Tag: Speeches

Below is the text of the speech made by David Miliband, the then Foreign Secretary, to the Demos conference on 23rd February 2010.

The Prime Minister asked on Saturday that voters take a second look at Labour. He set out serious plans for the pursuit of noble causes based on clear values. This speech is about those values, and how a re-elected Labour government would make them real.

The core value we espouse is a commitment to use government to help give people the power to shape their own lives. The power that comes with income and wealth. The power that comes with skills and confidence. The power that comes with rights and democratic voice. Not just for the few but for all. It is a fundamentally progressive vision of the good society.

In this lecture I want to explore why and how only the centre-left, social democrats and radical liberals, can realise the progressive insight that a free and powerful people is made not born.

I grew up in the 1970s and 1980s, when “progressive” was a word that neither Labour nor Conservative would have considered a compliment. Labour was struggling to reconcile the Labourism of its old right with the utopianism of the new left, the Tories sloughing off the pragmatism of Edward Heath for the radicalism of Margaret Thatcher. “Progressive” didn’t really capture what politics was about.

But after 1989 and the fall of the Berlin Wall, progressive became the catchword for centre-left politics, for the less ideological more values-based ideas approach that united Clinton and Blair with the governments of Havel and Mandela. It is a compliment to our time in government that after 2005 our opponents tried to learn our language. David Cameron and George Osborne have both made speeches in which they tried to claim the idea of being a progressive force for the political right. But it is not a claim that withstands serious scrutiny.

In the 1990s , spurred by David Marquand’s book The Progressive Dilemma, Labour embraced a more pluralist centre-left politics, in a conscious effort to draw on its liberal as well as social democratic heritage. That coalition has now dominated politics for a decade, bringing together individual rights in a market economy with collective provision to promote social justice.

I am proud of the long lists of changes in each category. I think we have changed the country for the better. The liberal achievements – gay rights, human rights, employee rights, disability rights – on the one hand. The social democratic ones – childcare, university places, health provision – on the other. And then those areas that fused the best of both: a New Deal for the Unemployed that uses the private and voluntary sector, devolved budgets for disabled people, the digital switchover, Academies, all combine government leadership with bottom up innovation and engagement.

It is very striking the extent to which this agenda continues to dominate important parts of political life. After all, one reason the Conservative leadership are currently tied in policy knots – backing away from health reform, back to front on government’s role in sponsoring marriage, facing both ways on economic policy – is that they have felt it necessary to assert that they too seek progressive ends, contrary to the history of conservatism. It is quite a bizarre situation. New Labour was built on the application of our traditional values in new ways. The Tories are saying that they have got new values – in with social justice, out with no such thing as society – that will be applied in old ways, notably an assault on the legitimacy and purpose of government itself.

New Labour said the values never change but that the means need to be updated. The Tories want it the other way round. They say the values have changed, but, miraculously, the policies should stay the same. They even boast about not needing a ‘Clause IV moment’.

This is actually not just a dry technocratic debate. It is about how much hope we invest in the future. Progressives are optimists about change. Conservatives are fearful that change invariably means loss. We think things can work better. Conservatives worry that they never will. We trust, as Bill Clinton used to put it, that the future will be better than the past, and we all have a personal responsibility to make it so. The Conservatives think, as they always have, that Britain is broken.

Now the polls show the British people are not feeling particularly optimistic at the moment: the political system is in disrepute, our financial system has had to be rescued from deep collapse, the moral authority of the West is contested, and international institutions are all but paralysed on issues like climate change.

That explains why the Tories, after promising to ‘let sunshine win the day’ in 2006, have decided that not only that it is raining but that it will never stop. That is why they have embraced a rhetoric of national decline, and are now promising an Age of Austerity. They think they’ve spotted that people are miserable and if they can only make them more miserable still, they can benefit.

Personally, I think this pessimism is overdone. David Halpern’s work on the hidden wealth of nations provides some backing for this. And in any case, the purpose of politics is to change people’s minds not read them. As then Senator Obama said in his Jackson Day Dinner speech in October 2007, when his campaign started to catch fire, principles are more valuable than polling.

The truth is that the routines and assumptions of 20th century Britain are all under threat of change. So there is a sense of discontinuity and rupture, and no settled destination. Jobs, communities, families are changing. The changes in the space of one generation are stark; some times they are alarming.

But that does not mean to say that Britain is inevitably declining. The right way to see how Britain is changing is not through the prism of decline, but through the prism of transition. Transition in the economy, society, politics. Transition too in foreign policy. So we should judge parties on whether they understand the challenges of the modern world, and whether they have a vision for how to meet them.

The transitions through which we are living are profound:

– A multi-polar world, where the rise of the Asian middle class, at a rate of some 70m a year, is not just the growth market of tomorrow; it is an indicator of how economic power, and political power, is going to shift from West to East.

– A world that has to find a way to stop consuming resources as if there were three planets rather than one. It’s dropped off David Cameron’s top ten reasons to vote Conservative. It’s not dropped off ours.

– The twin challenges of better bringing up children and adjusting to ageing populations.

– Economies where manufacturing and services depend on intensive learning, knowledge creation, and scientific development.

– Societies that are more open and diverse than ever before, but where trust needs to be renewed.

– A world of political systems that develop new multilateral arrangements at the regional and global level, and embrace subsidiarity at the national and local level.

