Mr. Miliband, it’s great to have you here. First of all, you went to Corpus Christi College in Oxford – I have to ask you, as a student, were you a cheese on toast or a beans on toast man?
(laughs) Probably more a cheese on toast than a beans on toast man. Certainly more of both of them. It’s high cuisine! I certainly wasn’t a Marmite man.
You’re in Cardiff today with the student ambassador Charlie Smith to launch the ‘Know Before You Go’ campaign. What makes this campaign so relevant to students?
I think students are travelling more and more around the world and to more and more far flung places. There is a simple idea behind the Know Before You Go campaign – which is a bit of common sense really – prepare, understand where you’re going and try to avoid getting into scrapes. We’ll help you if you get into scrapes, but it’s best to avoid them in the first place.
What is the role of student ambassadors, such as Charlie, in the launch of this campaign?
The best people to persuade students about the virtues of planning your trip properly are not politicians; they are other students. That’s why right around the country we’ve got about 20 student ambassadors – Charlie is one of them – who try to make the case that actually planning your trip and avoiding trouble is good sense. And that’s why he and his colleagues are doing a fantastic job that is obviously a good investment for the Foreign Office.
You are of course the Foreign Secretary but as well as the work in the Foreign Office, you are president of South Shields FC. How are they doing this year?
South Shields FC were promoted last year but we have had a bit of a tough time in the Arngrove Northern League, Division One, in the North East. Not many people know that South Shields FC finished above Manchester United in the old Division One in 1923/1924. It’s a good pub quiz question! We are struggling a bit this year, but as I said, we were promoted last year, so we are looking to the future with confidence.
How important do you think that grassroots and youth sports are to maintaining our sporting culture?
Well, I did a lot of sport as a kid and I think it is fantastically important. I spent a year as a student in America in Junior High School and they took sport remarkably seriously. The whole school came together and it was a big thing. It was competitive but it was also co-operative. It was co-operative within schools and with other schools. I think that is really important. In the end, you don’t win Olympic medals by training the elite; you have to have a broad base and I think community sport – and also through the universities – is vital for that. To draw on the American example: if you go to an American university, you’ve got sports stadiums there that are filled on a Saturday or Sunday, with tens of thousands of people watching the football and basketball on national TV. I think we’ve got to think: how do we broaden that base in sport? Because I think that in that way we don’t just make people healthy but we build a better country.
What effect will this have on our preparations for the London Olympics?
Any of the Olympic medal winners who were parading in London yesterday would tell you that if they hadn’t had their chance as an eight-year-old, 12-year-old and 13-year-old through community and grassroots sports, then they wouldn’t be winning medals as a 21-year-old or 25-year-old. It’s a pyramid really: you have to build the base as well take care of the top.
You’re obviously very technologically-aware, and were the first Cabinet member to start a blog. You’ve mentioned previously that you began to blog because of the gap you felt was growing between the Government and the electorate. Why do you think that gap occurred?
I don’t think the structures of government have kept up with the way we live in a more educated society, where citizens have more access to information and are more demanding of their politicians. We still have structures of government that are very much rooted in the past. I don’t want to exaggerate how many people read my blog or how much it achieves, but it’s important to try to find ways to build these bridges.
Do you feel that there’s a risk that such efforts will not be seen as a genuine two-way conversation but simply as more spin?
There’s always a risk, but in a way everything is. You can end up doing nothing because of the risks. The interesting thing about my blog is less the conversations that I have but more the conversations that happen between people. It’s a many-way conversation; not just a two-way conversation. It’s obviously difficult as Foreign Secretary because you’ve got to be extremely diplomatic, which doesn’t quite go with the spirit of blogging. I think that people recognise that we’re trying to find ways to break down the barriers, as the Foreign Office can be quite a forbidding insitution. And of course there aren’t just my blogs – some of the ambassadorial blogs are actually very racy!
Now, reaching younger voters is obviously a real issue for politicians. There’s been a continuous decline in level of involvement in politics and particularly voting among young people – in the last election only 37% of 18- to 24-year olds voted. With that in mind and with the recent proposals to lower the voting age to 16, do you think that 16- to 18-year olds want the vote, or will it just be another group who are yet more apathetic?
My impression is that young people are interested in political issues; they’re just not interested in conventional politics. So you get a lot of youth activity on issues of the environment, on issues of animal rights, on the issues of Darfur and Iraq. Those issues do mobilise people, but conventional politics doesn’t. You’ve got to be optimistic that if the voting age is lowered, young people will get involved. There’s a responsibility on politics to open itself up.
There is of course a distinct online presence for the Foreign Office, particularly on Twitter, Flickr and Youtube. Are there any plans to take this presence to, say, Facebook?
Well I’m not sure about a Foreign Office Facebook profile! As I say, the Foreign Office is seen as a forbidding institution, and the theme of my visit to Wales is bringing foreign policy back home, because the issues that we care about – terrorism, climate change, conflict – aren’t just issues that affect foreigners. They affect all of us. It’s a planet of shared risk and we’ve got to address the risks together. Foreign policy is about how you address global issues together. I think that the Foreign Office’s attempts to reach the electorate are quite innovative by the Government’s standards, but I’m sure there’s more we can do.
