We cannot just pull up the drawbridge and think no harm will come to us

The Prime Minister may have been described as broken-backed for losing the parliamentary vote on Syria, but it was Foreign Secretary William Hague who was judged to be the greater political victim. Here was a politician who had made himself the moral spokesman for the plight of Syria, keeping the issue at the top of the international agenda.

Some critics believed he had become grandiose and politically deaf, pushing David Cameron into unpopular action. Was he so fixated with being the greatest foreign secretary since Lord Palmerston that he could not see what was under his nose? Nigel Farage called for his resignation on Any Questions last week, on grounds of reckless behaviour. Did he consider stepping down, once his policy lay in tatters?

“I am very determined,” he says, fixing himself in his red leather chair. “In the Foreign Office we have a lot to achieve and I am not going anywhere until we have achieved this.”

Then did he wake on the Friday after the Commons defeat and wonder if Britain had become a different country? Labour may have been tricksy, but it undoubtedly reflected the shifty, sceptical mood of the public. “We cannot pull up the drawbridge, retreat to our island and think no harm will ever come to us. The world will be a less safe, less democratic, crueller place. I want to sound the alarm about that.”

"Britain must have a global internationalist outlook": William Hague talking to Evening Standard editor Sarah Sands (Picture: Lucy Young) Hague is talking to the Evening Standard because it represents one of the “great centres of the world” — if you can’t find a global outlook in London, you might as well pack it in. As far as he is concerned, London is the place to start the fight for the soul of Britain. “We are hurt more than most places if a rules-based international order breaks down, whether that be pursuing free trade or stopping the spread of these terrible weapons.”

The high ceilings, ruby carpets and grand staircases of the Foreign Office still reflect Britain as a great power but the Foreign Secretary is now defending a policy of neutrality and inaction which he does not believe in and, worse, is watching America prepare to act with France. Whatever he says now, surely he was tempted to resign over Thursday night’s debacle?

He says he cleared his head on Friday morning with a walk in his Yorkshire constituency and came to the conclusion that this was about more than a vote, it was a seminal moment for national identity. “Britain must have a global internationalist outlook and as the world changes with technology and travel this argument becomes stronger. We mustn’t pursue this drift which seems to have started in the Labour Party, but which is in other political voices too.”

Does he regret the way in which the vote was handled? He is said to have been irritated by the rushed process and bad management by the whips. “There have not been divisions over this,” he says decidedly. “We were defeated in Parliament and we must all take responsibility for that. Every step was agreed between us. I am not going to criticise any of my colleagues — the whips have a very difficult job to do. It wasn’t because someone didn’t do their job or made a mistake. We did not have substantive differences of view. I think we have to get on with the argument, not political recrimination. This doesn’t diminish my belief in Parliament. Sometimes you are successful and  sometimes not. You have to be careful if you have been defeated not to say that this means something is fundamentally wrong.”

"I think we have to get on with the argument, not political recrimination": William Hague But the reverberations are nonetheless deep and lasting. He praises the “mature” response of the US Secretary of State John Kerry and President Obama to the parliamentary vote — “They understand we are a democracy” — yet the ramifications are immediate. Yesterday it was reported that US intelligence on military action in Syria was no longer being shared with the UK.

“That is a particular operation,” says Hague, a touch wistfully. “It is not that we have been booted out, but following the decision of the Commons we don’t take part. People would be outraged if we did. That follows logically.”

I ask if he can see a new relationship forming between America and its “oldest” ally France at the expense of its “closest”, the UK. He smiles painfully. “We must respect the democratic decision but there will be other issues where we work closely. We should have a solid but not slavish relationship with the US.”

But this was an issue that Hague considered fundamental. He bristles at suggestions that he has behaved “recklessly” in urging a military response to the chemical weapons attack in Damascus. “This Government has been extremely careful and measured in our use of force. British diplomacy is primarily involved in peacefully solving disputes. Where we intervened militarily in Libya we saved thousands of lives without a loss of a British life in action. So judge this Government by that record.”

Yet the shadow foreign secretary Douglas Alexander charged Hague yesterday in the Commons with failing to pursue diplomacy, particularly with Iran. Did he try hard enough before invoking force?

He answers with concealed impatience: “People outside always like to explain that someone has not done enough diplomacy because they have no other ideas to put forward. We are open to discussing things with Iran. I have already suggested a meeting with the new Iranian foreign minister. But it is Iran that will have to decide if it is going to play a constructive role. It has been sending people to fight in Syria. It subsidises the Assad regime and has been supporting the murderous policies. People can have a rather cheery view of other countries.”

It is a mild way of being devastatingly rude about the naivety of Labour’s policies. When I ask if he thinks Russia and Iran can be made responsible for Syria he talks with passion about standing up to the world’s bullies ourselves, citing Germany under Hitler in the context of Syria.

“You have to stand up to abuse of power. We have learned this through our history. If you don’t stand up to abuse of power and bullying of defenceless people in small countries then it leads to a bigger confrontation. This is the lesson of the 1930s. You have to stand up to evil. And there is still evil in the world, despite our ideals.”

But in yesterday’s papers we saw photographs of John Kerry and his wife sharing a congenial meal with President Assad and his wife in 2009. No wonder the British public are cynical about shifting alliances. Hague answers that he too met Assad — more than a year after Kerry — because diplomacy requires effort. How did he find him?

“As it turned out, complacent. I asked him as revolution took hold in Egypt if the same thing could happen in Syria and he said it was quite different. The only way they were different was that Assad has proved worse. He has been the worst in the Arab world, killing huge numbers of people in order to deny them change.”

Hague may brim with moral indignation but it is no use if the British people do not wish to become embroiled in Syria’s tragedy. Nigel Farage, on Radio 4’s Any Questions? proposed a new role model for Britain: Switzerland. William Hague shakes his head: “Switzerland has many fine things, but it is a different country. We really have got to make the case that it is in the interests of Britain to be engaged in world affairs.”

He cites the work we have done in stabilising Somalia and how Britain has “moved the dial” in drawing attention to sexual violence in conflict areas. On September 24 there will be a major meeting of nations in New York to discuss this. Hague also supports tackling Russia on the subject of gay rights.

“It is important to us. Britain cannot have a foreign policy without a conscience and I don’t believe it is ultimately in the nature of British people to act without a conscience. I wrote a book about William Wilberforce and the abolition of the slave trade, which was not in the self-interest of Britain, but was right.

“Britain is most comfortable with itself when we are saving lives, standing up for human rights overseas. So we should do that in conversation with Russia and other countries. It would say something terrible about Britain if we were reluctant to do that. We are one of the world’s oldest democracies. We are clear about our values. We must not retreat.”

In that case, will there be another vote? “We are not planning a second vote.” But if there is more evidence? What if Labour approached you? “I’m a bit suspicious of them. However we tried to accommodate them last week they moved to a different position. That’s a sad lesson for the future.”