The Latest from Iran (17 November): An Obama-Ahmadinejad Alliance?

NEW Latest Iran Video: The Protests of Ehsan Fattahian's Execution (16 November)
NEW The Bomb, The Bomb: Distorting the Latest Report on Iran's Nuclear Programme
NEW The Iran Cul-de-Sac: 4 Points on Obama’s Embrace of Ahmadinejad (and Rejection of the Green Movement)
Iran Document: The International Atomic Energy Agency Report on Nuclear Facilities
The Latest from Iran (16 November): Catching Up

Receive our latest updates by email or RSS SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FEED
Buy Us A Cup of Coffee? Help Enduring America Expand Its Coverage and Analysis

1925 GMT: On a Positive Note (see 1855 GMT). The Public Broadcasting Service documentary, "Death in Tehran", on the shooting of Neda Agha Soltan airs at 8 p.m., Eastern Standard Time in the US (0100 GMT). It has been developed and filmed in conjunction with the good folks at Tehran Bureau.

1915 GMT: Former President Mohammad Khatami, speaking to Tehran University students, has called for reform of Iran's election laws and condemned violent government policies. He maintained that the “Iranian movement” cannot be suppressed by “fear":

This movement is a deep and widespread movement....The people of Iran want freedom; they want financial, economic, social and political security and because they have suffered through despotism, they want to be masters of their destiny.

1855 GMT: Worst Iran Coverage of the Day. From The New York Times review of a Public Broadcasting Service TV documentary on the death of Neda Agha Soltan:

“A Death in Tehran,” Tuesday’s “Frontline” [documentary] on PBS, is dismaying not just because it deals with a life ended in its prime. It also makes us realize just how quickly the protest movement vanished from the headlines. A part of the world that seemed on the verge of grass-roots-generated change now looks as if it’s back to business as usual.

Vanished from which headlines? Perhaps those of newspapers who are under the delusion that all is "back to business as usual" in Iran?

1850 GMT: The Convictions So Far. Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting reports that five people have been sentenced to death and 81 have received jail terms of up to 15 years in connection with post-election protests.



1840 GMT: The Iranian Parliament has confirmed Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s nominees for the Ministries of Welfare and Social Security (Sadegh Mahsuli), Education (Hamid-Reza Haji Babai), and Power (Majid Namjoo).

The votes complete Ahmadinejad's Cabinet; the Parliament rejected his original appointees for the three ministries last month.

1810 GMT: New Trials. Back from an afternoon of teaching to catch up with today's trials of French student Clotilde Reiss and Iranian economist and journalist Saeed Laylaz. Al Jazeera has a video report.

1315 GMT: Widening Engagement. We've said for months that the US need for support in Afghanistan was one factor propelling the extension of the "unclenched fist" to Tehran. We have even suggested that there were quiet, back-channel talks between the US and Iran on the matter.

So this statement from Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki, speaking in New Delhi: "In responding to the current Obama and US administration messages asking Iran's help in dealing with the problem in Afghanistan, we have defined the new approach....We are hopeful of taking some steps in this regard."

1125 GMT: The Death of the Prison Doctor. Another revelation in the case of Ramin Pourandarjan, the 26-year-old physician at Kahrizak Prison, who supposedly died of a heart attack or stroke (see yesterday's updates). Shortly before he died, Pourandarjan had told a Parliamentary committee of abuses of detainees at Kahrizak.

1120 GMT: We've posted video of the Tehran University demonstration protesting the 11 November execution of Ehsan Fattahian.

1055 GMT: More Leaking & Sabotage. Now I can't keep up. The Times of London benefits from a leak with a different slant: "UN nuclear chief in secret talks with Iran over deal to end sanctions".

The mission of IAEA head Mohammad El Baradei for a compromise agreement isn't exactly "secret", since we have revealed --- from the very non-secret Press TV --- that El Baradei was proposing Turkey as the third country in an Iran-Russia uranium enrichment plan and that the Iranian establishment is split over the suggestion. What makes The Times story distinctive is that the newspaper was handed a 13-page IAEA document outlining El Baradei's approach. In addition to the third-party enrichment scheme, Iran would also be a participant in a globally-managed nuclear fuel bank.

And who else has put forward that notion of a nuclear fuel bank? Step up, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

1050 GMT: Counter-Spin. And in the opposition corner from The New York Times on the IAEA report on Iran, it's the Iranian Ambassador to the IAEA, Ali-Asghar Soltanieh:

The latest report by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) chief Mohamed ElBaradei proved that political hype and propaganda about Fordo plant were baseless. The report confirmed that no centrifuges had been introduced into the facility and that no nuclear material had been used in it.