We know, in each area, where we have to get to. We know too that the old ways are not going to work. So we have to chart a new course. These are big questions and I cannot deal with all of them today. That is what our manifesto will do. But I do think there is a principle which applies to them all. I think it is a principle too that means the future requires philosophical and policy thinking that can only be supplied by the centre-left.

That principle is that power needs to be vested in the people, but we do not reveal a powerful populace simply in the act of withdrawing the state. In fact a powerless government simply means more power for the already powerful. That is the error that runs through David Cameron’s speeches. We make powerful people by providing a platform on which people can stand.

It is not just that Government must be a countervailing power to vested interests, which is what the Competition Act has done to protect consumers; or that Government must address inequalities, which is what tax credits and labour laws do; or that Government must forge alliances around the world, which is what the European Union does; or that Government must protect people from risks beyond their control, which is what our bailout of the banking system has done.

It is that the big challenges of the modern world require an alliance of active government and active citizens. And that although government may be more needed than before; it is more questioned than before; so as the Prime Minister said in launching the Smarter Government White Paper it needs to be more reformed than before, not more reduced than before.

The expansion of capacity in public services – not just staff but also capital investment – has achieved a qualitative shift in public service provision, both in its scope and its depth. Part of our job in the Labour Party is to persuade people that they don’t need another period of Tory government to remind them what its like to have underfunded services. But we know that in the next ten years investment cannot be the driver of reform in the way it has over the last ten. We simply will not manage chronic diseases that account for 80 per cent of the NHS budget without empowering the people who suffer those diseases; we will not restore trust in politics unless we bring the public into the decision making tent at local as well as national level; we will not reduce fear of crime or increa se creativity in education through the actions of police officers and teachers unless they build new kinds of relationships with people, parents, pupils.

The argument of the Right is that this alliance should be based on a zero sum view of relationships between government and society. To roll society forward you need to roll government back. That’s not how I see it. The transitions we face as a country require three interlocking commitments from government to nurture a country of powerful people.

First that it guarantees what markets and self help cannot provide. The reason the welfare state grew in the 19th and 20th centuries across Europe was simple: self help could not offer the services and protection that people needed. That remains true today – with new risks like care for the elderly added to old ones like the need for healthcare.

Today the Prime Minister is setting out how it is the responsibility of government to build an empowering education system for the future. It applies in other spheres too. If government does not guarantee apprenticeship places for young people, or a job guarantee if they have been unemployed for more than six months, no one will.

Guarantees do not always mean government funding; the social care debate, or university funding, shows that. They do not always mean government delivery: childcare shows that. But they do mean being clear about the birthrights of people, and committing to fulfil them: clear on the goals, pragmatic on the means.

It’s just bogus to say that when government takes on commitments it necessarily disempowers individuals. The right to a cancer diagnosis within a week, to see a specialist in two weeks, puts power in the hands of patients; to abolish the right is to empower the manager. The right to be treated for all conditions within 18 weeks is a powerful tool in the hands of individuals precisely because it is accompanied by the commitm ent that if they are not helped by the NHS within those periods they can go to an alternative provider.

Second, the role of government is to provide a platform for markets and civil society. Strong government can nurture citizen responsibility not stifle it. As James Purnell – soon no longer to be my colleague but a good friend who has a big contribution to make to public life outside Parliament in the future – said two weeks ago, the point about the modern centre-left is that we seek empowering government, dynamic markets and strong communities as supports for and disciplines on each other.

The role of government is not to eradicate markets but mobilise them. The fight against climate change is a good example. Carbon markets will not exist without a powerful role for government. And without carbon markets there will be no efficient reduction in carbon emissions. The plans for feed-in tariffs from April this year will enable citizens and communities to s ell renewable energy back to the grid at guaranteed prices. Alongside this there will be new incentives to install renewable heat and a financing scheme to make home energy insulation more affordable. This is not Government crowding out citizen initiative.

And governments are not an alternative to self help networks for the elderly and disabled to manage their own care. They are a key support to them. That is why the NHS is creating expert patient programmes and enrolling diabetes and Alzheimer’s patients in self-help networks. Strong government can be a platform for civil society when it becomes more porous, open and interactive in the use of its information, buildings, infrastructure and budgets. That is why the UK alongside the US is leading the world in opening up public data to the public.

Nor do we ignore the danger that Governments will tend to bureaucracy or obduracy without the check of strong communities, with strong rights of redress against poo r treatment, and ready-made levers to take power for themselves. That is why we have legislated for staff coops in the NHS. Whether employee or citizen led, the Labour Party has rediscovered its mutual tradition in the last decade not just the last month, and with the Cooperative Party and the Commission on Ownership we are not going to let it go.

We also know government has to promote rights to neighbourhood management in local services. It’s ironic that when I went to Hammersmith on Friday the Tory Council was resisting people power on its estates, as communities sought to use powers brought in by the Labour government to enable them to run, and save, their estate, in favour of bulldozing what the leader of the Council called “ghettos” to make way for more expensive housing.

Third, government only works as an ally of powerful people when power is situated in the right place – starting locally. We can only do that through what Phil Collins and Ric hard Reeves call turning Government upside down. We should start with the assumption that the individual should have power, but never forget that government needs to have enough power to stop the individual being overpowered. In government we would call it subsidiarity – so that fewer people would understand. In practice it means a more central role for local government, but also devolution to neighbourhoods.

