you know, how dare i be a student in college and be selfish and not do something to help my community. and i feel like children are at the center of it all. ♪ my girl my girl my girl talking about my girl ♪ i'm john king in los angeles. have a great sunday. see you next week. this is gps the global public square. welcome to all of you in the united states and around the world. i'm fareed zakaria. this week we're coming to you out of london with an in depth conversation with david miliband the 43-year-old prime minister of great britain. he's on favorite to be the next labor party leader and the next prime minister of the country. he has to confront the problem of iran head on because last week the tehran government arrested nine iranians who worked in the british embassy.

western countries face a difficult set of choices with iran. should they return to the negotiating arena with iran? wouldn't that mean glossing over the rigged election and accepting president mahmoud ahmadinejad as the head of its government? yes, but it isn't clear what the alternative would be. the problem with iran's nuclear program remains and we're negotiating with them to see if some agreement can be reached. that program continues to grow and refusing to negotiate will not do anything to stop it. and, yet, it seems odd to acas if the extraordinary events of the past month simply didn't happen. so here's one solution. do nothing. the five major powers on the u.n. security council plus germany have already given iran a very generous offer to restart the nuclear negotiations. iran has not responded. so the ball is in tehran's court. until iran responds, the west should simply sit tight, build

support for tougher sanctions and more isolation if necessary. it might seem like the west has bad options right now but iran has fewer and worse ones. it's economy is doing very badly. the regime has faced its greatest challenge since its founding. its proxies in lebanon, issue and elsewhere are faring worse than expected and we now know the answer to a very big question, are there moderates in iran? yes. within iran there are millions of people, including very powerful members of the establishment who favor a less confrontational approach to the world. let the supreme leader and president mahmoud ahmadinejad stew a bit. time may not be on their side. now we'll hear from david miliband about whether africa gets too much foreign aid. let's get started.

miliband. let's ball club the iran, the government officials who have been arrested by the iranian government. you assert that none of these people were in any way involved in anything that could be regarded as instigating local demonstration. >> the head of the iran ran intelligence center said the riots were organized from the british embassy. this is completely without foundation. anyone who managed to get interviews in the early days could see these were patriotic iranians arguing about the future of their country. there's no mobilization, instigation, organization of protests from the british embassy. these are hard-working diplomatic staff going about their business in a normal way. they would say patriotic iranians and working for the british government that's

consistent with their diplomatic status. >> there's an article that perhaps britain was singled out by tehran because of barack obama. obama presented this much friendlier face of america, presented a kind of an offer of negotiations and iranians were left with no one to demonize, so they felt on the little satan given that the great satan is smiling on them snoop there are reasons why britain is picked on. however, i think that we've been clear for some time that a policy of engagement from america to iran was much, much needed and the demonization that has happened for 30 years has been exacerbated by the fact that america was not present in iran. barack obama has made it harder to demonize america. i think that there are millions of iranians who are proud they

are and i lammic republic, who want to live according to their own tradition and religion but they seek co-existence but that's what barack obama is apeeling to. >> so at this moment with british embassy staffers arrested you still believe in engagement with this regime? >> yes. the government is still disputed by the iranian people but from our point of view, cutting ourselves off from iran can only strengthen those who want to cut iran off from the rest of the world. and actually that's not in our interest or in their interest. >> you're a state of the union of history. does this moment in iran remind you of the general's crack down in poland. does it remind you the brief flowering of freedom that takes place in various communist

countries and then gets reversed? what is happening right now in iran? >> i think all of those are interesting and suggestive examples, the echos throughout history of governments which have tried to suppress demonstrations, or suppress the anger of their own people are legion. i think -- i add, though, that every country is unique but almost iran is more unique than others and i think one has to be quite careful, certainly if you're sitting in my shoes in suggesting comparisons because i think can that can set off all sorts of process. what's clear, though, is that there is for significant sections of the iranian population a crisis of credibility about the results that were announced the 63% vote for president mahmoud ahmadinejad. i don't know how many votes he got. but a lot of iranians think he didn't get 63% of the vote on an 85% turnout. and that issue of legitimacy, i

think is very, very important now. because we've seen in many countries, including some of the ones that you mentioned that legitimacy is an asset that's hard to build up. when it's built up it's constructed over decades but can be destroyed quite fast. in the modern age, in the twitter age you're on permanent trial. >> right now the iranian regime is using nationalism which is family. the ayatollah came to power. and over the last 10 or 15 years they have portrayed themselves as under imminent threat of attack from george bush's administration or the americans or the israelis and now they are trying it with the use of britain, also the united states. will it work? does nationalism, it's a pretty powerful force in some of these countries, particularly in iran.