1035 GMT: And from Montazeri: Grand Ayatollah Hossein-Ali Montazeri, has replied to a letter from the mother of a detained senior member of the reformist Islamic Iran Participation Front:

The situation which has happened for the country is very regretful.....Calling peaceful demonstration of people a 'riot' does not solve anything. There is only one acceptable legal solution and that is returning from the path of mistake and making up for it. Freeing the political prisoners is the first step that the officials must do immediately and even preventing the freedom of innocent people for one hour is a major sin.

1025 GMT: And With Sane'i.... Grand Ayatollah Yusuf Sane'i told members of the Islamic Association of Art School on Sunday:

The increase and exacerbation of problems does not point to the domination and rule of oppression but rather is a sign of weakness....Be certain the efforts and suffering of the people, especially the academics, will be fruitful....Lying is the characteristic of oppressors, when they see they are losing ground they turn to lying and rely on lies....Increased pressure is a sign of weakness; arresting, imprisoning, and torturing are signs of weakness.

1010 GMT: Catching Up With Karroubi.... Mehdi Karroubi visited Ayatollah Bayat-Zanjani, who suffered a heart attack last month, in hospital yesterday. Before his illness, Bayat-Zanjani had been a strident critic of the Ahmadinejad Government.

Earlier Karroubi had spoken to reformist members of Parliament, advising youth to "avoid the violent acts which is what certain movements would want to happen....Don’t let some sick individuals provoke people to radical behaviours and as always keep rationality and humanity as the role model for the Green movement."

0925 GMT: Whipping Up the Fear. Following our updates yesterday on the initial exaggerations of the IAEA's report on Iran's nuclear programmes, we have a snap analysis of the misleading media coverage, fed by sources trying to "break" the talks with Tehran, drawing on this morning's treatment in The New York Times.

USA Today drops by to offer us further evidence: "U.N. report: Iran nuke site apt for bombs, not power".

0915 GMT: The Public Finger-Wagging. The Obama Administration's engagement strategy depends on Mahmoud Ahmadinejad overcoming domestic opposition to a nuclear deal, and Obama has to keep his own opposition at bay. So the US President issued a boiler-plate warning this morning during his press conference with Chinese counterpart Hu Jintao: "Iran has an opportunity to present and demonstrate its peaceful intentions, but if it fails to take this opportunity, there will be consequences."

0900 GMT: We're back in place after an excellent seminar in Dublin in "Blogging in Iran" with our partners at the Clinton Institute, University College Dublin. To mark the occasion (and match the headline), we've posted what we hope will be an important evaluation --- based on inside information and open sources --- of the Obama Administration's current policy on Iran.

We're also following the latest developments surrounding Iran's nuclear programme, building on the text of the International Atomic Energy Agency's report on Iranian facilities.

Middle East Inside Line: Israel's Lieberman Renews Attack on Palestinian Authority

Middle East Inside Line: Threats Begin To Fly Between Palestine & Israel

Receive our latest updates by email or RSS SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FEED
Buy Us A Cup of Coffee? Help Enduring America Expand Its Coverage and Analysis

Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman stated on Monday that the Palestinian Authority was playing an "ugly and double game," by seeking Israel's support in crushing Hamas while submitting simultaneous complaints to the international community. He said:

During Operation Cast Lead, the Palestinian Authority pressured us to crush Hamas. Then, a month later, they submitted a complaint against us to the International Criminal Court in The Hague.

Even before the Goldstone Commission published its damning report about Israel's offensive against Hamas in the Gaza Strip, there were a thousand complaints against Israel at the ICC, a large number of them encouraged by the PA.

Lieberman placed the bomb in the hands of Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas with an accusation which might be aimed at increasing the tension between Hamas and the PA. This is highly likely to bring out a more sharp-tongued Abbas, determined to save his position, while also providing relatively easy conditions for the Netanyahu government to "cope with" the demands of the international community regarding Palestine.

Middle East Inside Line: Threats Begin To Fly Between Palestine & Israel

Middle East Inside Line: Israel’s Lieberman Renews Attack on Palestinian Authority

Receive our latest updates by email or RSS SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FEED
Buy Us A Cup of Coffee? Help Enduring America Expand Its Coverage and Analysis

After mutual threats both from the Palestinian Authority chief negotiator Saeb Erekat and the Israeli Prime Minister who have stated that the Palestinians would be going to UN Security Council to ask unilaterally for the recognition of a Palestinian state and that any unilateral move would be met in the very same way respectively, both sides continued threatening each other on Monday.

