said -- he was so sad. why did papa do those things to other people? and it broke my heart. and i said, papa never told me why he did those things to other people, but i know he was wrong, so maybe it will just have to be up to you and me to help make things right. >> watch sunday night at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span's "q&a." next, a discussion on the syrian conflict, the ongoing humanitarian crisis in that country, and how western nations can help. this was held by the center for strategic and international studies.

>> good afternoon. welcome to the center for strategic and international studies. welcome as well to our viewers online. my name is jacob kurtzer, i'm the acting director of the humanitarian agenda here, a project that we seek to leverage the expertise of our scholars and programs to offer policy solutions to humanitarian problems in the world today. i would like to direct everyone's attention too our emergency exits, it's part of our safety and security plan, and encourage you also to take this opportunity to turn your phones to mute. i want to acknowledge before we begin the partnership that our program has with the agency for international development whose support allows us to put on events such as today's discussion. we have a short time today so i'll be brief. all of us here today are keenly aware of the immense human suffering taking place in idlib and across syria right now. families and individuals have been forced into multiple displacements, with targeted

attacks ongoing on innocent civilians and on hospitals and clinics all of which challenges our notions of shared humanity. the escalation of violence this past weekend only increase the urgency of finding durable solutions for the challenges faced by the population of syria. while we're very grateful to our speaker today for joining us and for hosting and for having this event today, i find it deeply distressing and disappointing that after so many years we continue to be hosting events on the same topic, highlighting the same challenges, and asking ourselves what we can do and what can be done. i would like to turn it over to one of our regular partners in the humanitarian agenda, jon alterman. dr. alterman is a center vice president and the director of the middle east program here. he'll introduce our speaker today.

thank you, doctor. [ applause ] >> thank you very much, jake, and thanks to the humanitarian agenda, thanks to u.s. a.i.d. for their support of this program. the horrors of idlib, almost a million people, many of them children, are trapped between armies. the province has doubled its population since war broke out as syrians sought refuge from fighting. now 3 million syrians are huddled there, suffering from cold and lacking water, sanitation, and medical care. this has been occurring outside of the public awareness not because it's unknowable but because the public is uninterested. seized by coronavirus, a presidential campaign, a shaky economy, and rising populist sentiment in europe, the crisis in idlib gets little attention.

that's what brings us here. and we're here to speak to a forceful humanitarian whose organization has been doing tremendous work to try to relieve some of the suffering in idlib. david miliband is president and ceo of the ernintercontinenta i international rescue committee. under miliband's leadership, the irc has expanded its ability to rapidly respond to humanitarian crisis and to meet the needs of people uprooted by conflict, war, and disaster to bring clear outcomes, strong evidence, and systematic research to the h humanitarian programs through

collaborative partnerships with the public and private sectors. before he began this important work, he did other important work from 2007 to 2010, he was the foreign secretary of the united kingdom. he graduated from oxford in 1987 with a first class honors degree in ppe, philosophy, politics, and economics, got a masters in political science in 1989 from mit which he attended as a kennedy scholar. his accomplishments have earned him a reputation, in former president bill clinton's words, as one of the ablest public servants of our time and as an impassioned advocate for the world's poor people. i'm pleased to introduce to you mr. david miliband. [ applause ] >> thank you very much, jon, thank you, jake. good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. ambassadors, excellencies. usa i.d., who are your partner

and also our partner, the office of foreign disaster assistance gives foreign aid a good name. it's a flexible entrepreneurial, committed partner of ours. it's a nice link that they're also partners of yours. i'm afraid that the timing of this event is very, very good for all of the wrong reasons. the situation today in northwest syria is beyond desperate. as i know from our own staff on the ground, life, never mind livelihood, is daily in doubt. as jake referred to, the turkey/russia/syria clashes should underline to all of us that the wider diplomatic vacuum, notable for the absence of coordinated european

engagement, notable also, i'm sorry to say, for the absence of the united states, is a real danger not just to humanitarian need but also to wider regional stability. my purpose in making this speech today is in part to bring the humanitarian reality of idlib to washington, to speak up for our staff and for the people who they serve, in the hope that there's still room for humanity and principle in the corridors of power here. there are few countries with the capacity to shift the dynamic in syria and the u.s. is one of them. so i hope there is resonance in what i describe today as well as brainstorming amongst all of us here in the conversation after my speech about what to do about it. but as well as bringing idlib to washington today, the situation in idlib to washington, i also want to make a wider argument, and this is the wider argument that i'm going to try to make. it's that the war in syria is not just a disaster.

