The Guildhall:
(From the balcony overlooking the Lord Mayor's Banquet)
Hard-headed internationalism. That, Gordon Brown told us tonight, is what sums up his foreign policy.
What does it mean? It's more revealing to look at what it doesn't mean.
"Internationalism" - means NOT unilateralism or isolationism - i.e. not what Bush and Blair are accused of in Iraq, and not what Brown hints David Cameron may mean. It is also not another word Brown could have used - "multilateralism" - which could be taken to be a commitment to work only through the UN. This brings us on to...
"Hard headed" - by which Brown means NOT soft or na茂ve - in other words, not believing that what's right is whatever the United Nations agrees. A key, though heavy, part of Brown's speech tonight focuses on the need to reform international institutions - the UN, the G8, World Bank and the IMF.
The words will be endlessly analysed as were all such phrases uttered over the years at the Lord Mayor's Banquet - particularly those uttered by new prime ministers.
I have just dug out Tony Blair's 1997 speech. The headlines were about Europe but just look at this:
"This Government's determination to stand firm against a still dangerous dictator is unshakeable. We want to see a diplomatic solution and will work with others to achieve this in the next few days. But Saddam should not take as a sign of weakness the international community's desire to find a peaceful way forward if possible. He has made this fatal miscalculation before. For his sake, I hope he will not make it again."
Proof, if any were needed, that words matter - but it's deeds in response to events that count most.
PS: As memorable as the speech is the sight of Gordon "Where there is Greed" * Brown sitting in a gold throne, dressed in white tie being introduced by a trumpet fanfare. Who, I wonder, will have the last laugh - him or his hosts in the City of London?
* "Where there is Greed" was the title of a polemic written by Brown in the 1980s.
William Hague - speaking in the Commons Queens Spech debate - appears to have just made a new commitment to his party's Euro sceptics.
He was asked once again whether his party would promise a referendum if the Tories come to power after the EU Treaty (or what they insists is still the EU Constitution) had been ratified. The Shadow Foreign Secretary went through the usual list of "ifs" implicit in that question - if there's no referendum, if the treaty's ratified elsewhere, if there's an election after that process is over - before going on to say that if all those "ifs" came to pass "We could not let matters rest there".
In other words Hague is saying that the Tories would not accept that ratification by the Commons and by all other EU nations put an end to the debate. They would insist, presumably, on either a post ratification referendum or, if that were not possible, a re-negotiation of Britain's membership of the EU.
There are no misunderstandings on our part. So, said No 10 this morning. In other words, tonight's speech will attempt to clear up misunderstandings on the other side of the pond.
Consider for a moment where those "misunderstandings" may stem from:
- first Gordon Brown appointed a foreign secretary who was happy for his concerns about the Lebanon war and doubts about the war in Iraq to be widely known
- then he appointed Mark Malloch Brown as Milliband's deputy - someone who the White House loathes with a vengeance after his years at the helm of the UN
- next came a speech in Washington in July by one of Mr Brown's closest Cabinet allies, Douglas Alexander, who stressed the importance of "soft power" over military action
- then came the first Brown/Bush summit at Camp David at which in public and, apparently in private too, the new PM was thought to be giving the president a very obvious cold shoulder
- next came the foreign secretary's party conference speech which sought to bury Blairite foreign policy, not to praise it (although as I wrote at the time it's not clear it signalled much real change).
Meantime Sarko has that he - and France - is more than willing to be America's new best friend.
Gordon Brown did want - and need - to distance himself from the most embarrassing and politically damaging parts of the Blair/Bush partnership but it's no wonder that tonight he feels that the Americans need to hear a few warm words.