Erekat stated that they will be seeking European Union's support before applying to the UNSC. He added: "We will seek the support of all members of the international community." EU foreign ministers are going to discuss this on Tuesday.

In a prompt reply, Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman reiterated Netanyahu's threats and said:

Any one-sided Palestinian move will be met with steps of our own. Whoever makes unilateral policy with complete disregard for past accords will get the same from us. Breach of accords will not go unanswered.

However, following the increasing tension, a sign of a possible crack has appeared in the Netanyahu G=government. Although neither Netanyahu nor Lieberman elaborated on what these retaliations might be, Industry and Trade Minister Benjamin Ben Eliezer (Labor) stated that his party would be pulling out of the government if the government decides to annex the West Bank settlements.

And, Hamas... Of course, it dismissed the PA's proposal and called on Mahmoud Abbas to work on ending the occupation before declaring independence. Hamas spokesman Salah Bardweel said:

Why not declare a Palestinian state from the sea [Mediterranean] to the river [of Jordan] rather than in the West Bank and Gaza only?

This move is not a meaningful declaration. It simply aims at escaping the benefits of resistance against the occupation. Instead of threatening to unilaterally declare a Palestinian state to be established in the air, we should work on liberating the occupied territories and end the current internal [Palestinian] division.

Latest Iran Video: Tehran and Qazvin University Protests (16 November)

The Latest from Iran (17 November): An Obama-Ahmadinejad Alliance?

Receive our latest updates by email or RSS SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FEED
Buy Us A Cup of Coffee? Help Enduring America Expand Its Coverage and Analysis

Imam Khomeini International University, Qazvin, Protesting Visit by Hamid Rasaee (Part 1--- Part 2 below)



Tehran University Protest of 11 November Execution of Ehsan Fattahian

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nekakICfm7c[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kUsw8KA9QSI[/youtube] [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G13RbMatoyg[/youtube]

Imam Khomeini International University (Part 2)

Video and Transcript: Gordon Brown's Speech on Afghanistan (16 November)

Crying Wolf: The Real Significance of Afghanistan for the UK’s Security is that it’s not Significant

Receive our latest updates by email or RSS SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FEED
Buy Us A Cup of Coffee? Help Enduring America Expand Its Coverage and Analysis



Below is Gordon Brown's speech on foreign policy, delivered at the Lord Mayor's Banquet. (Transcript via Number10.gov.uk):

My Lord Mayor, my late Lord Mayor, your grace, my Lord Chancellor, your excellencies, my Lords, Aldermen, Sheriffs, Chief Commoner, ladies and gentlemen.

We live in no ordinary times.

• A year into dealing with the greatest economic challenge for generations - the first global financial recession.


• A few weeks before the most important climate change decisions in human history.


• A few months ahead of nuclear negotiations that could for the first time genuinely bind the world to cooperate and not proliferate.


• And we meet just as America and NATO are making vital choices about how to continue and win the fight against global terrorism.

These are the four great issues of our time, and what they have in common is that - global in nature - they require global solutions. None can be answered by one country or one continent in isolation.

What they demand of us is a shared vision, and the creation of new and effective global institutions with the mandate and the authority to make that vision real.

And the great questions of the day call not for hard power or soft power - but the power of people working together. Because none too can be resolved by national politicians pronouncing from on high while failing to listen to the citizens they serve; but only by great social movements which create the conditions for common action around the world.

So tonight I want to talk about the problems we face. But - much more than that - I want to talk about why I am an unremitting optimist, about Britain’s future and the world’s and about why I believe this generation, if we make the right choices, can create an unprecedented century of progress.

Tonight I want to talk about

• How together we can forge and then legislate for the first time a truly global climate change agreement -to save our planet from catastrophic climate change


• How together –by tough and practical multilateralism - we can shape global rules for prosperity - to ensure that never again will a wave of economic crisis sweeping across the world threaten millions with unemployment and poverty


• How together, we can with a new non proliferation treaty, contain and then banish the risk of the development of nuclear weapons


• And how together, we can agree a strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan - as a 43-nation coalition in Afghanistan, together with Pakistan and other countries in the region and elsewhere including a stronger counter-insurgency strategy to deny the terrorists and extremists the space and freedom to threaten the safety and security of the innocents they target in our streets and thousands of miles away.