it's an argument that the war in syria will dangerously become a byword, a precedent for a new normal of brutal, divisive, contagious conflict. impunity on the battlefield, stalling of diplomacy, the u.n. pulled from pillar to post, the aid system inadequate, neighboring states creaking under the strain of refugees, western policy befuddled by a mixture of dysfunction, division, and denial. that is the reality of the syrian story over the nine years that jake referred to. and the danger is that it becomes copied elsewhere. here is what identifying today. first, summarize the current situation across syria starting in idlib. second, explain how we see syria as a warning for the changing

nature of conflict around the world today. third, set out some short term imperatives for how to save lives today. and fourth, draw some wider lessons for humanitarian and diploma diplomats. i think we all know that the assault on idlib is intended by the syrian government to be the climax of the war in syria. 950,000 syrians have fled since december with another 400,000 at risk of joining them. the largest civilian displacement since the war started nine years ago. so yes, there have been conversations about syria and debates about syria over the nine years. this is the largest displacement reflecting some of the most virulent fighting. every day another 11,000 civilians join those on the run. among those forced to flee are about 20% of our local irc staff who attempt to preserve their

own work as well as their own families as they do so. over 80% of those on the run are women and children. many are out in the cold, braving freezing temperatures, about 20,000, with no shelter at all. freezing rain and snow which has led to the deaths of about seven children in the last month, deaths from freezing itself. attacks on health facilities represent some of the most egregious war crimes and are taking place despite specific calls from u.n. security council resolutions for them to be stopped. in the past three weeks alone, the irc and other organizations we work with had to suspend operations in a number of health facilities and relocate an entire fleet of ambulances because they were being attacked. in total more than 80 health facilities in idlib province have now been closed. it's also the case that the situation has deteriorated so far that all of the u.s.-based

ngos have come together in the global emergency response coalition which is a humanitarian alliance to launch only the second ever joint appeal in our history to raise funds for deployment inside idlib. the fact that the exodus in idlib is the greatest since the war began is testimony to the ve ve virulence and brutality. the region is still recovering from the consequences of the turkish offensive five months ago. just last month a u.s. convoy exchanged fire with a pro government militia while driving through a checkpoint. meanwhile elsewhere the islamic state has been damaged but not vanquished. while the group is not nearly as deadly as in the past, it remains a persistent threat, carrying out regular ied attacks

and shootings in places like raqqah east of the euphrates and temporarily capturing villages and bombing oil and gas facilities west of the river. previously, opposition control, which has since been retaken by the syrian military, we know from our own staff that the end of formal fighting has not led to an end to the violence or an improvement in the civilian populations, humanitarian situation. charles lister counts more than 350 attacks in the past three months in the southwest of the country where the civil war began including an attack last month that killed two oxfam workers. the situation resembles a frozen conflict rather than an emergent peace. meanwhile, outside syria, the situation of nearly 6 million syrians who fled across the border shouldn't be forgotten. 78% of syrians in jordan live

below the poverty line. half of the 500,000 syrian refugee children in lebanon are still out of school nine years into the war. and it's worth noting, and i'm sorry to say this as someone who is a foreigner in america, i live and work here and i have huge admiration and respect for the country, but the following is almost the most stung statistic of all those i'll give you. it relates to the continued shame for the u.s. that this country has made it so difficult for syrian families to find refuge here. remember the statistics. 3.5 million refugees in turkey, 3.7, maybe, 915,000 in lebanon, 655,000 in jordan, 567,000 in germany. just 563 syrians were let into the united states last fiscal year. and only 320, not 320,000, 320,

are on track to enter this fiscal year. that's what the reduction in the refugee resettlement program has meant for syrians hoping to find safety here. meanwhile, the syrian government has made no secret of the fact that syrians who fled to neighboring countries as refugees are not welcomed back. the government has levied a wide range of charges against returning refugees meaning many of them risk imprisonment and torture if they try to return. they also use the infamous law 10 to prevent refugees from having a place to come home to. finally, the conduct of the war will make reconstruction and attempts to recreate some sense of normality all but impossible in decades to come. just 9% of the syrian population are currently served by

functionfunction functional wastewater treatment plants. one in three schools are damaged or destroyed. this is a decades-long trauma that is going to affect future generations as well as the current one. the broader point, though, i think is really important. the catastrophe in idlib, and this is the third thing i want to talk about, how we should understand the syria today as symptomatic of a wider what i call age of impunity. the catastrophe in idlib and the wider consequences of the conflict are symptoms of the utter failure of diplomacy and the abandonment by the international community of syrian civilians. it also foreshadows an even darker trend towards impunity. an era characterized by disregarding the rule of international law and an even graver deficit of international diplomacy which allows the

suffering of civilians to continue unabated. the use of chemical weapons, public beheadings in town squares. these crimes are bad enough. but accountability has so far been all but nonexistent. the majority of the blame lies with the allied syrian, russian, and iranian forces. as the u.n. high commissioner for resume heights pointed out, of the roughly 300 civilian deaths in northwest syria this year, 93% were caused by the syrian government and its foreign allies. but in the process of so blatantly violating the laws of war, those countries have spurred a race to the bottom. it gives me no pleasure to point out that in the effort to take back raqqah from islamic state, the u.s.-led operation destroyed or damaged more than 11,000 buildings in the city and has taken no responsibility for reconstruction.