Britain was built by powerful city government, but we have got the balance wrong between universality and dynamism in the last fifty years. That is one reason I favour in the next Parliament a referendum that is not just about the Alternative Vote for the House of Commons, but also about local government, fixed term Parliaments, and the House of Lords. Call it a Reset Referendum.

But localisation is not a strong enough recipe for powerful people in the modern world. Localisation without internationalism just means sink or swim. This applies in spades in our relations with the European Union:

– We will not make the transition to being a low carbon economy without European regulation.

– We will not make the transition to systemic financial regulation without effective European regulation.

– We will not make the transition to effective security for an age when terrorism not invasion is our risk, without effective European security cooperation.

Labour’s challenge is not its philosophy. It is that it has to answer for every time government does not fulfil this vision. But the Tories’ problem is that their instinct is the oldest deception in politics: that government just hurts the little guy. In essence it is an extension of Charles Murray’s dependency culture thesis about the welfare state from the 1980s, and applying to all functions of government not just welfare.

David Cameron’s Hugo Young Lecture last year was intended as a corrective to his disastrous foray into policy substa nce at his party conference where he said that the state was always the problem and never the solution. As he sought to allay fears that he had used the economic crisis to show his true colours as a small state Reaganite, he still showed what he really thinks.

The kernel of his analysis of Britain today was this: “There is less expectation to take responsibility, to work, to stand by the mother of your child, to achieve, to engage with your local community, to keep your neighbourhood clean, to respect other people and their property”. It was declinist. It blamed government for all ills. And every single assertion that can be measured in his list was wrong. Divorce rates are falling. School achievement is rising. Volunteering is up. Crime is down. The Tory dystopia of modern Britain relies on a picture of what is actually happening in Britain that has as much basis in reality as Avatar does. They need to believe that 54% of children born in poor areas are teena ge pregnancies for their politics to add up.

But though the instincts are clear they are split down the middle. Not right versus left. There isn’t a Tory left any more. But head versus heart. Radicalism versus reassurance. The heart says cut government, attack Europe. The head says: watch out, don’t say that, the voters might hear.

The Tories say big government is the problem, but promise a moratorium on change in the health service, the biggest employer in the world. They say Britain is heading the way of Greece, yet will not say how their deficit reduction plan differs from ours. They say we are a broken society…and will heal it through a social action line on Facebook. They say we have sold our birthright to Europe, but don’t want a bust up over it. Everyone knows we need to reform social care so people can grow old without fear, and all the Tories can do is put up scare posters.

I recognise the Tory difficulty. We faced it after 1994. You need to reassure people you are not a risk; and you need to offer change. But while we promised evolution not revolution in the short term, like sticking to Tory spending limits, we offered a platform for radical change in the medium to long term, from the minimum wage to school investment. Cameron’s got himself facing the other way round. The heart insisted on radical change in the short term – cuts in inheritance tax for the richest estates, a marriage tax allowance, immediate cuts in public spending, bring back fox hunting. But after that, the head gives the impression that it really doesn’t know what to do, other than press pause on reform, offer a £1 million internet prize for the best policy ideas, and then go off and play with the Wii. They have managed the unique feat of being so determined to advertise pragmatism that they have completely obliterated any medium term vision to their politics, while cleaving to short term commitments that leave the impression they are ideological zealots. It’s the precise opposite of the New Labour approach in the 1990s.

The result is that today’s Conservatism looks more and more like a toxic cocktail of Tory traditions. The government on offer from David Cameron would be as meritocratic as MacMillan, as compassionate as Thatcher, and as decisive as Major.

So yes Labour is behind in the polls. We are the underdog. But this is an exciting time to be on the centre-left of politics. The changes in our country require values of social justice, cooperation and internationalism if they are to benefit more people rather than fewer. We have learnt lessons in government. And the Tories can try rhetorical accommodation. It has been tried before. Salisbury talked about “Tory democracy” but bitterly opposed the extension of the vote and self government for Ireland. Macmillan talked about a Middle Way, but battened Britain down in a straitjacket of social conservatism.

What Labour offers is the courage to continue reforming so that Britain can prosper from the transitions shaking the modern world. So that Britain continues to believe in progress. Progressive reform is Labour’s mantle and we will not relinquish it.

Below is the text of the speech made by the then Foreign Secretary, David Miliband, at the United Nations Security Council held in New York on 16th December 2008.

Thank you Mr President.  The United Kingdom welcomes this debate and welcomes the prospect of a new UN Security Council resolution, the first since 2004.  The violence, intensity and grievances of the Israeli Palestinian conflict have global ramifications and their resolution is the proper business of this Council.

Mr President, the Security Council does not lack consistent policy on the Middle East.  Though our resolutions have been sporadic, they have gained significance and status from their scarcity.  The numbers 242, 338, 1397 and 1515 ring out as the rallying points for peace.  It is right that after a year of intensive activity we take stock, add a new number to the line of previous resolutions and most important resolve to use 2009 with determination to make progress within the framework of this resolution.

The starting point for the United Kingdom is the concerns of the people of Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories.  They are tired and fearful, tired of conflict, but also of false promises, fearful of each other, but more fearful of the future.

One year after Annapolis, the bilateral discussions have been detailed and serious and the Syrian track has been launched.  But cynicism and pessimism have grown.  Rockets from Gaza land further in to Israel.  The Israeli restrictions in particular on food and medicine causes acute suffering in Gaza.

