The new year break should provide the opportunity to step back from the hurly burly of events and establish a wider perspective. The flurry of foreign policy alarms - in Pakistan and Kenya, most notably - militate against the cool view. But actually they make it more important.

The crises in Kenya and Pakistan have distinctive features but there are striking similarities. Both countries are working to establish democratic systems that command the confidence of all citizens. Both face groups ready to turn to violence. Both have highly personalised political systems. Both play key roles in their regions. Both have enjoyed strong economic growth but struggled to arrest the strains of social inequality. And both have a heritage as British colonies.

In each case Britain is working to promote reconciliation and responsibility on the part of political and civic leadership. And we are seeking to ensure that British nationals are properly informed and protected.

Our determination in Kenya is to do all we can to contain violence and ensure that democratic justice is done and seen to be done.

We also have a wider responsibility - to understand what these crises say about the wider foreign policy context facing Britain in 2008. I believe it is possible to discern three key trends.

First, there are a number of faltering states in the postcold war world. That is why you see challenges of governance in countries where the state is weak - Afghanistan, Iraq and Somalia. And you see examples of where the state is too strong - overriding citizens’ rights, for example, in Burma or Zimbabwe.

The march of political democracy in the past 20 years - 56 more countries have established democratic systems - is striking. But the speed of progress has not been matched by similar development of social and civic institutions - from free media to the police and judiciary.

Second, there are important unresolved conflicts. In Kosovo, the European Union faces a key test of leadership in order to preempt the reemergence of the terrible consequences of ethnic nationalism. The conflict in the Middle East is of longer standing. Since 1967 a two-state solution, a viable Palestine alongside a secure Israel, has been the only way to establish both justice for the Palestinians and security for Israel. But it has become a more remote possibility; 2008 needs to be the year of vision and leadership by the two parties, by the other countries in the region who need to normalise relations with Israel and provide an economic route map for Palestine, and for those of us further afield in the United States and Europe who can underwrite the political compromises necessary.

Third, we need to recognise that the balance of power in the world order is tilting east, with the emergence of India and China as world economies. That does not mean America’s position as the world’s superpower is under threat. It does mean these countries have a key role in their regions and globally. Gordon Brown has highlighted the need for reform of international institutions, from the United Nations to the World Bank and IMF. This is a vital agenda.

David Cameron has said we should be “sceptical” about global engagement. I disagree. We should be committed. A country as much as a company is as strong as its global links. Britain has strong links around the globe and, just as the City has become a global hub for finance, Britain should see itself as a global hub for diplomacy and ideas.

That requires a foreign policy led by clear priorities. That is why from April, in place of the 10 strategic priorities that govern our work, the Foreign Office will focus its efforts on four key policy goals where we can make the biggest difference. The priorities will speak directly to the economic, social and security concerns of British citizens.

First, we will put more resources into countering terrorism and nuclear proliferation. We plan a diplomatic surge in the Middle East and south Asia by raising the number of staff by 30%. That means we can deepen our engagement with Pakistan to prevent the growth of extremism there, including by spending an extra £80m over three years on counter-radicalisation.

Second, we will prioritise our work on conflict prevention. That means working better with the armed forces and international development department in places such as Afghanistan and Iraq.

Third, we want to increase the link between our political work and the economic conditions that underpin it, especially in the context of climate change. The leapfrog of developing countries to low carbon energy and transport, skipping the high carbon mistakes of the industrialised world, is critical to minimising conflict over resources.

And fourth, this requires a strong international system. It is not the overweening strength of international institutions that threatens the security of British people. Instead it is their effectiveness that is the issue. That is why we are right to press for full engagement in the European Union so it turns outwards to the big global challenges. It is why our position on the UN security council should be used to the full, not least to accelerate the pace of reform at the UN.

All these goals require strong bilateral relationships, not least with the United States, our single most important partner. In fact my experience over the past six months is that our allies strongly value Britain’s position and role in international institutions.

Brown’s administration is driven forward by what he calls “hardheaded internationalism”. In 2008 we will show in word and deed what that means.

Times Recommends

• Fundamentalist brew: faith and power
• Big guns wheeled out for the marginals
• Wanted: new merchants of light