this can only undermine calls for, quote unquote, restraint from russian forces in idlib. i believe a fear -- what we're seeing in syria is not unique and that it foreshadows a dangerous trend where the laws of war, so carefully built up after the second world war, become optional. i think it's important to understand what the drivers are of this age of impunity. and i would put to you there are four. first, war is now increasingly urban. so the distinction between civilians and soldiers is eroded. this is a major reason why the war in syria has displaced more than 11 million people. and here is an interesting thing. according to steven feldstein at carnegie, since 1945, an average of five people were displaced for every one person killed in conflict. in syria, that five to one ratio is 25 to one.

second, the battlefield in syria is increasingly crowded, filled by nonstate actors who have the consolation of free syrian army groups, extremist groups, local partner forces like the u.s.-backed syrian democratic forces, and foreign militaries from turkey and the u.s. to russia and iran. the involvement of so many groups, more than a hundred in syria, according to the arms conflict location and event data project has fractured the battlefield geographically but also hierarchically, given the often unclear chain of command within each of these groups. furthermore, and here is the point, it's not just -- well, i'll go on to the point. third point for you, the large presence of foreign militaries has made the war far deadlier for civilians due to the increased firepower they bring to an otherwise, quote unquote, civil war. as demonstrated by the widespread russian air strikes on cities like idlib.

the issue is not just the imbalance of foreign forces in syria. it's the mere presence of them. in total, 70 countries now contribute troops to conflicts in other countries according to the peace research institute of oslo. so the syria phenomenon does not stand alone. it's increasingly common elsewhere. just think about somalia, iraq, mali, elsewhere. and the fourth driver of this age of impunity needs to be talked about. it's an obvious point, dramatized in the title of this year's munich security conference. the title was, quote unquote, westlessness. it takes a german speaker to find a way of encapsulating the trauma of -- or the dysfunction of western policy, "westlessness." the absence of the west in the syria end game is not only a

military question outside the northwest of the country. syria is low, very low, on the western diplomatic priority list. and foreign policy is very low on the political priority list. in fact, fear of entanglement largely without weighs commitments to halt the suffering. and the roots of this absence are obviously the failures in iraq and afghanistan, the lingering effects of the financial crisis. but when liberal democratic countries committed to human rights are absent, then those who regard those riots as an inconvenience are obviously given free rein and that's what we're seeing. although syria is the poster child for the age of impunity, if you look at civilian deaths, if you look at killing of aid workers, if you look at a range of indicators of children caught

up in conflict, syria is not an outlier. it's part of a trend. and so that leads to the concluding or prescriptive parts of my remarks. i want to talk about short term relief in idlib and then come to the wider lessons. the immediate need in syria is a cease-fire, obviously, increased, unimpeded access to civilians in need. but there is no chance of this happening and little point for people calling for it without a strategic decision in washington and european capitals that syria matters enough to require all the costs that come with engagement of any kind. since i'm running a humanitarian ngo, i have to steer away from the military side of these questions other than saying that all military decisions should be

taken with a view to their humanitarian consequences. but even short of the military questions, once a decision is taken that engagement is right, there are ways to increase the costs on those who are perpetrating crimes on the battlefield. for example, instead of u.n. member states and u.n. officials expecting each other to address the crisis, both need to step up. i've suggested secretary general g gutierrez should convene, for example, a ministerial session in which the u.n. human rights council briefs members and requires them to account for the human rights abuses and war crimes that are taking place in syria. there needs to be engagement by western powers with the seriousness of the situation, a

meeting was planned, it seems to be off now, between chancellor merkel and presidents erdogan, putin, and macron. it now seems that will be a bilateral president putin/president erdogan meeting. a wider meeting makes sense but where is the u.s. in that story? the renewal of cross-border aid, the reopening of the crossing in the east, are essential. two crossing points for aid were closed in january and without action, another two will be closed in july. make no mistake, the humanitarian situation could deteriorate much further. further, we need accountability for crimes committed following up on each of the media reports that contain such chilling footage. it's surprising to see that there are no eu sanctions on russia for their actions in syria. accountability needs to start with the report of the board of inquiry, the u.n. board of

inquiry into attacks on civilian infrastructure in syria due to report next week. the inquiry is a litmus test for meaningful accountability and we should all the judge report accordingly. the inquiry in my view should name perpetrators, and its findings must be made public. finally, the multilateral framework for political talks that's been elbowed aside by russia, turkey, iran, and syria itself, is she told yis essenti. they've been unwilling to improve the humanitarian situation in the country. the fact that there is something called a u.n. process shouldn't fool anyone into thinking that it currently exercises real leverage over the actions of the parties. there won't be a solution until that changes. now, in addition to these short term measures which are my day to day concern, i also think