Mr President, there are plenty of people ready to say that there can be no two state solution.  I applaud the determination of Secretary Rice not to join them.  The Annapolis process has not delivered a Palestinian state, but the absence of an Annapolis process would have left us much worse off.

Secretary Rice has spoken plainly and powerfully of the stakes, the vision and the necessary steps.  Now we have to follow her and help the parties to take these steps.

The resolution before us is significant for its espousal of a comprehensive, just and lasting peace.  It emphasises the importance of the Arab Peace Initiative.  The United Kingdom welcomes this emphasis.

The responsibility for a resolution of the Middle East conflict does not just fall to Israel and the Palestinians, though they must lead the process.  It falls to every state in the region, for the only sustainable peace must be a twenty three state solution, not just a two state solution.  Twenty two Arab states and Israel living side by side in security.

We welcome the recent reiteration by the Arab League on behalf of its member states that the Arab world wants formally to end the conflict and establish normal relations with Israel.  We believe that the outlines of that peace are clear and can command consensus.  Recognition and respect from Arab states for Israel and a Palestinian state based on 1967 borders with a just settlement for refugees and Jerusalem the capital of both states, Israel and Palestine.

Mr President, there will need to be brave decisions on all sides, above all by the bilateral partners in the negotiations.  For Israel, this means fulfilling its Road Map commitments, notably on illegal settlements and improving conditions for Palestinians on the West Bank and in Gaza.  For Palestinians, this means finding a way to reunite around negotiations and non violence.  And those who would torpedo the process must know that we are determined not to allow them to succeed.  Hamas must end their rocket attacks on Israeli civilians, abandon violence and demonstrate their commitment to the political process by moving towards the Quartet principles.

Mr President, the United Kingdom welcomes operating paragraph four on the development of Palestinian capacity and the development of the institutions of a Palestinian state.  We believe this is vital.  The political process and the solution on the ground are, and the situation on the ground, are inseparable.  They need to be mutually reinforcing.  Better security forces for the Palestinians does not just mean better lives for them, it means more security for Israel.  We applaud the efforts of President Abbas and Prime Minister Fayyad to make this a reality and are determined to play our part in supporting them.

Mr President, our role here today is not just to pass a resolution.  It is to challenge all those with an interest in the region to join us in 2009.  The perils of inertia are clear.  Inactivity and confrontation are the recruiting sergeants for extremism from Mogadishu to Manchester.  The gains of effective action are the opposite, the reversal of four decades in which the Middle East has been destabilised and the world made less safe.  That is why the United Kingdom pledges to do all in its power not just to support this resolution, but to progress its implementation.

Thank you very much.

Below is the text of the speech made by the then Foreign Secretary, David Miliband, on the UN resolution on Somalia. The speech was made at the United Nations Security Council on 16th December 2008 in New York.

Thank you Mr President.

I’d like to just start by setting out an Explanation of Vote in relation to the Resolution that we have just passed before moving on to my broader statement.

The United Kingdom has voted in favour of this Resolution because we support robust action to address the serious threat to international navigation posed by piracy and armed robbery off the coast of Somalia, including to deliveries of humanitarian aid to the people of Somalia.

The authorisation conferred by paragraph 6 of the Resolution to permit States cooperating with the transitional Federal Government to use “all necessary measures that are appropriate in Somalia for the purpose of suppressing acts of piracy ” enables States and regional organisations, with the consent of the TFG, to act using force if necessary against pirate activities on land in Somalia.

This is an important additional tool to combat those who plan, facilitate or undertake acts of piracy from the territory of Somalia.  The UK considers that any use of force must be both necessary and proportionate.  These concepts include an assessment that the measures taken must be appropriate for the circumstances to which they are directed.

That concludes my Explanation of Vote and I’d like now to make a statement on the wider issue of piracy and related issues.

I am obviously grateful to our colleague, Dr Rice, for her initiative in taking this Resolution through and for securing unanimous support for it.  I think this is an opportunity to discuss both the narrow issue of piracy and the wider situation in Somalia.  I shall try to do so briefly.

The seas off Somalia are a key economic artery for global trade and for many nations represented here, but they are also essential to the delivery of essential humanitarian supplies to the people of Somalia.

The UK, and many others, are working to address the issue of piracy at sea with the EU, NATO, and Combined Task Force 150 all playing their role in seeking to escort World Food Programme vessels, deterring pirate activity and, where possible, disrupting attacks.  Others are contributing naval assets to undertake similar tasks.  The cooperation at military level amongst those contributors is demonstrating how we can work together on this difficult issue.

However, it is important that we work, not just on the military front, but with the shipping industry, either on a government to industry basis or through the International Maritime Organisation.

To support these efforts, I welcome the practical measures that we will agree in the Security Council Resolution today, that we have agreed in the Security Council Resolution today.

But as my Russian colleague has intimated, we cannot look at the issue of piracy through the prism of international trade or shipping alone.  In Somalia itself, as people are understanding from watching television or reading the newspapers today, the political humanitarian and security situations carry real risk.  The Djibouti Process has for many people opened a potential new chapter for Somalia.

It is a Somali-owned process and must remain so.  But we have a responsibility as members of the Security Council to do what we can to support it.  It will not succeed in isolation from the political process.

I hope that all those engaged in the negotiation can do what is necessary to turn it into practical reality.

The clear and shared goal is to work for a credible commitment from the TFG, the ARS and other political forces to re-energise the Djibouti political process with the aim of producing a more representative political system.

