POLITICS .

All dressed up and nowhere to go

MARTIN IVENS

Just as a beautiful woman likes to show off her glittering, new ballgown at a party so Mrs Thatcher wants to parade her economic success story abroad. She was especially keen last week to dazzle her diffident beau, Mr Lee Kuan Yew, the Prime Minister of Singapore. Harry Lee used to say that any girl who went for a fitting at Great Britain Ltd would come out looking a frightful frump. But Margaret looked wonderful and even got a dance with handsome Bob Hawke.

This recognition is deserved. Previous prime ministers abroad at best stood for nothing more than the dignified British character — pragmatism, readiness to compromise, the middle way. Mrs Thatch- er, however, stands for a set of stern principles which impress foreigners even when they do not admire them.

Naturally the Prime Minister would like the flattery of being imitated abroad. A new book entitled Popular Capitalism by John Redwood MP, her former chief of staff at the No. 10 Policy Unit, outlines the Thatcher gospel to the Gentiles. Marxism is finished. The Soviet Union and China are being forced to give up the centrally planned economy. Privatisation, good fis- cal housekeeping and shareholding for the masses is the way ahead. As for Mr Gorbachev, Mrs Thatcher gives him the ultimate accolade: 'He is a man I can do business with.' It is an optimistic creed, but is it sufficient?

Her emergence as a figure on the world stage was probably inevitable, even desir- able, after a third election victory and sustained economic growth at home. Presi- dent Reagan's administration is a lame duck, the French are in a muddle and Helmut Kohl is a bore. Who then is better qualified to advocate the Western Alliance's case in the months before Presi- dent Bush or Dukakis comes of age than its senior stateswoman. although no one should imagine that domestic economic success on its own qualifies anyone to be a strutter on the global stage?

As long as Mrs Thatcher understands that Britain cannot act as a bridge between the United States and the Soviet Union this role is sustainable. Superpowers, even friendly ones, have calculations of their own. One only hopes that during her regal progresses abroad Mr Charles Powell, her foreign affairs private secretary, occa- sionally whispers, like the slave who used to nudge Roman generals during their triumphs, 'Remember, you are mortal.'

Foreign policy is undoubtedly too impor- tant to be left to the Foreign Office, but does the modern Conservative party which forms the Government have the requisite vision or experience to command a grasp of grand strategy? A Labour party notorious- ly weak on defence and the political centre without Dr Owen can hardly provide a constructive opposition.

Left to themselves, it is by no means clear that the Conservatives are up to it. They truly have become in Julian Critch- ley's snobbish phrase 'the party of estate agents'.

At home there is very little harm in such a development. Accountants, PR men, and possibly even estate agents have their part to play in the economic renaissance of this country. But these admirable creatures barely remember the empire, have never served in a war and are frankly bored by military matters.

No monetarist high flyer goes into the defence ministry, which is still the tradi- tional preserve of the wets. The Foreign Office is periodically reviewed but seldom changed. National security has not under- gone that fundamental revision of policy which has come to be known as Thatcher- ism.

Although the defence of the realm and foreign affairs are taken seriously in Con- servative manifestos when an election approaches, little thought is devoted to their conduct. The Policy Unit at No. 10, which has galvanised domestic strategic thinking, does not touch on either foreign affairs or defence except in the area of procurement where the man responsible also handled the Health Service brief. There are plenty of right-wing think-tanks willing to offer advice but they do not seem to have an entrée into government.

Perhaps this did not appear to matter when 'the enemy' was the Labour Party and the Campaign for Nuclear Disarma- ment. It all used to be very straightfor- ward. Stand up to the evil empire, take the cruise missile, support the Americans and spend more on defence seemed sufficient. But even in the early 1980s there were problems. How to pay for the army on the Rhine, a 50-ship navy, the air defence of the UK and the bomb?

The puzzle remains but now there are added complications. After Reykjavik, arms control has become more complex as an issue, the role of the Americans less clear and the pace of European integration has quickened.

What does the Government propose to do about these matters? Since 1962, for instance, we have even failed to have a clear set of strategic priorities on the basis of strategic needs. The last time a Tory Defence Secretary, John Nott, tried to conduct a review of his ministry, it was shelved in ignominy because of the Falk- lands war. We will need another one by 1990. Ninety per cent of the procurement budget is already tied up with the main battle tank, the European air fighter and Trident. What will give? Nobody seems to have thought it through.

Over Europe we are in favour of in- creased defence co-operation but are afraid to alienate the Americans. The Government upbraids the French for refus- ing to rejoin Nato, and then calls into question the wisdom of the Franco- German brigade. It all seems to be a bit muddled.

Mr Gorbachev rushes ahead with arms control proposals, offering to cut his nuc- lear arsenal by 50 per cent. Has anyone considered the implications of our four Trident submarines? Does Mr Gorbachev, like his proclaimed mentor Lenin, believe in one step backwards before two steps forward? Is the Afghanistan retreat just one backward step? Only time will tell, but Mrs Thatcher, like President Reagan, is impatient of waiting.

Mrs Thatcher is genuinely delighted by her 'special relationship' with Mr Gor- bachev. The Soviet leader obviously en- courages her tendency to personalise fore- ign policy. He is also an accomplished suitor. But the Soviet Union also once wooed Gaullist France when it suited its purposes and then dropped her. The bet- ting is that smooth Mr Gorbachev will soon be giving the glad eye to West Germany. Are his intentions towards Mrs Thatcher honourable? She doesn't have a chaperone to protect her.

As the old song goes:

After the ball is over, after the dance is done . . .

Many a heart will be broken.

Martin Ivens is foreign editor of the Sunday Telegraph. Noel Malcolm is on holiday.