When Gerald Ford replaced Richard Nixon as the President of the United States it was remarked that he had gone from being unknown in America to unknown across the entire world. Margaret Beckett, the Foreign Secretary for the past seven weeks or so, is not an unknown figure in British politics. Indeed, she is one of the few people of prominence today who have a parliamentary history stretching back to the 1970s. She has, however, preferred not to press herself into the limelight in the crass manner of some colleagues. And it is fair to observe that until her appointment last month she was virtually unknown internationally to all but specialists in environmental matters.
Mrs Beckett’s approach to domestic issues is often admirable. She is an accomplished administrator. She has a consistent and reliable temperament. She does not take herself unduly seriously. She has a normal life — a hinterland — symbolised by her caravan. A voyage across the Labour Party spectrum from arch-Bennite 25 years ago to a close ally of both Tony Blair and Gordon Brown has taught her much about politics being the art of the possible. Her interview in The Times today, in which she comments on reacting to her promotion, the Blair-Brown relationship and the notion that she might run for the Labour Party deputy leadership again, is candid and credible.
Mrs Beckett has, though, reached a moment in her career where modesty, quiet competence and a flair for steering the department under her control out of the headlines are not the assets that they have been previously. There are numerous virtues in being viewed as “a safe pair of hands”. It is better than being perceived to possess poli- tical butterfingers. The hands are not, nevertheless, the only part of the body politic. Mrs Beckett’s admittedly secure grip on policy will need to be accompanied by strong vocal chords.
There may be some, possibly even at the highest levels of Government, who consider this to be a moment to tread water on British foreign policy. There are no dramatic initiatives from within the European Union that are likely to embarrass or inconvenience Downing Street. This has been a relatively introspective year for the United States with fiercely contested congressional elections approaching in November, after which minds in Washington may move on to the identity of George W. Bush’s successor. The quest to contain Iran’s nuclear ambitions continues, but with Condoleezza Rice’s State Department now overtly involved. North Korea is no nuttier now than last year.
In such circumstances, it could be calculated, a low-key approach to foreign affairs might be appropriate. The high politics of manifest troublespots, such as Afghanistan, where two more British military deaths were reported yesterday, and Iraq, can be dealt with by Mr Blair, while details of the operations there are managed by the Ministry of Defence. Meanwhile, arguably the largest single short-term challenge facing the international community — completing the Doha Round of trade talks — does not fall to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. What better time for an institutional breather?
Except that it is not. Indeed it is precisely because there is no immediate crisis involving the EU that has to be defused, or a compelling Anglo-American enterprise that must be conducted, that the Foreign Office under Mrs Beckett has an unusual opportunity. It can think about the parts of the world where Britain’s standing is not what it could and should be, and make its presence felt in these places. The Foreign Secretary should not want to be a transitional figure. She should instead aspire to be the woman who lifted the horizons of British foreign policy and made it more relevant to the future.
There are at least three significant areas in the world where British diplomatic influence has to be intensified.
The first of these is Eastern Europe, in particular Poland. The enlargement of the EU was a welcome event and it brought with it the promise that the new members would be natural allies of Britain in its drive for a more liberal, flexible Europe. Despite this, Poland is drifting away from market reforms towards nationalism. This is not a trend about which Britain can be ignorant or indifferent. Mrs Beckett needs to be seen and heard in Warsaw.
The second realm is India. Britain has connections of culture, history and language that should be of immense value in understanding this emerging giant. British business is far from convinced that these advantages are being exploited. The Foreign Office has not, so far, redirected intellectual firepower and tangible resources into the sub- continent on the scale required to show it is serious about it. Mrs Beckett needs to be seen and heard in Delhi.
The final theatre is China. Politicians in London wax lyrical about the role that China will play in coming decades. Once again, those who are at the sharp end, and the Chinese themselves, do not sense a seismic shift in attitudes and application that matches the rhetoric of the Prime Minister and the Chancellor. By contrast, there is evidence that France and Germany are better placed at present. Mrs Beckett needs to be seen and heard in Beijing.
There are, of course, other challenges: the evolution of Turkey, the confusion in Nigeria and the re-emergence of Japan. It would be foolish for Mrs Beckett to claim that her elevation by itself constitutes a transformation in Britain’s foreign policy. Yet a change in outlook and emphasis is demanded. She needs to hitch up her intellectual and emotional caravan and begin a long, colourful and crucial journey.