There are, however, two major areas of uncertainty that raise questions for the United Kingdom.  One is about political uncertainty, the other is about uncertainty relating to the security situation.

In respect of the political uncertainty, there is a necessity for early concrete steps to deliver a viable way forward.  Sheikh Sharif’s recent visit to Mogadishu is an important example of this.  We also need to see an orderly transition to the proper Government of National Unity and clear appointment of key Cabinet figures.

This will be vital if Somalis are to be effective in developing an indigenous security sector.

At the same time, it is clear that there are major questions relating to the security situation as well.

I look forward to learning in this Debate of the views of a range of members here, including our Somalia Delegation, about their understanding of the intentions of Governments in the region, about the future of AMISOM and about the security needs in Somalia.

We understand that the history of intervention in Somalia is one that carries a great deal of important lessons for all of us.  We will be addressing these issues, consistent with our own commitments, not just to the humanitarian situation, but also to the political support that is going to be necessary to take this forward.

Thank you very much, Mr President.

Below is the text of the speech made by David Miliband on 15th July 2008 at the Foreign Office and the UK/Caribbean Ministerial Forum.

Well good evening everyone. A very, very warm welcome to you all to the Foreign Office. This is the Locarno room, where the Peace Treaty of Locarno was signed just after the First World War. So you are extremely welcome here.

I especially want to welcome obviously the leaders from 10 friends in the Caribbean, ten countries who are deep and long-standing allies, and who are here for the UK-Caribbean Forum.

I also want to introduce my friend and colleague Meg Munn, whose ministerial duties include the countries that are represented in the Caribbean forum, and also Gareth Thomas, who is Minister for Trade.

Though distinguished are all of those visitors, I hope all of you will understand if I single out a different group for mention tonight, because we have representatives here from the Windrush generation.

I think we all know that the word “Windrush” has entered the British lexicon, the British vocabulary, in a very, very profound way. The Windrush generation are an inspiration, an example, a set of leaders for values and commitments that I think are very important for the whole of British society, and it’s important the week after we have celebrated the 60th anniversary of the National Health Service to remember the contribution of the Windrush generation and their successors to the whole history of the National Health Service. Actually, I think you can make the case that the strength – and the enduring strength – of the National Health Service in part owes to what those generations did at all levels of the Health Service in the 1950s and 1960s and beyond.

And that is a symbol of a commitment right across British society. The 800,000 Britons of Caribbean origin, Caribbean heritage – some are ministers, some are lawyers, some are parents, and teachers in schools – they are all massive contributors to our society, and the enduring link that exists between our governments is only, in a way, possible because of the people-to-people links that join us together, so I hope you’ll excuse me if I give a special welcome to them here.

That generation I think helped to shape me. I went to a school in inner London where 64 different languages were spoken – people came from a whole range of backgrounds. And I’m proud that we’ve become a society that’s better not just at promoting “tolerance”, which is a very minimalist way of thinking about other human beings, but actually at promoting respect and welcome for the benefits that diversity brings. There’s still a way to go, but we’ve come a long way and I think it’s important to recognise that.

It’s also important to say I’m really delighted that the Secretary General of the Commonwealth is here – the new Secretary General of the Commonwealth – Kamalesh Sharma, formerly the very distinguished Indian High Commissioner in London, now taken off his post as High Commissioner, and so I hope you’ll all be lobbying him as well tonight.

We’ve got two days of really serious work ahead of us. And I think at the heart of our discussions – we’re going to have detailed discussions about a whole range of issues – but I think at the heart of our discussions is the question of how we take our relationship to a new dimension.

We know the relationship we used to have, we know the relationship we’ve got, I think our challenge over the next two days is to map out our relationship for the future that is based on shared values, and I do want to applaud the statement of CARICOM only in the last few days about the situation in Zimbabwe, because the situation in that country is a challenge to all of our values.

This has got to be a community of values but it can also be a community of interests, and we’re going to talking over the next few days about crime and security, which is a massive issue in your countries but also a massive issue in our country. We’re going to be talking about food security, and food affordability, which are issues in both of our countries.

We’ll also be talking about something which probably wouldn’t have appeared on our agenda five or ten years ago – certainly it wasn’t on the agenda at the first meeting in Nassau in 1998 – which is the issue of climate change.

Because some of you are able to talk about the challenge of climate change as a reality and not as a theory. And that I think is something that is very important in helping the world wake up to the challenges that it faces.

I think it’s important that we’re honest about the fact that our relationship is changing and it’s changing because circumstances are changing, but I think it can be as strong as ever, not just at a government-to-government level, but also at a business level, which is why the trade round is so important, and at a people-to-people level, because in a way the people-to-people links are growing – obviously tourism – but they are also growing through the contribution of people of Caribbean heritage to our country and the links that they have back to the Caribbean. And I hope that’s something that we can in the next couple of days build on.

One of my favourite poems is a poem with the title “Roots and Wings” and it’s about how community is really important to people . If you don’t have deep roots you don’t have security. But it’s also about the fact that on their own, roots are not enough. The purpose of a decent society is to help individuals grow wings to be able to see the world, to engage with all the challenges and opportunities that the world has got. And in a way I hope that that notion – strong roots, strong wings – will really inspire us over the next few days. The meetings that we’ll have with a range of ministers, and also with the prime minister, I think will give us a chance to map the way for a confident and strong future between Britain as a whole as well as the British government and the countries and people of the Caribbean.