Some may regard these challenges as beyond the reach of a world which has for so long cast international affairs as competition between national interests rather than the coordination of common interests.

But the events we have witnessed have taught us that there are great causes - causes worth fighting for - even when people say the odds are too great, that the hill is too steep.

Events we have witnessed in just half a generation, events previously only imagined and apparently impossible, yet so swiftly realised:

• The fall of the Berlin Wall and the end of the cold war;


• The release of Nelson Mandela and the end of apartheid.

All these teach us that we should use the word ‘impossible’ with greater care; and we learn that what was yesterday’s dream and today’s impossibility can become tomorrow’s reality.

And I believe that there is no other country - by its history, values and global reach - better placed to shape a safer and more secure world.

Ours is an open, free trading democratic nation. For centuries internationalist in its instincts and actions; committed to persuasion whenever possible, to force only when necessary; and most of all to a belief in liberty, fairness and responsibility.

And it is these values, these moral imperatives, that equip us for a role that encompasses diplomacy, conciliation, firmness and yes - where necessary - armed intervention.

And in leading the debate and doing so in the light of our ideals Britain brings the influence that comes from being right at the heart of great international institutions and alliances - the EU, NATO, the UN, the Commonwealth, the G8 and G20.

That unique position is an awesome privilege and a great responsibilityand no-one - whether narrow nationalist or instinctive isolationist should consider themselves patriots if they would sacrifice or diminish our influence.

In the Nineteenth century Palmerston talked of a British national interest best served by the strength of those permanent interests - but not by permanent allies.

In a very different century, I see our national interest best served in a new way - by the strength of our permanent values and interests - and by our strong alliances.

Of course there are those who believe that multilateral co-operation and the defence of our national interests are mutually incompatible; and that a strong partnership with Europe weakens our capacity to pursue our national goals.

This view has always been short-sighted. Indeed, in a world where the historic challenges we face are so profoundly global, this view has never been more dangerous and threatening to the security and prosperity of our country.

To equate the national interest with a flight to unilateralism when so many challenges can be met only by collective actions is to condemn our nation to marginalisation, irrelevance and failure.

Can anyone today seriously believe we can tackle the recession better without the European Union and the G20? Does anyone now seriously believe we can protect ourselves from international terrorism

• On our own?


• In a fortress Britain?


• Without America, NATO, the European Union, and our coalition allies?

Does anyone still believe that we can defeat climate change

• Without international action across the European Union?


• Without the nations of our commonwealth from Africa to Australasia?


• Without challenging the United Nations?

Even to advocate a measure of withdrawal from international cooperation immediately weakens our trade, our economy and our influence.

So let me set out how, by leading in global co-operation in the coming months, we can shape the world of the future.

First climate change. In just three weeks time countries will gather at the UN conference in Copenhagen to forge a new international agreement to combat global warming.

And let us be clear what such an agreement must involve. Britain is prepared to lead the way proposing a financial plan to ensure all countries can cut carbon emissions. And this should form part of a comprehensive agreement based on politically binding commitments of all countries, which can be implemented immediately and which can act as the basis for an internationally legally binding treaty as soon as possible.

The agreement must contain the full range of commitments required: on emissions reductions by both developed and developing countries, on finance and on verification.

We need the same degree of international co-operation to return the world economy to a secure prosperity and to address the global plague of poverty. And we have already seen what international co-operation can do -with the restructuring of the banks, and the co-ordination of a fiscal stimulus.

The world has acted together to stop a recession becoming a depression. And I believe that while we are only half way through dealing with the causes of the crisis, we also have reason to be confident, because in the next two decades, the world economy will double in size, creating twice as many opportunities for business, for jobs, for exports. And as this new economy moves forward, I want Britain to be right at its centre-making the most of the unprecedented opportunities.

Were we to retreat now from international co-operation and the commitments each country has made to revive and sustain our economies that would not just put the global recovery at risk but put at risk British jobs, British growth, British prosperity for years and even generations to come. The equation here is clear; trade abroad means jobs at home.

There are no Britain-only, Europe only, or us. Only ways to manage a global financial system. A new contract of trust is needed between banks and the societies they serve across the world. And whether it insurance fees, resolution funds, contingent capital arrangements or a global financial levy measures that can only be implemented at a global level, common sense suggests we must agree internationally how we will mitigate the risks to the economy from financial failure and redress the balance of risk and reward between the public and the financial sector.