it's i am coupncumbent on me to a far more thorough going set of issues raised by the conflict in syria as well as the dangers it portends for the global system. i want to say it's important to have some humility in this task. hindsight is 2020 and there's never been a clear or obvious path to resolving the war and preventing civilian suffering. but some things are obvious in retrospect and were actually pointed out by many people at the time. for example, quote unquote, assad must go, is not a strategy. neither is, quote unquote, keep the oil. red lines are not red unless they're enforced. counterterrorism is a band-aid, not a solution. other things, though, other lessons are more complicated, and therefore more difficult. and for the benefit of the

discussion, i want to highlight for lessons that i think are serious because syria doesn't represent an outlier, it represents a trend. the first is the lesson that international humanitarian law will become optional unless it receives a surge of support. i want to quote foreign minister lavrov of russia on this, because at the u.n. general assembly last year he rightly said, quote, attacks on international law are looming large. many will see some irony in this, given the situation in syria. he called out what he sees as an american philosophy of, quote, i do as i please. i do as i please is precisely the problem, but to state the obvious, it's not confined to the u.s. i want to remind you that international humanitarian law was developed on the basis of the lessons of history. after the second world war, with

a view, especially of the interwar period. these laws do not judge the military mission but demand it be pursued with necessity, proportionality, and distinction. when appropriately applied the laws of war limit harms to civilians in conflict zones and offer soldiers a roadmap to pursuing their mission with honor and valor intact. but now international humanitarian law is under siege. i want to suggest that its defense needs a three-pronged effort from civil society, from us in the absence of government leadership. first, we need to strengthen the ability of people on the ground to safely record and document abuses. technology companies have a vital role to play in this. second, on the basis of that documentation, we need to use the laws that exist to push back against the perpetrators. that doesn't just mean the international criminal court to which syria is not a signatory.

it also means examples like the german ngo, the european center for constitutional and human rights, which has filed a criminal suit against syrian generals on the principle of universal jurisdiction. and third, countries who support international humanitarian law should use the economic tools at their disposal such as the magnitsky act and the newly passed in the aussiu.s u.s. as - u.s., caesar act. reporting on breaches of the u.n. charter, exposing abuses of human rights, working furiously to overcome obstacles put in the way of fulfillment of basic u.n. principles. the work of u.n. staffers on the ground around the world around i've seen for myself, committed and brave.

but the gridlock at the security council and the need to gain support of national governments in countries where the u.n. works threatens the freedom of the u.n., its agencies, and its officials to speak out. this needs to be of widespread concern. the ability to speak truth to power is one of the u.n.'s great strengths. when then high commissioner of human rights al-hussein condemned what happened in mirammere ain myanmar in 2017, his words rightly reverberated around the world. yet those are precisely the people whose funds pay the bills, nominate officials and control agendas. it's said that the u.n. is only as strong and principled as its member states, especially the powerful permanent members of the security council but the u.n. chancellor gives independent backing to the work

of officials. on issues like climate change, the independent work of u.n. bodies has been vital in building the body of evidence necessary to urge the world to act. i would argue that in matters of peace and security, we cannot afford the power of the u.n. to bear witness to what is happening on the ground to be compromised. the third lesson concerns the danger that military power renders diplomacy irrelevant. in syria, russia, and iran have shown how hard power still matters. however many times diplomats say there is no military solution, it remains the case that military power can subjugate populations and win wars even where it cannot win the peace. the situation where a government is willing to kill its own people challenges diplomacy as well as law. and here i think for an american audience it's really important to draw the contrast between northeast syria and northwest syria. it's striking and instructive.

in the former, in the northeast, there is a tenuous balance of power sustained by american military decisions and some scope for power sharing. in the latter, in the northwest, as we're seeing, there is no similar balance, no constraint on the use of syrian, russian, and iranian power and no prospect of power sharing as turkey has proven both unable to deter syrian aggression and unwilling to emphasize civilian protection in its military efforts. i think all of us have far more serious thinking to do about what is meant by a, quote unquote, political solution, because the truth of the last nine years is that it's been far clearer what people want to see a transition from, not what they want to see a transition to. we have to think much harder about what conditions are possible to bring about a political solution and the consequences for diplomacy when those conditions are not

present. while the presence of troops is insufficient on its own to resolve the underlying challenges of power sharing and governance, their absence can make political reconciliation impossible. and representing an agency that works in all of the world's conflict zones, we see that more and more. the fourth and final lesson of syria is that the regime of refugee support has never been more needed and never been more inadequate. this certainly needs another lecture. but here are three obvious points. first, countries like lebanon, turkey, and jordan have been sheltering millions of refugees yet the main burden has been borne by their host populations. and that is not sustainable. hosting refugees is a global public good and it needs to be supported by the international system. and while the world bank has made some good steps in this direction, we need to go far further. second, refugees have for a long time been assumed to be in greater need than those who are internally displaced.