And on that note, I can think of no better person to second this word of welcome and introduction than Baldwin Spencer, the Prime Minister, and Foreign Minister as well, of Antigua, a man whom I now know from having met him first of all in November in Uganda, a man who has links to the Miliband family that I didn’t know about.

This isn’t an unknown part of my heritage that I’m about to reveal, but Baldwin had – I would say the good fortune – but he had the fortune to be a student of my father’s while he was a student in the UK and that brought home to me that while our countries can seem a long way apart there are actually more meeting points than many of us realise.

Baldwin , you are co-chairing the forum over the next couple of days. You’re extremely welcome to the Foreign Office as a friend of Britain as well as a friend of the Milibands and I am merely the appetiser for your main speech tonight.

So on that note, welcome to the UK-Caribbean forum, thank you for coming tonight and please give a warm welcome to Baldwin Spencer. Thank you very much.

Below is the text of the speech made by the then Foreign Secretary, David Miliband, at the University of South Africa on 7th July 2008.

This is my first visit to South Africa as Foreign Secretary and I’m delighted to be here at the University of South Africa.  The purpose of my visit is simple: to recommit Britain to support the next steps in South Africa’s progress and to lay the foundations for government, business and civil society from our two countries to work together in the future.

For my generation, not just in Africa, but around the world, South Africa’s journey to freedom will always be an inspiration. A fortnight ago, the celebration of Nelson Mandela’s birthday in London was an opportunity for the whole world to honour a man and a struggle that has come to represent the very best to which humanity can aspire.

Today, as I have already seen in Alexandra township, the challenges seem to multiply as the enemies of progress become more complex. The aspiration is simple. As Nelson Mandela once said “to be free is not merely to cast off one’s chains, but to live in a way that respects and enhances the freedom of others”.

That demand for respect and freedom is at the heart of the UK government’s approach to domestic and international policy. At home, we seek to spread opportunity, redistribute power, and strengthen security. Abroad, we seek to use all the UK’s assets to help every nation build the democratic accountability and human security on which true stability is based.

In my speech today, I want to talk about how we apply those values to a world where the balance of power within and between states is shifting.

Around the world, there is what I call ‘a civilian surge’.  Power is moving downwards, as people demand more rights, more protection, and more accountability. Whether it is monks protesting on the streets of Burma, Iranian bloggers voicing their opposition online, or voters in Pakistan defying terrorist attacks, people are showing they have the will and capacity to take back their freedom.

Power is shifting upwards too. Trade, climate change, and terrorism cannot be addressed by any single nation. So together, countries are working out shared rules and developing shared institutions, whether regional like the EU and AU, or global.

And power is moving across from West to East, as India and China become global players, both economically and politically. By 2020 it is estimated that Asia will account for 45% of global GDP and one third of global trade. Its military spending will have grown by a quarter and its energy demand by 60%.  No wonder some call it the ‘Asian century’.

Change always brings uncertainty and instability. But my view is that the power to do good in the world is greater than ever before. Rising literacy, the availability of mobile phones and the internet, and the spread of democracy, for all its faltering progress, promises to liberate. But the old ideologies of foreign policy – balance of power, non-interventionism – don’t address the real issues. Today, I want to sketch out how we might do so.

Power Shifting Downwards

Over the last thirty years, we have seen what some describe as the ‘third wave of democracy’. Across central and eastern Europe, Asia, Latin America and much of Africa, democratic accountability has replaced authoritarianism.

Yet today, there is a pause in the democratic advance. In some countries, democratic advances have been reversed, in others, authoritarian regimes have been resilient to civilian protest.

Some argue that this proves that democracy is not suitable for countries with under-developed economies or deep tribal divisions. Or that democracy is merely a western aspiration.  It follows from both of these assertions that countries should not interfere in other countries’ struggles for democracy.

I disagree. I believe that democracy is a universal aspiration. 9 out of 10 Africans say they want to live in a democracy. Already this year we’ve seen in Kenya and Zimbabwe the determination of ordinary Africans to make their voice heard.   When people are fighting for democracy, democratic governments should support them. Why? Not just out of moral duty. Democracies are also more likely to respect human rights, more likely to support open trade, and less likely to go to war.

The question I believe we should focus on is not whether to support democracy, but what forms of democracy work in countries with weak states, ethnic divisions, and fragile economies.

Democracy is, in my view, often defined too narrowly.   Free and fair elections are the most basic demand. But elections without a functioning state, without buttressing institutions within civil society, are of limited value.

Rather than back individuals, we must support the institutions that provide checks and balances on the concentration of power.

In Tanzania, the Prime Minister resigned because of Parliamentary pressure over allegations of involvement in corruption deals.

In Sierra Leone, the electoral commission played a critical role in preventing corruption in the elections last summer. As a result,    people have confidence that the results are fair.

In the DRC, South Africa has been providing support for policing, the judiciary, and civil service. This is critical to ensuring the state is able to enforce the rule of law, raise tax, and spend money effectively and without corruption.

I’ll talk in more detail later about Zimbabwe, but let me just add here the example of Zimbabwe, where in the first round of the Presidential elections, monitors armed with satellite and mobile phones were able to publish results independently on the web. Bloggers and others ensured the world knew exactly what was going on, as the Mugabe government unleashed a campaign of violence and censorship against its opponents.

