist party. En it always has people actually vote labour in the expectation that there wille change in the structure of power in society. And im afraid tyd be disappointed because, over the last 20 years, Labour Party Leadership has been, really, a visionist leadership. Its tried to bury its its commitment to socialism, and i think thats a factor, mylf, in the decline in our support. Does the defeat of corbynsp ve benns argument . Yes. I mean, theres a very clear lesson here, because, essentially, Jeremy Corbyn took the tony benn political approach and gave it a road test. And what it turns out is that, if you have incredible policies, a mistrusted leader, a team that doesnt seem to have the ability to deliver, youre gonna get what we would call stuffed youre going to lose badly. And labour suffereda storic defeat. So i think there are somess big s here. Were living in a time of Enormous Economic inequality that undoubtedly drives people to want have big ons. But if the Big Solutions arent credible, people a will ry from them. And thats essentially what happened in the u. K. Yeah. Corbyn has alled the british Bernie Sanders. Yeah, mean, i dont knowf how muchat is because theyre both politicians who are in their 70s and have a leftofcen opinion. I think that the corbyn model is a very stark warning, which is that the more radical change you want to promote, the more credible you have to be in your ability toeliver on it. And british voters simply concluded thatth more promises Jeremy Corbyn made, the fewer of them would be delivered and the fewer them they supported. So how much of a cautionary tale is corbyns loss to american democrats as they look to nominating20 a candidate fo . I think its a very clear example here that if a Political Party ses contact with the electorate, it will lose. And oncan overdo the transatlantic parallels. Akst because we both s english doesnt mean that were the same country. But i think there is a ver clear lesson at a time when social democratic parties, centerleft rties ound the world, are struggling with attacks from populist, attacks from the centerright, attacks from the harleft. The hard left doesnt provide the answer. You say t hard left doesnt provide the answer, but Bernie Sanders here, in the last quarter of fundraising in the president ial campaign, raised 10 million more dollars than his next closest competitor. He raised 34. 5 million. So there is energy on the Progressive Left in this country. And dont want you never nwant to deny that, and i gonna insert myself into the american political debate. But what i can report is that an Incredible Program produces an appalling , and thats what happened in the u. K. , and democraciesne strong oppositions as well as strong governments, and thats is lacking at the moment. You actually called the showdown between the conservative pty and the labour party an unpopularity contest. And one of the other elements that we havent discussed that emerged in the campaign to persuasively address corbyn allegations of antisemitism thatriled the labour party. And you wrote, the failure to dracknowledge, never mind s, antisemitism is a moral scar. Why has antisemitism emerged and so tethered itself within tabour party . Well, i think that it has been allowed to tether itself. Its been allowed to grow on social media, where anonymity provides a defense against accountability. And its been allowed to grow because it hasnt been smhed, really. And the lesson of history is very clear. Any form of racism, if you dont tackle it, it grows, and its spurred on. And i think that the challenge that any labour leader is gng to have to take on. We know that its a scourge, and it needs to be dealt with. If you were a labour leader, it . Would you have dealt with well, you you must have, first of all, the appropriate disciplinary procedures. Ha secondly, yo to have a zerotolerance policy. Thirdly, youve got to recognizt in the antisemitic tropes, there is a worldviewti as well as a plar view, and the worldview is about globalists, its about a series of tropes about whos runng the world. And its a dangerous worldviewca e its misguided and wrong, and you have to take on the ideology as well as e practicality. Is it an ideology or a Conspiracy Theory . Well, its a conspiracy thry is a better way of putting it. Yeah. Is it your view that Jeremy Corbyn is antisemitic . Dont think that thats where i want to take the argument. What hes allowed to happen is, two words that i never believed i would see in the same paragraph, never mind headline, labour, my party, and antisemitism. The same paragraphadline. Them in and thats on his watch,pen. And its his responsibility. I appreciate that you dont want to take the argument there, but i just have to ask you the question again. T i mean, by ning on that responsibility, is that antisemitic . Well, hes alloweds anitism to grow, and it almost doesnt matter what the motivation was, what the defense is. The product is pernicious, and thats what needs to be taken on. Why do you suppose he did . I think that he didnt want to attack people who he perceived to be on his side w in the sectarifare within the labour party. I think that he also was unclear in his own mind about the difference between criticizing the government of israel at different points in history for its policies and veering into antisemitism. At one point, you had hoped to be the next labour party leader, and many viewers here the United States dont necessarily know about the dra that unfolded erbetween you and your bro when he challenged you and then ultimately narrowly defeated you to be the leader of the party in 2010. Reflecng back to that time they dont need to know that. They dont need to know it, but they do know now. So what have you learned from that loss . The biggest thing ive learned is a simple one dont live in the past you hold your head up, you take your values, you take the hit, and then you try and put your values and experience to work. Looking for a new leader. And the courier conducted an online poll last month about the elections in which you came in second out of 19 people who could inire a labour comeback. I think that must have been done very much only amongst my friends. Ea even of tony blair. [ laughing ] well, the election for labour leaders for existing m. P. S, so the electorates gonna be saved that choice. But you have just written an oped about the futu of labour. And looking ahead four, five, six years, would you rule it out . I never rule anything out. I believe the International Rescue committee has been a remarkable experience for me. I feel truly privileged to be leading 13,000 employees, 15,000 volunteers aroundhe world. Were an 800 million organization. Were really addressing a big issue. To i never want ieem like ive got anything other than full focus on that responsibity. Equally, obviously, im not gonna do this forever, and so i dont know what im gonna do next. And some people might say, oh, you should never say you dont know, but actually, its the truth, and its bettero tell the truth than not. And so why should i rule anything out . I mean, i dont know im gonna do next, so lets see. David miliband, witthat, thank you very much for coming to firing line. Thank you. Firing line with Margaret Hoover is made possible by. Additional funding is provided by. Corporate funding is provided by. Youre watching pbs. The people who give the money to make Mister Rogers neighrhood are the people who contribute to this and other. And. Captioning made possible by u. S. Department of education its a Beautiful Day in this neighborhood a Beautiful Day for a neighbor would you be mine . Could you be mine