one lesson of syria is that this assumption does not always hold true. the idp, the internally displaced shepherded into idlib are more at risk than their relatives who made it out of the country. and third, the loss of the u.s. as a champion of refugee resettlement and refugee rights is echoing loudly around the world. although u.s. resettlement numbers will never match those in refugee hosting states like lebanon and jordan, the symbolic value of a robust refugee resettlement program is high. and its absence has made it significantly harder for refugee hosting governments to step back -- to step up to their legal obligations. the west can make no claim to help syrian refugees when they refuse to take them in and then expect host governments to pick you want tab. pick up the tab. the absence of this effective

regime leads to the headlines in the news today. turkey, using refugees as desperate leverage against europe, and europe, not really knowing how to react, the boomerang effect of neglecting refugee support for the nine years of the war now comes home to roost. europe needs to be more than on the alert. it needs to be galvanized into action before it's too late to prevent another refugee crisis in europe. let me just finish on the following note. there's no doubt about the scale of the syria fatigue that is felt outside the country. you referred, jon, to the difficulty of getting attention for this crisis. my point would be, what right do we have to be fatigued compared to the people who are inside syria? those million people displaced from idlib over the last three months have in many cases been

displaced two, three, or four times before. the population of the province has been doubled by the influx of those displaced from elsewhere in syria. but if we know anything, it's this. what starts in syria does not end in syria. that should worry us all. that is why this issue belongs at the top of the agenda of policymakers as well as humanitarians. syria's trauma represents many of the sins of commission but also since of omission. this is what we must seek to put right lest this new decade becomes one of impunity. thank you very much indeed. [ applause ] >> david, thank you very much for that very powerful talk that gave us a lot to think about. i was struck by that phrase that

you used, the age of impunity. and there are arguments that some make that we need to ready that the assad regime has won, that it is conquering the last remaining corners of the country, and we have to deal from that reality, especially because there's no diplomacy that's going to change that reality. how, as a humanitarian who in many ways has had to work with repressive governments all the time, how should we think about their rehabilitation of the assad regime, the assad government, and what messages that sends about impunity for actions going forward. is that a reward to assad? >> look, i think the first thing to say is if you're representing a humanitarian organization or if you're a humanitarian aid worker, you don't take sides. you're on the side of the people

in need. it's really important to our ability to work to do that. as it happens, we worked in syria before 2011. we were there from 2008 to 2010. the reasons we were asked to leave have never been made clear. and we hold very firmly to the principle that we do not judge the merits of the of the sides are working with. however, secondly, we do have to speak to reality. and the reality at the moment is that 6 1/2, 7 million of syria's remaining 16 million population are living in areas outside government control. they're living in the northeast of the country, 3.5 million, they're living in idlib, 3 million or so. now, here's the thing about the bombardment that's happening at the moment, the military action taking place in idlib at the moment. no one can show that it is advancing the military goal that has been set. russia has set the military goal. president assad has signed up to it, which is to remove those in

governments of that territory, those are a group affiliated with al qaeda and various others. now, the bombing that's happening at the moment bombing the moment is killing civilians. it is not removing terrorist groups or other nonstate actors. and we have to speak to that reality. we are bearing witness to that reality every day. thirdly, and finally, you referred to the rehabilitation of the assad regime. i would argue that any government has in its own hands to rehabilitate itself through its actions. it's not the judge, it's not the role of outsiders to do that. by their actions shall we know them. and the point about accountability for war crimes is that it doesn't last. it's absolutely essential that if the message is not, does not go out, that crimes will be held, people will be held

accountable for their crimes and you are encouraging more of them, and that's why i think it is very important that civil society plays the kind of role that i very briefly alluded to in my talk. it's not about denying the reality of the citizens on the ground. it's not about taking sides in a dispute. it's about recognizing that if the law is not upheld then the law becomes a mess, and that is dangerous for everyone. >> how would you make the case to the american public that is fatigued by almost 20 years of war in the middle east, that actually should care about these issues, they should care about international humanitarian law, that it affects things here in addition to things there? >> i think there are two paths to that. one is i don't think we should duck the moral argument. i think it's really important in speaking to any audience, not to be so afraid of seeming big-hearted that you run away from the monologue. i'm happy to make the argument