The common theme here it is that we need constitutions and institutions that disperse power, rather than concentrate it.  For example, in Kenya the winner-takes-all approach with highly centralised and strong presidential power is problematic in an ethnically divided country. Constitutional reform to share power more evenly is now being tested with the formation of a coalition government and a new office of prime minister.

The most difficult argument against promoting democracy is that democracy has to be home-grown. It is neither legitimate nor effective when promoted by outsiders.  However, I believe there are practical things that all governments can and must do to support democracy.

First, we can use our aid budgets to support accountability and help support state institutions and civil society.  Across Africa, the UK is investing in bodies such as the judiciary, Parliaments and Ombudsmen. For example, since 2001, our Department for International Development has provided nearly £4.5 million to the Malawian Parliament.  In Kenya’s Rift Valley, we are working through local NGOs to bring together diverse communities and help them resolve their differences peacefully. And in Liberia, thanks to the BBC World Service Trust, which my department helps fund, 70% of Liberians are now following Charles Taylor’s trial in The Hague.

Second, trade can be used not just to drive economic growth but also to nurture social and political modernisation. That is why the “Everything but Arms” system and the EPAs are so important, offering duty free, quota free access to EU markets. It is why Aid for Trade is a central plank of our development agenda, and it is why we are pushing hard – including within the EU – for a new global trade deal to give all developing countries better access to global markets.

Third, we can deploy robust diplomacy. Where the international community through the United Nations is united in its condemnation of a regime, where it is prepared to support that with targeted sanctions against and where it is prepared to play an active role in mediation, we can undermine the legitimacy and viability of authoritarian regimes.

Fourth, in countries suffering from conflict, troops may be needed to provide the security that is the platform for re-establishing democratic government. Where possible, in Africa, troops should come from African countries.

But, in some situations, international support will be needed. In Sierra Leone, seven years ago the UK intervened to defeat rebel forces and restore the democratically elected government of Tejan Kabbah. Since then our troops have continued to work alongside the country’s own armed forces, ensuring adequate security for last year’s successful elections.

Power Shifting Upwards

If states are increasingly under-pressure to become accountable downwards to citizens, they are also having to increasingly cooperate regionally.

This continent is scarred by problems that have spread across national borders.

A conflict that began with the Rwandan genocide engulfed the entire Great Lakes Region, and now the fighting in Darfur has contributed to instability in Chad. Over two and a half million Africans have fled their homelands, seeking refuge from war or famine.  Malaria still kills a child every thirty seconds. And of course this continent is particularly vulnerable to climate change.

The basic public goods we used to be able to count on getting from the nation state, in particular, security and health, are hard to provide by nation-states alone.

It was such problems – economic depression, refugees and war – that spurred the creation of the European Union after the Second World War. Force gave way to politics. Common markets can replace military conflict with trade. And nations can come together to manage their problems collectively, rather than let them tear them apart.

I’m not suggesting this can be replicated everywhere, but Europe has shown that by pooling resources and sharing political power you can replace centuries of conflict with security and prosperity.

That is why I was interested to hear the Australian Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, trumpet the EU as a potential model for cooperation in the Asia-Pacific region. And it is why, in my view, the African Union, launched here in South Africa, is one of the most important developments on this continent in recent years.

Having replaced the old OAU principle of “non-interference” in other states’ affairs with one of “non-indifference”, in the last seven years the AU has played a major role in restoring peace to Burundi, and deployed peacekeeping missions in both Sudan and Somalia while the rest of the world sat on the sidelines.  The AU’s Peer Review Mechanism is a groundbreaking initiative to encourage countries to seek support and advice from each other on governance.

I believe that the EU and the AU are natural partners.  I want to see them working together in three key areas:

The first is conflict.

In 2003 the EU deployment in Ituri, North-eastern Congo, helped to prevent the bloodbath that many were predicting and allowed the UN time to reinforce and reconfigure its peacekeeping mission. And of course 3,000 EU troops are today trying to stabilise eastern Chad.

But our aim for the longer-term is to build African capacity to prevent conflict and respond to crises, rather than try to fill gaps ourselves. This is why the EU is spending 300m euros over the next three years on all aspect of AU peace and security capacity.

And it is why we in the UK are supporting the creation of the African Stand-by force, which involves training 12,000 peacekeepers.

Over the next two decades, Africans should start to take over from the UN as the primary source for conflict prevention and resolution on this continent.

The second area is energy. With the world’s largest desert in the Sahara, Africa has huge solar power potential.

The proposed Grand Inga hydroelectric project on the Congo River in DRC could bring power for the first time to 500 million Africans.

Through the Emissions Trading Scheme and the Clean Development Mechanism the EU could help provide the financial transfers that Africa needs to make this a reality and to bypass the high-carbon stage of industrialisation.

If African countries work together to tap new sources, in twenty years many more states could be exporting rather than importing energy.

Higher global energy prices should be lifting Africans out of poverty, not pushing them further into desperation.  And for Europe this means a new, green energy supply right on its southern doorstep.

Third is development. Rising food prices are forcing Africans to cut back on education and healthcare, and sell off livestock in order to eat. The EU, as the world’s largest aid donor, and the world’s largest single market, can play a big role.

Malawi has shown that by subsidising fertilisers and agricultural inputs it is possible to double agricultural productivity in just twelve months.

For larger scale agriculture, we need more progress on reducing agricultural tariffs and subsidies.