You mentioned climate change briefly there. In an interview for Prospect magazine this month you said that we don’t have to make a choice between economic growth and tackling climate change. Do you really think that continued economic growth is compatible with sustainable living?
I do. The quote said the choice is not economy or environment, but it’s high-carbon growth versus low-carbon growth. In the short-term low-carbon growth is more expensive but in the medium term it more than pays for itself, and that’s the evidence from the Nick Stern review. It’s very important that we don’t fall into the false choice that says that because the economy is in crisis we’ve got to give up on our environmental goals. Equally, I don’t think we should fall into the false choice that says if we care about climate change we’ve got to stop growing the economy.
You may be the Foreign Secretary now, but earlier in life you wanted to be a bus conductor. Do you think that would have been an easier job?
I always wanted to be a London bus conductor because on the old London buses when I was a kid, they had those special ticket machines that you rotated and the ticket came out of the top – and I always thought that that was so cool when I was a kid. I never made it, and now they dont’ have London bus conductors any more, so I’ll be denied. But it probably would have been a bit more straightforward.
Did you not have any ambitions to be the bus driver?
Funnily enough I only had the ambition to be the bus conductor. I don’t know why but that was the limit of my ambition!
Back to your Foreign Office duties. Recently the Conservatives stated that they would end the £39 Million aid given to China due to their human rights record. What would you say to those who think by giving this aid to China, you are endorsing their actions?
We are very clear about our Human Rights concerns in China, including articulating them in public and in private during the official visit that I made to China in February and I will actually be in China again at the end of next week, and we should make clear our human rights concerns. But the idea that Britain should set on a warpath to isolate China and to punish China, just as it’s brought 300 million people out of poverty in the last 30 years, just as it’s becoming part of the global economy, just as it’s making huge investments in Africa that could be a force for good – but won’t necessarily be. I think this isn’t a good time to be isolating China and I don’t think that’s a very mature reaction on the part of the Tories.
Do you think that there has been genuine change in China after staging the Olympics?
Well, I think that there has been real change in China, over the last five to ten years, in extending economic freedoms and some extension of media freedoms. The Olympics showed both the extent of that but also the limits of it. I know that it’s a debate that happening within China because they’re debating themselves how to extend political and human liberties with what they consider to be their paramount concern which is the stability of the system. It is important that we set out our view very clearly, which is that human rights is part of building a strong and sustainable system – not an alternative to it.
Since coming to power in 1997, has Labour taken a different approach to foreign policy than previous governments?
Yes, I think it has. If you remember in 1997, overseas aid was falling. Now it’s rising. When we came to power in 1997, we were busy selling land mines and cluster ammunitions; not banning them. When we came to power, we were busy having a ‘world beef’ war with the rest of Europe; now we are actually leading the debate in Europe, including most recently with the Prime Minister’s work on economic issues. So I think that we have taken a different role. The most controversial area, where we have taken a different role is in the deployment of our armed forces abroad. If you think back to the 1990s and the crisis in Bosnia when 750,000 people were driven from their homes, there was a mass slaughter on the edge of Europe, and Britain stood aside. Now we have said we won’t stand aside either in Kosovo, Sierra Leone or – most controversially – in Iraq, and that debate goes on and people will have different views on the wisdom or otherwise of a more active role abroad. I think that the problems of the modern world need British engagement and I think it would be a dereliction of duty to withdraw and think we can pull up the drawbridge.
One area that has been remarked upon in Labour government foreign policy is the relationship between the UK and the US. How important is the president to the rest of the world?
Well, the President of the United States is the most important political figure in the world, I think it’s fair to say. I think that what’s an interesting change is that while America is the only global super power, America on its own can’t get its way. Either economically, politically or in security terms. And that’s why there is a huge opportunity for countries like Britain or a country like Britain because we have got strong links with America, we’ve got strong links with Europe and we have also got the commonwealth, which is 53 countries, a quarter of the world’s population. So we are a country that has wide networks, 261 diplomatic missions around the world, culture that is globally exported, 70 million visits from people all around the world. We are a country that doesn’t stop at our borders and I think that’s a big and important thing.
Of course I’m not going to ask you who you support in the presidential campaign but what do you think is the single most important characteristic for a president?
I though you were going to say, what’s the most important characteristic of the campaign! I think the campaign has been remarkable for its energy and engagement of people. Right through from the primaries where people were arguing on the different sides of Clinton and Obama and now in the McCain, Obama fight. The most important quality is to know what you believe in. If you know what you believe in, you will be a good leader of the United States.
Finally, what would you say is the main difference between the life of a student and the life of an international politician?
(laughs) Neither of us have much time! Except you’re probably having a better time than we are. I think that I see the world by visiting it, whereas you see the world by reading about it and studying it. For many people the student years are the best of their life, and I certainly enjoyed mine. But I think that there’s a lot of pressure on students as well, and that’s financial pressure as well as time pressure. I still hope that people make the most of it. I think the fact that we’ve got a booming university sector in Britain is a great thing for the future of the country.