to any american audience that the freezing to death of children on the trees in idlib is a moral outrage that they should be concerned about as human beings, and as human beings who are citizens of a powerful country. the fact that those children are freezing to death because they've been bombarded from their homes by their own government, i think it doubles the case. and i don't think one should run away from that. however, anyone who tries to only sit on the moral high ground is doomed to failure, and so i would also say that it is essential, and i think this is something that humanitarians aren't always good at is, that we should make the strategic geopolitical interest based argument as well as the moral, if you like, humanitarian argument. and the geopolitical argument is that american interests are engaged. they're engaged in the following ways. one, america has interests across the middle east and what's happening in syria will not end in syria or destabilize

those partners, those allies of america. second the russian entry into the middle east or re-entry into the middle east is a very significant geopolitical change. and if america wants to be playing a role in the middle east, it's going to have to show how it's going to be done. thirdly, i would argue that america's role in the global system, and american interests in the global system aren't just those that are demonstrated by giving, they're demonstrated by taking as well, and america has been able to benefit from the rule of international law around the world, and it loses when those laws are on the margins. fourth and final point and i hope doesn't sound self-interested coming from a european and i happen to be a brit, as a european, i still believe that america has a strong interest in its democratic allies in europe

being sustained in their strength and in their stability. and there is no question that already with the dangers that pose from migration flows from libya, which is something very much on european policy makers minds, they also have to be concerned about further unplanned, unregulated, disorganized flow of people from the middle east as well. and so for that reason, i would say there is an american interest in that, and in a world where 113 countries have suffered reductions in democratic freedom over the last 13 years, it's even more important that europe and america stand together. and so i would say that that would be the fourth part of my argument. now you'll have to tell me whether that will win any followers in, across the u.s. but that's the best i can do. >> let me ask you a brief question, and not a european question, it's notable that

britain doesn't really have, is not at the forefront of diplomacy on this issue. as a briton, do you feel that is a mistake for british interests? do you feel there is a way that britain might demonstrate the role of upholding a moral structure that the united states is not playing in? >> i would hope so. it grieves me that i can make a speech about how there is a key meeting being on again, off again, a ma crone merkel erdogan meeting and i've heard no clamor of people saying no, no, no there is no meeting that meeting will succeed unless you invite boris johnson as well. there is a real absence there. and it's striking to me that a country that is still a member of the security council, whose

diplomats make strong statements at the security council has not got political leadership but wants to engage in this kind of geopolitical question. i don't want to overclaim for what the u.k. can do, but i am deeply concerned that brexit will be an era of british isolation, and that's i think not good for britain, and modestly, i would suggest it is not good for the wider world either. >> one more question before we go to the audience. the u.s. and its allies have been pretty adamant that there will not be assistance to syria until there's a political settlement that brings in the opposition of it. is that sustainable? is that a mistake? does there come a point where the world should relax that for the good of the people who you rightly described had been suffering and will be suffering?

>> i think, i hold a very strong view if that if you're a civilian in a government-controlled area of syria, you have rights to, a, that they're not being met by your own government, in the same way that if our you're a civilian in a rebel held area of syria, you have that right. now, in the same way when the u.n. is delivering aid inside government-held areas of sear yoo, which , syria, which it, i that is being paid for by american and european taxpayers. so you're right. the construction aid is being withheld and the humanitarian aid is not being withheld and i would argue strongly against humanitarian aid being withheld. one of the levers that does exist, it's put by european policy makers more strongly, but it's in more of a debate there, is that it is a card that capt just be given away. it would be very unwise to give that away.

so i don't think that is trading away, i don't know quite how to put it, the lives of syrians, if you're living in a government controlled area and the government is not meeting your needs, and you're getting u.n. aid, you should be thankful to the u.s. and european programs, and i think the reconstruction of the country is a broader political construct, where you would expect the allies of that country to be engaged, not just those who have raised profound questions about its actions. >> we have time for a few questions, right there. wait for the microphone if you would. >> never been hindered by not having a microphone. thank you. david, thank you for an exemplary talk and one that hits i think beautifully all of the high points. but i'm aware at this time of another train wreck in the

offing and that's the scribe of coronavirus on population of refugees like in africa and elsewhere where there is no health system, or where the health system is very, very deeply undermined, and this morning i heard vicksburg's repeat the view perhaps that between 40 and 70% of the world's population in one way or another will experience this. so it isn't something that the refugees are likely to escape. and this is clearly something that involves people all around the refugee areas. has there been any thinking about this, and any way to prepare for it? and secondly, is there any long shot here where the devastation of perhaps 10% of mortality in this kind of a situation could

lead to some kind of ceasefire? we've seen this in other humanitarian tragedies in the past. short-term sometimes. sometimes long-term. sometimes leading to peace conversations. it's just an idea at this point. but no tragedy, i think, in one way or another, should be allowed to happen without thinking through the full range, and we'd love to hear your comments. >> well, look, tom, if you really want to know the way out of the syria mess, you should listen to him, not me, given your extraordinary service and experience and ideas. just on coronavirus, i'd say two things. first of all, by some stroke of luck, the places where we do most of our work across africa and the middle east, some are saying in south asia as well,