If we can secure a global trade deal to liberalise global agricultural markets, in ten years time Africa could be not only feeding itself, but also exporting agricultural produce and helping to dampen food prices throughout the world.

Power Shifting Eastwards

When it comes to trade and development, Africa’s dominant relationship has historically been with Europe and America. But with the rise of China and India, and the resurgence of Russia, economic and political power is becoming more fragmented.

China is set to become Africa’s biggest trade partner, overtaking the US in 2010.  Japan is doubling its aid and Russia is committed to cancelling over $11bn of bilateral debt.

Pakistan, India and Bangladesh are now the largest contributors to UN peacekeeping missions in Africa, with 25,000 troops stations around the continent.

This is a major opportunity for Africa. Money flowing into Africa from the commodity boom far outstrips money from aid. Chinese investment in infrastructure – in the roads and railway networks that are the spine of any developing economy – has already matched that of the whole OECD combined.

In Mozambique for instance Chinese firms have helped repair 600km of road.

Low-priced Asian goods mean more Africans can afford mobile phones or motorbikes. India is working to narrow Africa’s “digital divide”, funding a Pan-African E-network to give more Africans access to the internet.

As African countries are being courted by investors around the world, they can become more demanding in their negotiations.

But the risk is that history repeats itself: a commodity boom enriches the few, stunts the diversification of the economy, and leads to poor governance, with rulers accountable to foreign interests, rather than to their people.

That is why I believe we need to forge a consensus on what I call ‘responsible sovereignty’.

In an interdependent world, all nations, both existing and emerging powers, have to act responsibility towards each other. They must show respect for democracy. They must support good governance. They must work to eradicate poverty, and tackle climate change.

These high standards also apply to companies and countries that wish to invest in Africa.  We need transparency about business relationships and about where the money from the commodities boom is going.

Unless states act responsibly, they can face a backlash. It may come from financial markets or it may come from the people. It is interesting that in the last Zambian election, the threat by one opposition candidate to expel all Chinese labourers – however much we might deplore it – spoke to a widespread feeling in the country that that some Chinese firms were not fully respecting local labour law.

Zimbabwe

And that brings me to Zimbabwe, where the power shifts I have described and the great challenges we face – come together.

Britain has long and historical links with Zimbabwe. I have never believed that the rights and wrongs of our history should prevent us from speaking clearly and frankly about the situation today. Robert Mugabe’s misrule does not invalidate the struggle for independence; our colonial history does not mean we cannot denounce what is wrong. The test, at all times, should be whether our commitment and action can help the people of Zimbabwe.

Robert Mugabe was once a liberator. His struggle for independence in the 1970s earned him a place in the history books.

But politicians in democracies must answer to the people not once, or twice but continually, in regular, free and fair elections.

Today, Robert Mugabe is refusing that most basic of tests. He has turned the weapons of the state against his own people.

On 29 March Zimbabwe’s people voted – in huge numbers – for change.  But the man who was once the people’s President, has shown that he is no longer listening.

Worse, he is so determined to cling on to power that he has unleashed a campaign of unchecked brutality against his own people. Three million Zimbabwean refugees have fled across the border to your country. I met some of them yesterday in the central Methodist Church in Johannesburg. I heard of the hunger, the violence and loss of life that had led them to flee their country. This is human suffering which need not and should not be happening.

In the UK, we have followed very closely the response of South Africans to this unfolding disaster.  The letter signed by 40 leading Africans, including eight prominent South Africans, on June 13th, expressing their concern about “intimidation, harassment and violence” was an early expression of alarm. We also noted:

– the dock-workers who refused to handle shipments of arms bound for Zimbabwe

– the church leaders, political parties, trade unionists and independent commentators who have  spoken out in the strongest terms; Archbishop Desmond Tutu said recently that Mugabe has “turned into a kind of Frankenstein for his people.”

Nelson Mandela himself who has spoken of “a tragic failure of leadership”.

And South Africa joined the international consensus at the UN on the 23rd June to say “to be legitimate, any government of Zimbabwe must take account of the interest of all its citizens…[and] that the results of the 29 March 2008 elections must be respected.”

Elsewhere in Africa, leading voices from Botswana and Tanzania to Kenya have added their voices to those urging Mr Mugabe to respect the democratic verdict of the Zimbabwean people. To step back from tragic failure.

In South Africa you see and pay everyday the consequences of economical and political meltdown in Zimbabwe. For the British government, the way out is clear:

There needs to be a transitional government led by those won the 29 March election.

The world community needs to unite at the UN this week not just to condemn violence but to initiate  sanctions on the regime and send a human rights envoy to Zimbabwe.

And the AU and UN need to appoint a representative to work with SADC on the way forward.

The Zimbabwe people need urgent aid to keep body and soul together.

We need to plan together for the day when Zimbabwe has a legitimate government and needs a broader package of international support.

I believe this is an agenda that is not a British agenda or a Western agenda but a humanitarian agenda around which the world can unite.

President Mbeki in 1998 called for an African Renaissance.

I want to echo that call today. For this is a continent with a long and vibrant history. It is a continent of great creativity and enormous diversity. But too many of its people still lives scarred by poverty and fear.

It will not be an easy journey, but it is a possible journey and one which will enable Africans to complete their liberation struggle. To complete their release from centuries of slavery and colonial domination.

That is the Renaissance which you, Africa’s new generation, deserve.