Trevor Royle – Traditionally Britain's foreign interests have been dominated by a mixture of strategic initiatives to protect national interests and direct action, as the Foreign Office puts it, "to promote Britain's interests overseas" and "to enhance the prosperity of the United Kingdom".
Most people would agree that these are legitimate aims, especially when they are underpinned by a further objective - the pursuit of good government and the observance of human rights. Yet, all too often in the past, Britain has found that there is an inherent contradiction in its foreign policy aims.
There have been cases where the Government has supported despotic regimes simply because they have been good trading customers.
Indonesia is a good example.
Britain continued to export British Aerospace Hawk warplanes and Alvis armoured vehicles to Jakarta even though there was evidence that the weapons were being used for internal suppression in East Timor. Previous governments usually dismissed the problem with the whore's argument that if Britain failed to supply the weapons then another country would step into the breach and orders worth some @ 500 million would disappear. All that seemed to change when Robin Cook became Foreign Secretary in May. No sooner had he taken up his appointment than he embarked on a moral mission to introduce an "ethical dimension" to Britain's foreign policy.
His mission statement was launched in a blaze of publicity and it seemed to catch the "caring" mood of the new Government.
It did not take long for Mr Cook's brave new world to be tested. Earlier this summer he was forced to honour the disputed contracts drawn up between Britain and Indonesia.
Only in September did he black export licences for the sale of small arms and armoured vehicles to Jakarta, on the grounds that they could be used in riot control and would therefore breach his new human rights policies.
Inevitably, Indonesia retorted by saying that it would buy the equipment elsewhere and several US firms are reported to be in discussion with officials in Jakarta. The Pentagon sees Indonesia not only as a growing regional power whose influence cannot be ignored but also as a good market. Arms sales worth $10.7 million (@ 6.6 million) have already been given the go-ahead with a further $90 million licensed by the State Department. The repercussions will be felt in Britain because defence sales are central to the well-being of the country's economy. A report published last week by the International Institute for Strategic Studies revealed the scale of the reliance and the extent of sales to countries which do not meet the standards now demanded by the Foreign Office.
These include Saudi Arabia, which has already been criticised by Mr Cook for employing a judicial system and a code of punishment which he finds unacceptable. At the time the Foreign Secretary was attempting to defend the two British nurses who faced harsh sentences from a Saudi court but it showed the difficulties of marrying trade with ethics.
Under the terms of the multi-billion dollar al-Yammamah arms sales deal, Saudi is a valued customer. In return for sophisticated weaponry it provides Britain with oil and cash and the economy benefits accordingly. Even Mr Cook had to concede that this is good for Britain. At the same time he has been confronted by the contradiction that arms sales cannot always be ruled by moral imperatives.
There have also been times when it seemed that the Foreign Secretary simply cannot win even when his heart is in the right place. During a visit to south-east Asia last month he caused inadvertent offence by refusing to grant visas to Burmese officials who want to attend next year's Asia Summit in London. His reasoning was laudable. The Burmese government has an appalling record of abuses against the human rights opposition leader, Aung San Suu Kyi, who is kept under house arrest and the country supplies the world with massive quantities of heroin.
Yet Mr Cook received few plaudits for his stand. No sooner had he made the decision than Malaysia's prime minister, Mahathir Mohamad, had accused him of introducing a policy of discrimination against a former colony. If Britain insisted on banning the Burmese then Dr Mahatir would rally his fellow south-east Asian countries and the conference would be boycotted with disastrous trading consequences for Britain.
Given the Malaysian prime minister's well-known sensitivity about Britain's imperial past, the outburst was not surprising, but it did provide a rather different view of Mr Cook's ethical stand. Instead of commending Britain for being even-handed Dr Mahathir regards the initiative as interference by a former colonial power.
Unfortunately, the Malaysian prime minister's response also appeals to those who do not entirely trust Britain's squeaky clean new image. At the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting this week and in the months to come, Mr Cook will have to walk a difficult line.
On the one hand he will want to maintain the ethical dimension at the risk of losing all international credibility. On the other hand he dare not push it too far at the risk of losing trade and diplomatic influence. It promises to be a difficult balancing act.