mercifully have been relatively speaking spared so far and this is worth being aware of that. secondly, things could easily go very, very, very, very bad indeed, very quickly. because if you think about the spread, the rate of spread in societies where there are advanced health systems, where there is advanced public health information, where there are extensive, where it is easy to access hygiene measure, just think of the speed of spread amongst populations where those, don't those things don't exist, with there isn't the public health infrastructure, where the idea of, it's gone out of my mind, when you put, quarantine, where the idea of quarantine is absurd, in any kind of mass movement of people, whether idps or refugees, and here, it's worth going back to that statistic. one in every 105 people in the planet has been displaced by war

and conflict at the moment. 13 million in refugee and asylum seekers. 40 million are displaced and maybe 60% of them are in northern areas. of the refugees, sorry. so you're absolutely right to draw attention to it. we're certainly scrambling to figure out the impact of our own staff, the impact of our own programs and if you think about our health program, to the extent of our health programs weakened by us getting it, that raises the danger of an outbreak among our clients. so if you want to get more depressed, you just have to think about the spread of coronavirus amongst the kind of populations that we help, and that is certainly a real clear and present danger, if not in this episode, then perhaps in the second half of the year. >> iran, certainly compared to many countries in the middle east has a fairly robust public health service. >> which is a very good point. >> iran, which has been devastated is not among the most

decrepit. >> that's right. remind me of the number of cases in iran. >> i think 3,000. >> your hand over here? the microphone is coming. right there. >> goods to see you again. thank you for your comments. i'd like to go back to your point on technology. >> name please. >> frances cook. i would like to go back to your point on technology. you have the reputation of being very creative with the use of technology. and i'm just wondering if you've been out to silicon valley to challenge them to do more and the more creative ways to deliver groceries, have they come up with good ways to deliver assistance, for example? i'm very impressed by the amount of video footage we've gotten out of syria as compared to libya ten years ago. so that has been very helpful. but have they developed anything to help you in your work at delivery? >> yes and no is the answer to that. better than silicon valley, i've been to davos, which you can meet more than silicon valley in

a shorter period of time, even than flying to palo alto. but we've done work with partners in silicon valley and elsewhere. the shining example of what we have been able to do is an information platform for refugees called sign post. in europe was called refugee.info. it was developed with software engineers from some of the leading companies. and a million refugees used it on arrival in greece. we've now expanded sign post to el salvador where it is called quents no, and it has taken on a 24/7 human ability to ask questions, so you can say i'm on the run from a gang in el salvador, i need to know where i can find a safe house, this is where i am, and we're able to answer. so that's pretty impressive. we'd like to expand that to mexico and actually to the u.s. as well, so if there is anyone from the tech sites here, any flynn pistes here, we'd be -- philanthropists here, we'd be happy to hear from them. on the side of safe reporting, i

remain very, very concerned. and i think those who are caught in the midst of the fighting are obviously in grave danger. but they're also in grave danger from what's on their iphone if they get stopped at a checkpoint or elsewhere. and so there remains a lot of work to do to make it safe to up load information in a secure way. >> yes, ma'am. right there. >> i wanted to focus on one of your last points from your presentation, which is reconstruction may be withheld but human aid is not. the reason i ask this question is, i worked in gazien techld c, the turkish border with syria in 2017, and implementing partner for the state department. and our program, which is called building the legit, or was called building the length macy of local councils, was supporting the opposition councils to make sure at the

time, in 2017, our presumption was assad would be gone, there would be a power vacuum, less, from iraq, don't leave a lack of governance for isis and other entities to fulfill so we wanted to make sure the local councils had the ability to deliver services once assad was gone. now that hasn't happened. and so i'm concerned, because i've been out of the picture for over a year now, do you think that it's worth, that there should be a push to continue reconstruction aid along the lines of supporting local councils? because it sounds like right now, if that's being upheld, we are allowing there to be a vacuum in certain areas. >> yes, i can't speak to the details of the program that you were involved in, and i certainly know that in the northeast, there have been more efforts to develop the kind of systems that you're speaking to. certainly, our experience in delivering humanitarian aid is where civil societies are

organized, it's, and it's partnering with international players, it's actually a very healthy model. i can't speak to the details of what you're talking about. i certainly think that in the northeast of the country, the need to help organize in civilian terms, as well as military terms, is evident, and it would stand to reason that it would make sense for the northwest, but i can't speak to the details of the program. >> we have time for one more question right here in the front. thank you. my name is edmond sackou, i'm a syrian american, you talked earlier about making the case for engaging syria. syrian americans have been making that case for the last nine years. both morally from a geopolitical standpoint. and hearing the remarks and

looking at this room i know we haven't been alone screaming a the wall for the last nine years. i know you were following the democratic debates including last week when there was mention of idlib on the debate stage and you can imagine the difficulty of getting in the point, the moral and strategic points about syria within a limited amount of time. my question is, perhaps there are parallels between the trends within the labour party, and in the democratic party here in the u.s., and sort of the growing space and per missibility, or excuse me, the growing space for disinformation, within the left wing movements, and particularly, how progressive actors in the space who want to find the words and the nomenclature for engagement in places like syria, but making sure that some of thor responsible voices who have some of the loudest platforms aren't getting more air time. thank you. >> well, look, i think you're raising a very profound question. i love it in america when people say that's a great question.