Mr. Miliband, thank you very much.
Listen to Sam Knight’s interview online at www.xpressradio.co.uk, or visit www.cardiffunion.tv to watch an exclusive television interview with David Miliband in which he addresses issues including his life as a student, the future of Higher Education funding, and why he thinks politics in Britain is ‘broken’.
1. Llew Jones
Isn’t it incredible that the President of Cardiff Student Union actually welcomed a Government Minister to Cardiff who slavishly supports tuitition and top up fees?
A man who is a representative of a government that is attacking education by capping places at university to 10,000 next year & cutting the financial assistance given to the poorest?
Our President is not representing the interests of students, but instead thinking about his future career and sucking up to politicians. What a muppet!
Sickening!
And David Milliband is also a guy who has slavishly voted for the disastrous wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and whose role in the recent crisis in the Caucases was to rachet up tension, while making pious statements about those who invade other peoples countries (er, better get your own house in order).
But the interviewer here, can’t even put Milliband on the spot over Iraq and a million dead.
It is a disgrace that this New Labour scumbag was given celebrity treatment at our Student Union.
2. Mark
I doubt the Foreign Secretary, let alone a mere Government Minister, would have agreed to an interview if all it involved was a socialist student throwing red paint over him and accusing him of personally torturing small Iraqi children.
Top up fees aren’t really in the droit d’regard of the Foreign Office either, we’d be best off inviting the Secretary of State for Education if we wanted to talk to him about that. Still I suspect if he did the response would be roaring laughter. I don’t know why u think that it’s the poorest that will suffer under the higher education financial reforms, as far as I can tell it’s the middle income families that will suffer, families who joint parental income is over £50,000 wont get the support they did last year when the cut off point was £60,000. I don’t know anyone who parents earn a combined income of £50,000 that would consider themselves poor. It’s not a great system admittedly, personally I would prefer that that the State give the student an adequate loan to cover all costs and then let us pay it back when we start earning. I’m sure this would deter people from coming to Uni who only do so because all their friends are and it would certainly be fairer, but I suspect you think asking students to pay a fair price for a fair commodity isn’t fair, correct?
If you believe that our SU President is sucking up to a current Cabinet Minister to further any future career then you either having being keeping up with the polls or you don’t credit our President with that much intelligence. Frankly if he wanted to further any perspective career then a chat with any Shadow Minister would probably be better.
The Foreign Secretary went to Georgia after the Russians had invaded, I think the tension levels were pretty high by then, don’t you? The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq may have been misguided and somewhat costly, though not by modern standards (think Vietnam). I would point out that it would be incorrect to suggest the Foreign Secretary ‘slavishly’ voted for those wars, firstly a majority of MPs did so on all sides of both Houses and secondly the parliamentary whips were removed for those votes, so there was nothing slavish about it.
I doubt asking the Foreign Secretary about the war dead in Iraq would have achieved anything but cut the interview short. Besides he (the Foreign Secretary) would probably have just said that whilst a low level insurgency is continuing on Iraq the Americans are handing over operational areas to the Iraqis at an increased rate, in fact they handed another over today to the Iraqi Security Forces, only four such areas are now under US control and it seems that whoever will become US President they will be handed over soon too. The facts are that Saddam and his regime are gone, Iraq, whilst fractured along secretarian lines does have least a hope for a new existence as an emerging democracy that would not have been conceivable even after the First Gulf War in 1990/91. Does that justify the misrepresentation and downright lies? No, frankly, I don’t think it does, but I don’t think that necessarily means that we should want to turn the clock back. I think we’ve done all we can for Iraq now, by means of direct military assistance anyway, but the democratic Iraqi government will need all the diplomatic and economic assistance it can after Allied troops have left for Kuwait and other surrounding nations. Afghanistan is a bit different, surely a more justified war but equally assuredly a war that will become more costly. Hopefully Allied Forces can bring peace and democracy to Afghanistan, thought it may take some time. The overriding question I think the people who were opposed to the wars should ask themselves is this; In the past, such as during the Cold War, if faced with a situation a situation where a third world country had annoyed us someway it wasn’t all that often we’d intervene directly. We’d get someone else to do our dirty work, we’d covertly support an opposition with arms, supplies and capital and sit back and watch and they fought a dirty little war that we would often publicly criticise, a war that would invariably involves crimes against humanity and a war where the Geneva Conventions had no say. A bloody war between bloody thugs. So should we have stuck with tried and tested methods of dealing with third world tin pot doctors who annoyed us? Would it have been better have we armed an Iraqi dissident movement and then sat back and watch as Iraq turned into another Rwanda or Somalia? Personally I don’t think that would have been best, if our leaders decided they had to act then I’m glad they did so in the way they did.
Most of what you say, Llew, I can accept as reasonable, even respect but your final sentence is just bloody stupid. He’s the fucking Foreign Secretary, the least he deserves is a cuppa and biscuit.