And we will never walk away from our global role in the campaign against poverty and injustice. We do not give up hope of a Burma unchained or of a Zimbabwe liberated. And we will continue to work to ensure that every child in the world has schooling and that we reduce the shocking levels of avoidable infant and maternal mortality. The world will not for long endure half prosperous and half poor. Poverty violates conscience even as it invites conflict.

And five months from now we will meet in Washington to confront another source of potential conflict - the proliferation of nuclear weapons and nuclear nations.

Britain must continue to lead the renewal of a grand global bargain between nuclear weapon and non-nuclear weapon states. A fair and balanced deal in which non nuclear weapons states must accept clear responsibilities to end proliferation by renouncing nuclear weapons in return for the right to access civil nuclear power; and in which nuclear armed nations must accept the responsibility to work together on a credible roadmap to nuclear disarmament towards a world without nuclear weapons.

Never again should any nation be able to deceive the international community, and conceal with impunity its pursuit of proliferation. We face critical test cases in Iran and North Korea, with attention focused most recently on Iran. In September the truth about their secret facility at Qom was revealed. And on 1 October we again offered Tehran engagement and negotiation.

Over the last six weeks that offer has been comprehensively rejected. So it is now not only right but necessary for the world to apply concerted pressure to the Iranian regime. President Obama set an end of the year deadline for Iran to react. If Iran does not reconsider, then the United Nations, the EU and individual countries must impose tougher sanctions.

The greatest immediate threat to our national security, the greatest current risk to British lives, is that of international terrorism.

We know that from New York, Bali, Baghdad, Madrid, Mumbai, Peshawar and Rawalpindi to London, men and women - Muslim, Christian, Jewish, Hindu, of every faith and none - have been victims of international terrorism.

I will never compromise when it comes to the safety and security of the British people. We have trebled our domestic security budget, doubled our security service staff, and increased by over two thirds the numbers of police dealing day to day with terrorism in the UK, and will always do what is necessary.

And I know from my four visits to Afghanistan in the last 15 months that our armed forces understand our security priority and share that commitment.

Let me say that the courage, skill and professionalism of our forces serving there are truly inspiring. In some of the hardest conditions, they have enhanced their already peerless reputation as the finest in the world. And we pay tribute to each and everyone of them this evening.

Tonight I want

• To explain in more detail the relation between the work of our armed forces in Afghanistan and the domestic terrorist threat;


• To remind people that despite our successes against al Qaeda they and their associates still have active plans to commit terrorist atrocities in the United Kingdom;


• And to make it clear why it is only by standing up to this terrorist threat at its source that we can properly defend our shores.

Tonight I can report that, methodically and patiently, we are disrupting and disabling the existing leadership of al Qaeda.

Since January 2008 seven of the top dozen figures in al Qaeda have been killed, depleting its reserve of experienced leaders and sapping its morale.

More has been planned and enacted with greater success in this one year to disable al Qaeda than in any year since the original invasion in 2001. Today 28,000 Pakistan security forces are inside South Waziristan again narrowing the scope for al Qaeda to operate. And our security services report to me that there is now an opportunity to inflict significant and long-lasting damage to al Qaeda.

We understand the reality of the danger and the nature of the consequences if we do not succeed. We will never forget the fatal al Qaeda led attacks in London on 7 July 2005, the unsuccessful al Qaeda-inspired attacks two weeks later, and the al Qaeda-sanctioned plot to capture and behead a British soldier in the midlands in January 2007.

Some plots remain under investigation and so for obvious reasons I cannot elaborate. On others I can. In 2007, five individuals were found guilty of what we now know was an al Qaeda inspired conspiracy to cause explosions with possible plans to target shopping centres or clubs in London and the south east.

And in total since 2001, nearly 200 persons have been convicted of terrorist or terrorist-related offences almost half of those convicted pleaded guilty.

And day by day we are continuing to track a large number of suspicious individuals and potential plots. Make no mistake, al Qaeda has an extensive recruitment network across Africa the middle east, western Europe and in the UK. And we know that there are still several hundred foreign fighters based in the Fata area of Pakistan and travelling to training camps to learn bomb making and weapons skills.

It is because of the nature of the threat, and because around three quarters of the most serious plots the security services are now tracking in Britain have links to Pakistan, that it does not make sense to confine our defence against terrorism solely to actions inside the UK.

Al Qaeda rely on a permissive environment in the tribal areas of Pakistan and - if they can re-establish one - in Afghanistan. Al Qaeda has links to the Afghan and Pakistan Taleban. We must deny terrorists the room to operate which the Taleban regime allowed the 9/11 attackers. So that is why I say the Afghan campaign is being prosecuted not from choice, but out of necessity.