it basically means they don't know the answer. so that is a grade question. look, i think disinformation isn't confined to one side of the political spectrum to state the obvious. i did think that the debate last week, it was good, at least asked the question last week, previous results was not but the fact that 30 second answers were allowed and one spent half the time talking about health care and the other talking about what not to do was not a pourtend and we didn't have more time to discuss it, because we had to discuss the model ofs of each candidate, and was not a great democratic, large d, debate. and i think there is no question that the failings in iraq has clouded a lot of the debate. you could say the syrian people are paying the price for the failure in iraq in a lot of ways. but i do think the contrast, if

i had 30 seconds, i would have talked about the contrast between the northeast and the north west, because i think that is a teachable moment and i think it's instruct uive, it doesn't say that you throw american troops into the northwest, but it shows you that american presence, or absence, makes a difference, and it mitigates against the temptation for broad brush answers that try to make this a very binary divide. equally, i suppose there is another argument, there are two other things shy have said in answer to john's earlier question. one is that we've got a lesson to learn in the humanitarian movement, that the real voices that are persuasive are not mine. the voy voices that are pervasive are the ones that are on the receiving en. and the one that the beneficiaries can be the spokes people, the stronger the case that is made. and the more able one is to appeal to people's send of humanity and interest. the other, the second thing though, is that there's a

danger, that ends up sounding like you're asking for the whole of the u.s. government to throw everything into syria, and my reflection on six years working in the humanitarian aid, is that it's how much difference you can make for a small amount of effort, actually, you're not asking for the whole government to be turned over to a pol problem. we're actually able to make more difference and maybe that's an argument that needs to be made. the outsized contribution that american words and deeds can have on this, i think your reflection though, on nine years of banging your head against the wall is sobering and i think that's why we've got to find different ways, different spokes people, different arguments, to make the case, because i do think that america suffers when a war like that in syria takes the turn that it has. >> that's a sobering set of observations. i think you've given us some tools to think through the future of this idea of the age

of impunity is an idea that we should be turning over, as we think about how we get into the next phase. not only of this conflict, but of resolving a conflict, in dealing with the extraordinarily real and pressing humanitarian needs that you accurately described. please join me in thanking david miliband. thank you so much. [ applause ] hear this week's supreme court oral argument from the louisiana abortion case. tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span 2. listen any time at c-span.org.

and with the free c-span radio app. and to see a schedule of upcoming oral arguments and to watch others we have covered as well as speeches by the justice goes to c-span.org/supreme court. this weekend, on book tv, mayoral leadership, reflections from a water gate lawyer and the effect of a two-party political system on democracy. saturday night, at 11:00 p.m. eastern, in the nation city, former chicago mayor and obama administration chief of staff rahm emanuel at the local level and cities across the country. and then 7:00 p.m. eastern sunday, jill wine-banks in the water gate girl talks about her legal career including one of the three assistant special prosecutors in the water gate case. at 9:00 p.m. on "ards," lee broughtman argues in his book,

that "breaking the two party doom loop" that america's democracy is damaging democracy. he is joined by author matthew dallek. >> what would be the chief advantages to having a multi-party democracy. >> democracy, democracy is always going to involve conflict because politics are conflict. the issues of consensus are not political issues but the challenge is we need to have some system by which we can agree that some set of rules are fair and some set of procedures are fair and we can abide by those outcomes. >> watch rahm emanuel, jill wine-banks, and lee drutman on book tv. and be sure to join in next weekend for the two-day live coverage of the festival of book, on book tv, on c span 2. a state dinner at the white house. vice president and mrs. lyndon johnson are among those who

joined president and mrs. kennedy in honoring his imperial majesty and the empress. >> this weekend on real america, on american history tv, the 1962 film, "firm alliance" on the state shuts on the shah and empress of iran with president kennedy and first lady jacqueline kennedy. >> i speak on behalf of all of my fellow americans in welcoming you to the united states. >> to maintain our peace. and to provide a better life for our people. >> real america, sunld at 4:00 p.m. eastern, on american history tv, on c-span 3. next, a hearing remembering the holocaust. and marking the 75th anniversary of the liberation of auschwitz. the house oversight and reform committee heard on ways to combat