During the heat of an election campaign, foreign policy is rarely seen as a decisive issue. With the domestic and economic agenda at the heart of the debate between the parties in 2010, international affairs tended to get sideline apart from the odd exchange over Afghanistan or Trident.

But as soon as the prime minister crosses the threshold into Downing Street, security and international relations begin to encroach into his work agenda. There is the briefing on our nuclear capacity – something John Major said overawed him. There are the first congratulations calls to be taken from the US President and the leaders of our major allies in Europe. And there is the briefing from the intelligence services and the military on the threats facing our country.

David Cameron is notable for showing little interest in the detail of foreign policy – something that many first term prime ministers tend towards, preferring to focus on the thrust of domestic policy reform. So William Hague has been given a reasonable amount of space to pursue his agenda – trusted and respected as he is by the boss.

The one major exception to this is Europe, where the deal with the Lib Dems has clipped the wings of the normally eurosceptic Hague, despite his best efforts to wrest control of the government’s engagement with the EU away from the cabinet office. This has forced him to perform quite a volte-face – from being the poster boy of the ‘save the pound’ campaign, to saying that Britain should now be more extensively engaged in Europe. His comments that the attitude towards Europe is firmly a ‘Lib-Con’ approach may unnerve the right of the Tory backbenches – vulnerable to defections to UKIP. Although insignificant in reality, he has made certain token concessions to the Lib Dems with calls for Britain to have more senior officials in Brussels – though this could easily be spun to the Tories as having more of our boys ‘batting for Britain’.

While advisers to William Hague were keen to point out in advance of the election that Europe aside, Conservative foreign policy priorities wouldn’t be radically different to that of the Labour government, speeches by Hague have suggested a shift in strategic and philosophical direction.

In a speech even a year before the coalition was formed he used the term ‘Liberal Conservatism’ to describe the approach to foreign affairs that he and David Cameron favoured.

On the face of it he appeared to pay lip service to the liberal aspects of this – mentions of democracy and human rights being sprinkled across the text. But at the heart of his vision of the UK’s role overseas is a retrenched, traditionalist approach to the rest of the world.

He said their approach is liberal:

“in that we believe in freedom, human rights and democracy and want to see more of these things in other nations. But Conservative, because we believe strongly in the continued relevance of the nation state.”

So while a Conservative government would like to do more in Darfur, and try to prevent a repeat of Rwanda, the foreign secretary appears to backtrack on the commitments of ‘Responsibility to Protect’ by saying such interventions are unrealistic.

“in the years and decades to come, the rise of other nations will constrain our ability to act in this way… as a nation we will have to accustom ourselves to there being more situations which we dislike but cannot directly change”

This sense of defeatism is a worrying feature of this policy, what some might term a ‘Carterite’ approach to international affairs. As the ever-astute Phil Stephens put it in the FT:

“the new pragmatism carries uncomfortable echoes of the Conservative government’s reluctance to intervene against the slaughter in the Balkans during the 1990s.”

So the idealism of Robin Cook’s ethical dimension to foreign policy is now tempered by realism. The danger of this approach isn’t just that those battling for democracy, or greater human rights, or personal liberty are left to their own devices, but that it challenges Britain’s prominent role in the world.

This has caused disconcert in Washington, who are keen to build bridges following a testy relationship between Obama and Brown, but feel uneasy about the language of having a ‘solid but not slavish’ relationship. As Stephens puts it:

“Touring the foreign policy establishment in Washington last week my sense was that Barack Obama’s administration already views Britain as a diminished player. There is some sympathy with Mr Cameron’s focus on domestic economics, not least because the US has its own deficit to worry about. But the underlying perception is that Britain is unwilling to pay the price for international influence. My guess is that similar calculations are being made in Delhi, Beijing and Ankara.”

This viewpoint is reinforced by the planned strategic defence review which may well diminish our capacity to intervene in humanitarian conflicts. Our hard power is also undermined by placing an arbitrary withdrawal date for our troops from Afghanistan – 2015, something which could give the Taliban renewed vigour to continue the battle to that date.

The Tories would seem to be out of touch with the public – a recent survey by Chatham House and YouGov showed that while many Britons were sceptical about having a large aid budget, they still viewed the UK as a great power, and one that should project its influence overseas.

On the other big challenge of our international role – the potential for environmental disaster, Hague seems to have little to say beyond platitudes. It was notable in his first big speech as foreign secretary he spent more time speaking about the Commonwealth than climate change, and almost no time speaking about international development.

Closer to home, the Conservatives seem to be keen to curry favour with the intelligence agencies who have been traumatised by the revelations around rendition flights and alleged complicity in torture of British citizens. The Tories seem likely to set up a behind-closed-doors review of the issue – ‘Chilcot-lite’ as it has been dubbed, which would provide a swift and secret inquiry into the allegations.

In fairness to the Conservatives, they have made some good noises about looking beyond the EU and the US for new strategic alliances. Both Cameron and Hague have talked about the importance of relations with Turkey, China, African and Latin American states, and Cameron will visit India again later this month, having made a major trip during opposition.

However, progressives – both Liberal and Labour – must continue to make the case for an interventionist and idealist foreign policy. Hopefully when the leadership contest is over, and we have a shadow foreign secretary who isn’t (understandably) distracted, that will begin in earnest.

Photo: UK in Italy 2010