i wouldn't be surprised if many iranians do believe that there's a plot being hatched by washington and london to destabilize this regime. >> nationalism is a potent force, especially if you control the means of communication. but so is internationalism. i think that there is a growing global consciousness powered by the technology that does break down borders and barriers, that does get through, especially in a country with high levels of education and technology access that iran still has despite the best efforts of the regime. in that sense there are these contradictory forces. i think it's really important with countries like iran that we, perhaps, especially with our history which you referred to earlier, we and the of its power, respect is an important word, respect for a people, for its way of life, for its history, you can't buy respect,

but you can show respect and i think that's something we probably haven't been good enough about in the past, something we got to do better with, i think a lot of countries in the islamic world. one thing i feel strongly is that we talk about islamic countries, islamic people, islamic leaders as either moderates or extremists. almost like there's only two categories of muslims, and actually that done show respect, it shows a lack of understanding of the diversity of muslim thought, shows a lack of understanding of muslim countries. from turkey to other countries that are sunnis and et cetera. i think that our growing understanding of those, that diversity of islamic force is vital for a simple reason. the problems that the world faces from nuclear proliferation

to climate change can't be tackled by the west alone, they need a coalition not of west and east, they need a coalition of christian, jew and muslims and you can't solve the problem unless the muslim countries are part of the answer. you saw that inindonesia. >> do you think that in a few months we'll be back to negotiating with the iranians on the nuclear issue? >> in a way i hope so. in fact, it's too late in many ways because in this building a year ago the e-3, the three european countries plus russia, china and the u.s. met under the previous u.s. administration but together we presented a very clear offer to iran which is that it could have its rights to civilian nuclear power respected as long as there was confidence there wasn't leakage from that civilian program into a military program. we can have that confidence at the moment because of the pre-2003 secret programs and because of the refusal to

cooperate properly with the international atomic energy commission. >> you could live with a prom in iran, in which iranians would enrich uranium on their soil but with international inspectors >> there's only one condition that we and not just britain but all six countries placed on an iran ran nuclear program and that there's full confidence in the international community that there isn't leakage into a nuclear weapons program. that's the only red line that we have, all of us, all six countries put, because the truth is that an iranian nuclear weapons program is a huge danger not just to the middle east but the wider world. >> but to be clear, so that viewers understand what that does suggest is that there is a potential compromise here because the iranians have said that they might accept a system in which they are allowed to have an enrichment facility but

it has to be in iran and has to be iranians involved. if you can have confidence that that civilian program were not leaking in to a weapons program that would be fine with the west? >> all of us never ruled anything in. we've always been clear what we rule out. what we rule out is a situation where there's a fear, a justified fear that an iranian civil and nuclear power right which isn'ting right is leaking into a nuclear weapons program which is prohibited. and we said very clearly we want to open negotiations. your first question is day hope that the iranians take up this offer of negotiations. the answer is yes. we're waiting for them. we've been waiting for them since last year. part this was is an argument that needs to happen in iran and also around the world because i think what's important is that while iran may try to present itself as a victim of western

aggression, whether in respect to its demonstrations or nuclear program, iran's leaders are making choices every day in how they engage with the outside world. we need a much more positive kind of engagement from iran. >> i think it's a problem that we've gotten a culture that celebrities are the face of africa. a lot of celebrity platform is couched in negativity. miliband

ju >> you gave a speech about britain and the islamic world, a very intelligent speech a few weeks before barack obama gave his speech in cairo. do you believe that right now relations between the west and the world of islam, if one can characterize it as such are improving? >> i think they've gone backwards since 2001, but i think that the drive by president obama, starting with a simple statement, we're not at war with islam, and it's shocking in a way that that statement should be seen as such a step forward, but in many muslim majority countries it was. and i think he set off a very interesting debate and a very important conversation. so i think that the approach that the obama administration has started offers huge potential benefits and is immensely necessary. does that mean that's plain

sailing, obviously not. >> you and britain have a particular problem because one of the things that has puzzled many people is after the london bombs in the subway, people looked at london and britain and thought wait a minute, these people can't be upset because they don't have democracy, they live in one of the world's most established democracies, they can't be upset because they are poor they are not poor, so why does britain have some part of its muslim population that is radicalized, alienated and subject to terror. >> that's a good question. britain is a country of successful muslim business people, teachers and educators, journalists, so we have to say very strongly hat the 2 million plus muslims in britain, the vast bulk of them makes a huge contribution to our society and makes it a vibrant society. there's a radicalization that happened. the detailed work on that

