If you thought Tony Blair had a hyperactive foreign policy, look at Gordon Brown’s speech at the Lord Mayor’s Banquet. These speeches are like an annual essay on “my foreign policy”, filled with references to all the world’s problems in case anyone notices an omission.

But last night was Mr Brown’s first chance to set out his personal agenda and, characteristically, he had lots and lots of initiatives to improve the world. I counted at least ten, all involving stronger international co-operation, either at multinational bodies or via treaties.

The phrase intended to get the headlines was “hard-headed internationalism”. The latter is easy to explain: “Global challenges need global solutions and nations must co-operate across borders — often with hard-headed intervention — to give expression to our shared interests and shared values”. The hard-headed bit is imprecise. It meant not shirking “the difficult long-term decisions. Only through reform of our international rules and institutions will we achieve concrete results.” But who favours shirking difficult decisions?

The real test is not the analysis or the aspirations — many of which on the reform of the UN and halting nuclear proliferation are correct — but what this means in practice. On its own, Britain has little influence over achieving many of Mr Brown’s proposals: on, for example, expanding the UN Security Council and changing its approach to the breakdown of states.

In the short term, the key passage was on Iran. The choice, Mr Brown said, was between confrontation, leading to tighter sanctions, or a transformed relationship. This would depend on a changed approach by Iran over its nuclear ambitions and ending support for terrorism. These tougher sanctions would cover oil and gas investment and the financial sector. But there was no reference in any way to possible military action.

Mr Brown talked of “helping the EU move away from its past preoccupation with inward-looking institutional reform”, underlining his grudging approach to the reform treaty as a necessary evil. Instead, he proposed a comprehensive agenda for a “Global Europe” (note the capitals) that is outward-looking, open, internationalist and able to respond to globalisation. Again, fine in theory, but how in practice?

The “how” is the hole in the Brown agenda. He sometimes sounds as if analysing a situation sensibly will inevitably ensure progress towards his irrefutable solution. If only. Many of his proposals depend on US backing. He would have “no truck with anti-Americanism”, he said.

But, unlike Mr Blair a year ago, Mr Brown made just one reference to President Bush. Many of Mr Brown’s aims cannot be achieved until Mr Bush goes. A new president may be more willing to consult other countries, but the Left and Europeans should not count on a sudden shift to internationalism. Mr Brown’s agenda may take a very long time to achieve.

Times Recommends

• Can I be complimentary, my dear Watson?
• Hardliners realise Britain is a soft touch
• The jaw-dropping truth about Gordon