Westminster

This was a soundbite that new Labour didn't invent. "Britain", so our governments have been telling us for years, "is punching above its weight." Tony Blair is the latest in a long line of prime ministers who have peddled the view that we are much more than a medium-sized power off north-west Europe. But the three foreign conflicts of this summer show that the image is taking on the realms of fantasy.

In former Yugoslavia, we have played the tough guy, sending in troops to Bosnia, Kosovo and now Macedonia. With Israel and the Palestinians, we've blown hot and cold, sometimes trying to assert our influence as the former colonial power, sometimes withdrawing to the diplomatic sidelines. But when it comes to helping the farmers who have been hounded out by the so-called war veterans in Zimbabwe, we have turned all meek.

Back in 1997, Robin Cook, then foreign secretary, promised it would all be so different. The "ethical dimension" would commit us to fight (militarily and diplomatically) for human rights. We weren't going to do any dirty deals. We weren't going to be anyone's appeasers. Our actions would be underpinned by a consistent ideology. All this unravelled well before Cook was unceremoniously despatched in the post-election reshuffle.

Now Blair, as his second term gets into gear, is creating a foreign policy more to his liking. The watchwords are "modern" and "managerial", with particular emphasis on communications and commercial interest. Realpolitik comes to the 21st century. Why has it taken Blair so long to get involved in the nitty-gritty of "abroad"? Part of the problem is that all recent prime ministers have had to rely on one single co-opted mandarin to be their eyes and ears on foreign matters. They have rarely trusted the Foreign Office itself, but they have lacked the quality and quantity of advice needed to counter it.

For the first time, the Prime Minister has two special foreign policy advisers. The veteran Euro-mandarin Stephen Wall is being brought into No 10 to run policy on the European Union (or at least those parts that Gordon Brown hasn't hijacked). The new face is David Manning, who will look after the rest of the world. He has risen effortlessly up the ranks. He was head of the political department at the Moscow embassy at the time of the coup and collapse of the USSR. From there, he became, variously, ambassador to Israel (as he was packing his bags to start his posting, Yitzhak Rabin was assassinated) and, most recently, our envoy to Nato in Brussels, from where he has been brought back after only six months.

Manning's wife, Catherine, is a successful crime writer under the nom de plume Elizabeth Ironside. And, just for good measure, the couple have for years been close personal friends of the new Foreign Secretary Jack Straw and his wife, Alice Perkins, a civil servant. Manning, who is 51, and Perkins were contemporaries at Oxford.

The change in personnel is accompanied by a change in structures. Manning and Wall will report directly to the Prime Minister and have been asked to represent him on discreet trips abroad in an unprecedented way. This is an embryonic National Security Office, Washington-style. A small cell of trusted Blairite ambassadors is also being placed in strategic points around the world. They don't wear pinstripes, they have toned down their accents, they know their media and they are generally younger than their predecessors.

This new vanguard is under instructions to trumpet Britain's "unique" position. They will modernise the mantra, but will continue to stress that we are members of more international bodies than anyone else - Nato, the EU, the Commonwealth and, permanently, of the UN Security Council (the last position, on to which we are desperately trying to hold, by virtue only of our status as a wartime power).

Being at the top table should allow us, encourage us even, to punch above our weight, to take risks, to adopt a more - dare I say it - ethical approach. So where exactly have we brought influence to bear? Take two examples: our former superpower adversaries. When it comes to Chinese abuses of human rights, we kowtow. Policy towards Russia has been all about getting one up on the Germans and the French by cosying up to President Vladimir Putin. When it comes to complaining about the crackdown on press freedom and Russian atrocities in Chechnya, Blair has been - unlike many of our European partners - as silent as a lamb.

So, it's back to the old days. We intervene only when we think it is in our best interests. That might not be wrong; but if we are going to go down this route, we should give up all the humbug about being "special" and somehow morally superior. We should also be more honest about the limits of our power. We are far too small to become an international policeman on our own.

Malcolm Rifkind, foreign secretary at the end of the Tories' term of office, likened the job to being on a treadmill. Cook tried, in his inimitable fashion, to get off it, to do things differently, and fell flat on his face. Blair has served notice that he is in charge now, and has surrounded himself with strong individuals who will "get the job done". But to what end? What's the point of posturing if you don't get results - or if you don't know what results you want to get?

Drawing up criteria for when we should intervene in another country's woes is an important task for the new foreign policy team. If talk of ethics is naive, then what should we have in its place? And, as a starter, how about explaining why we should be more concerned about the plight of Macedonians than Zimbabwean farmers?

Jackie Ashley returns next week

Post your comment

Please note: you will need to login or register before you can comment on the website