The world is getting more violent. A top refugee advocate thinks he knows why.

What’s driving the increase in global conflict?

Is it a lack of global leadership? Political polarization? Resource stress and climate change?

David Miliband sees a combination of all these factors and more. For the past 10 years, the former British foreign secretary has led the International Rescue Committee (IRC), a global NGO working on the frontlines of conflicts around the world to provide aid to refugees and other displaced people.

At the recent Aspen Security Forum, Miliband sat down with Vox to discuss Gaza, Ukraine, Sudan, and other conflicts, as well as the new British government, which is led by his former political party, Labour, and includes his brother Edward Miliband as secretary of energy.

The conversation has been edited for length and clarity.

We now have several years of data showing the number of armed conflicts around the world increasing in terms of both sheer numbers and casualties. Is it fair to say that the so-called “long peace” is coming to an end?

I don’t want to declare the end of the long peace for a particular reason, which is that the “peace” wasn’t very peaceful. It suggests a bit of a golden age that we’ve left, and we shouldn’t fall into that trap.

What we do know is that today there are up to a dozen major conflicts — with major defined as more than 1,000 battlefield deaths [in one year] — and there are 50-plus civil conflicts of different kinds going on. The two conflicts that get the most attention, Ukraine and Gaza, are obviously in a different category than the civil wars that are dominant, Sudan being a prime example.

Secondly, what we also know is that in many countries there are many conflicts. There’s not one single conflict going on in Cameroon or in Nigeria or in Myanmar.

Thirdly, to your point, we know that civilians are increasingly bearing the brunt of conflict and that there’s much more internationalization of civil conflict.

So I think we’re in a period that we could describe as a flammable world. There’s a lot of tinder and a lot of it’s on fire.

Okay, so let’s talk about the kindling for that fire. What are some of the underlying structural factors that you think might be driving this increase in the number of conflicts and their severity?

Well, resource stress is a big conflict multiplier and that’s where you see this conflict/climate interface. We also know that political systems that fail to manage compromise are a source of conflict. That’s been the story in Syria, and you could say that’s the story in Sudan as well.

We also know that the divisive elements of social media have driven toxicity.

Also this point about the internationalization of conflict — you’ve got more and more actors thinking regionally and making their power plays. And I suppose that the other thing is that the biggest determinant of where civil conflicts break out is where there was one before. So the failure to resolve conflict is a feeder of more conflict.

Recently, President Biden caused some controversy when he said that he’s done more for the Palestinian community than anyone, by pressuring Israel to allow more aid into Gaza. Given what you’re seeing from Gaza and the work that IRC is doing there, how would you assess the international community’s use of pressure to bring more aid in?

It’s a very complicated — perhaps uniquely complicated — situation. But the sum total of the efforts is not yet delivering for either Palestinians in Gaza or for the hostages being held in Gaza. And so there’s an immense amount of frustration around the terrible situation facing civilians.

What we’ve said is that the number of trucks going into an area isn’t a sufficient measure of humanitarian aid. You can get a truck across the border, but what happens to the aid once you get it across?

Turning to Sudan, we’re about two decades removed from the era of the “Save Darfur” movement and the George W. Bush administration’s very close involvement with that country. Does it feel like it’s fallen somewhat off the global agenda considering the staggering scale of the crisis there?

There’s no doubt that there’s less global interest in Sudan today than 20 years ago. Twenty years ago, there was terrible loss of life, but also extraordinary international mobilization. A lot has changed in the wider world since then. There’s a lot of humility born of error and failure.

There’s a lot of fatigue. There’s also a new insistence on African solutions to African problems. So it’s the African Union that is in front of diplomacy there, not the UN Security Council, which is a change.

But for sure, the situation is getting worse, not better. It’s the prototype of the modern civil war: very convoluted, involving internationally sponsored actors and spillover from the region. It’s very dark.

And then when it comes to Ukraine: That’s very different from these other conflicts. It’s interstate, versus a civil war. It’s very much on the international agenda. How is the humanitarian response different in a conflict like that?

The first way it’s very different is that it’s a middle-income country. Secondly, it borders Europe. It’s actually very unusual to have refugees flowing into rich countries. Seventy-five percent of the world’s refugees go to poorer parts of the world. They go from Myanmar to Bangladesh or they go from the [Democratic Republic of Congo] to Tanzania. And those who’ve been going to Europe have been much better treated [than refugees from other conflicts].

But where we work on the eastern front, on the frontlines, the parallels with other conflict zones are very real. Daily survival is an issue, basic services for people with health needs that were previously met. And there’s just an extraordinary level of combat going on.

As someone who’s been in both government and the NGO sector, how do you make the case to voters in countries like the UK or the US that these international priorities should matter given how many serious issues are on the domestic agenda?

I think it’s very important to say that you’re not asking to solve international problems instead of solving domestic problems. We shouldn’t try to convince people that the quality of their schools or their streets are not the top priority.

Having said that, we’ve seen from Covid that problems can come from abroad if they’re not tackled there. There’s a real need to recognize that this is an age in which countries are more interdependent.

What do you hope to see from Britain’s new government in terms of Britain’s international role?

Well, I think what we’re seeing is that geography still matters. The new government has made clear that they see [Britain’s] values and interests aligned with its European neighbors. They don’t want to refight the Brexit wars, but there’s no value in Britain and Europe pretending that they’re somehow in a different place.

They’re going to want British diplomacy to work in a multilateral system. They’re going to be watching the American election very closely. And they’re going to make clear that they see climate as a security issue, not just as an environmental issue.

Is there a particular conflict or pressing issue that you think people should be paying more attention to, that doesn’t get the same kind of headlines as the ones we’ve discussed?

I mean, first of all, don’t forget about Syria. It’s been ongoing for more than a decade. There are 7 million civilians outside the country, and a similar number inside the country who are displaced.

Don’t forget about the Rohingya in Bangladesh, but also don’t forget there are 3 million Burmese Myanmar citizens displaced internally. Don’t forget about Afghanistan where there are still grave economic needs. The West promised when it left militarily that it wouldn’t leave politically or developmentally.

Then there are some places that are much more foreign for Western audiences: West Africa, Francophone Africa in particular. There’s a lot of dynamism in this region, but also a lot of challenges.

You know, we [the IRC] are growing. I’m not really sure if that’s a good thing or a bad thing.