So vigilance in defence of national security will never be sacrificed to expediency. Necessary resolution will never succumb to appeasement. The greater international good will never be subordinated to the mood of the passing moment. That is why 43 governments around the world now understand the importance of defeating al Qaeda and of preventing them ever again being able to flourish in Afghanistan. America with 60,000 and Britain with 9,000 are the largest troop contributors, but the rest of the international coalition has increased its numbers from 16,000 in January 2007 to over 27,000 today and I am confident that they will be prepared to do more.

But this coalition does not intend to become an occupying army: it is building the capacity of Afghanistan to deal themselves with terrorism and violent extremism, what we mean by ‘Afghanisation’.

Today the army has published its new counter-insurgency doctrine. Partnering the Afghan army and police is fraught with danger, as we have seen in recent weeks; and building up local level afghan governance in areas which have not known the rule of law for decades if at all, is daunting. But as I have emphasised in recent weeks, we have not chosen this path of Afghanisation because it is a safer or easier option, but because it is the right strategy.

Following the inauguration this week of President Karzai, I have urged him to set out the contract between the new government and its people, including early action on corruption. And I welcome today’s announcement that the new government in Afghanistan will dedicate the next five years to fighting corruption. I have pledged full UK support in this effort.

The international community will meet to agree plans for the support we will provide to Afghanistan during this next phase. I have offered London as a venue in the New Year. I want that conference to chart a comprehensive political framework within which the military strategy can be accomplished. A strong political framework should embrace internal political reform to ensure representative government that works for all Afghan citizens, at the national level in Kabul and in the provinces and districts. It should identify a process for transferring district by district to full Afghan control and if at all possible set a timetable for transferring districts starting in 2010.

For it is only when the Afghans are themselves able to defend the security of their people and deny the territory of Afghanistan as a base for terrorists that our strategy of Afghanisation will have succeeded and our troops can come home.

So tonight I want to leave you with a clear summary of Britain’s case, and that of the coalition as a whole. We are in Afghanistan because we judge that if the Taleban regained power al Qaeda and other terrorist groups would once more have an environment in which they could operate. We are there because action in Afghanistan is not an alternative to action in Pakistan, but an inseparable support to it. As I have shown, the world has succeeded in closing down much of the space in which al Qaeda can operate, and we must not allow this process to be reversed by retreat or irresolution.

Usually only in retrospect do people see dramatic sets of events as turning points: but I believe that historians will look back on the sheer scope, speed and scale of the global change that perhaps no peacetime generation has ever before experienced and conclude that faced with climate change, world wide economic collapse, terror and the nuclear threat - and surrounded by new means of global communications that allow people to connect across frontiers - we took the first steps towards a truly global society.

In meeting each of the four challenges I have talked about tonight, Britain’s future is a future shared with our international partners.

So we in Britain - who are serious - we have a crucial responsibility to seize this moment.

• I believe that Britain can inspire the world;


• I believe that Britain can challenge the world;


• But most importantly of all I believe that Britain can and must play its full part in changing the world.

And to do so we must have confidence in our distinctive strengths: our global values, global alliances and global actions; because with conviction in our values and confidence in our alliances, Britain can lead in the construction of a new global order.

We must never be less than resolute in fighting for British interestsbecause, as you in this room know better than anyone, Britain has nothing to fear in the world’s marketplace of ideals and ideas; nor from the world’s most destructive ideologies.

At every point in our history where we have looked outwards, we have become stronger. And now, more than ever, there is no future in what was once called ’splendid isolation’.

When Britain is bold, when Britain is engaged, when Britain is confident and outward-looking, we have shown time and again that Britain has a power and an energy that far exceeds the limits of our geography, our population, and our means.

And that is why I say our foreign policy must be hard-headed, patriotic and internationlist: a foreign policy that recognises and exploits Britain’s unique strengths and defends Britain’s national interests strongly not by retreating into isolation, but by advancing in international co-operation.

So we will stand with countries that share our values and vision. We will engage with those who disagree with us but who are ready for dialogue. And we will isolate those who are motivated by the will to destroy the structures and principles on which a just global society must depend.

As a nation we have every reason to be optimistic about our prospects: confident in our alliances, faithful to our values and determined as progressive pioneers to shape the world to come. Britain can be and Great Britain must be in the vanguard of a new progressive force for change, architect of a new world that honours our hopes and defeats our fears - a new world that can become a truly global society.