suggests that a combination of exclusion, anger, not simply poverty, income levels speaks to that. also there's no question that there are leaks back to pakistan for 70% plus of our terrorism problems. and i think that that is a big challenge, obviously, because you're right, it's not a simple, simple answer -- socio economic answer. it's a mix of social exclusion, ideological anger, falling into the wrong company. some of the most interesting books written in britain are by former radicals that have seen the dangers of what they were being sold. the lesson is you have to build a genuine, inclusive society in all of its dimensions and the truth is those who are terrorists only have to sikd once and those of us who are trying to build an inclusive society has to succeed every

time. i think the wrong lesson is to pull out the draw bridge, pulling out the draw bridge is no strategy for the modern world. have to combine a sense of internationalism with a sense of rootedness and inclusion and that's on the basis of very, very clear understanding of what you sign up to when you come to britain as a citizen or as a resident. one of the things i think we haven't been good enough here in this country, we worked hard in the last 20, 30 years to promote respect for ethnic minority group. we haven't had a sense of british credo, the integrative part of the multicultural society isn't being built up. that's why the prime minister puts strong emphasis on citizenship. that's why we take more seriously about the preparation for sizship and the obligations of citizenship. >> let's talk about pakistan, the country that you said 70% of britain's terrorism suspects

come from, originally and often had some contact with. why is it that despite all the effort, the united states and britain have not been able to make much of a dent in the radicalization that is going on in pakistan? many people believe it is because the pakistani military continues to play a game of, on the one hand encouraging these forces because they can be effectively deployed against india or afghanistan when the military want, and then occasionally clamping down on them when those same forces or associated groups seem to threaten the pakistani state. is this a cycle that can be stopped? >> it has to be stopped because it's a threat to pakistan. the enemy pack stance face, the domestic terrorist enemy, not a large and successful neighbor, india which has far better things to do in world of commerce and politics ends up in

a standoff with pakistan. >> do you feel when you talk to the pakistani military they get that >> that's what i'm coming on to. there has been a change. i think since the sass destination of bhutto and if you remember six or seven weeks ago the headlines across the world and across the pakistani press, the taliban 70 kilometers from islamabad. that was a pivotal moment because you could feel, the middle classes in pakistan asking are we safe? what you've seen is unity across the political spectrum and critically unity between politicians and the military in pursuing a very difficult campaign in the swat valley. remember, the pakistani military lost 2,000 of its own soldiers in the last 18 months or so. you've seen unity and a sigh of relief from large parts of pack sanny society suggesting leaders will get a grip. pakistan is -- you asked at the beginning of your question, whether britain's or america's

fault, we haven't run pakistan for 60 years now. >> you drew the boundary between pakistan and india which -- >> we did. we have to recognize our own history. 61 years, india is the world's largest and most successful, largest democracy and a success story of the region. pakistan, 31 years of history, two-thirds of its boundary contested. communities split by lines between countries and the bangladesh experience of the early 1970s. pakistan has been a society deeply challenged, socio economically, politically, geographically over the last 60 years. what is important is countries like britain and america engage in the right way. we have to support credible strong government in pakistan that is able to come to grips with its own problems because

it's a mortal threat that their own society faces. >> would you scene more troops into afghanistan if president obama asked you to? >> we will decide on troop deployment on the need on the ground. we have 9,000 troops in helmand province now or 6,000 helmand, 3,000 elsewhere in the country. the british commitment is very substantial, 12% of the total before the american surge. but the biggest increase in troops and i think people forget this in the next few years will not be brits or americans it will be afghans. >> this sounds like you are saying no. >> no one should say given the level of sacrifice of british soldiers, 169 british soldiers have died in afghanistan, we've increased our numbers from four to five to six, to 9,000. >> but now no more >> we always judge according to conditions on the ground. we agreed to put in an extra 700

because of the elections in august. this is a major contribution by the british army. we've done it because it's the right thing to do. backing up a credible strategy. making a difference. we know if there weren't british and american and danish and other troops and canadian troops in afghanistan, the afghan security forces don't yet have the ability to with stand the insurgency. with our support, and with our training, they have the chance to build up that capacity. that's why we're there. we're not there to create another british colony. we're there to build up a society that's able to defend itself.

welcome home, man.

do you find it difficult to speak about matters of religion and faith, you have been described as an atheist. you have a jewish background. does this whole world of religion puzzle and bother you? >> i'm british so by definition i don't like talking about myself. but i think that it doesn't -- people of faith -- i have huge respect for people of all faith but i have to be honest about

where i'm coming from. my parents and grandparents, all of them jews, went through huge trauma. they went through the trauma of the holocaust. i don't know if it's for that reason that by 1965 when i was born, my grandparents who were aliv