Richard Heller: We are a second-rate power, so let's start acting like one

The Maldives are a beautiful island republic in the Indian Ocean. They are deeply worried by global warming, which threatens to submerge them under the Indian Ocean, and latterly they have been convulsed by a political crisis over appointments to their judiciary. They are also

grappling with the impact of recession on their tourism industry.

All in all, they have little time to spare for Mr Burt. However, the Foreign Office still thought that his statement would be important to them.

Every day it prepares similar statements for its Ministers, praising country A, deploring country B, sending stern messages to country C. In moments of passion it may even denounce country D's behaviour as "unacceptable".

In fairness to the Foreign Office, its business is to believe that British foreign policy matters. However, it is depressing that no serious politician or policymaker has challenged its assumption that this country is a global power and requires an ambitious foreign policy to match.

"Little Englander" became a term of abuse in the 20th century, but for most of the 19th it was a proud label within both the ruling political parties. "Little Englanders" sought to avoid overseas entanglements (especially expensive wars) and to limit defence commitments to Britain's territory. The summit of their foreign policy ambitions was to preserve the balance of power in Europe and prevent a hostile occupation of the Low Countries.

Their policies were cheap and largely successful, in contrast to current foreign policy which is expensive and an almost total failure.

In spite of childish MPs fretting about the cost of its wine cellar, the Foreign Office itself is pretty cheap. In fact, our diplomats often dig into their own pockets to entertain important foreigners (and unimportant visiting MPs). The real cost of our pretentious foreign policy is reflected in grandiose defence capabilities out of all proportion to our real needs.

The most obvious is Trident. No one has ever constructed a scenario in which Trident could be of military value to our country: we maintain Trident for reasons of status, and domestic political theatre.

But we also maintain expensive conventional capabilities in all three services on "great power" assumptions that we need to project force to distant places and to maintain British prestige and influence. Always burdensome, these defence costs are now unbearable for a bankrupt country.

To these costs we can add those of the security services, huge and opaque, which are still those of a great power. We should also factor in the "opportunity costs" of the effort and energy and, above all, talent devoted to our foreign policy. Year after year, the Foreign Office recruits exceptional people who would be better employed making widgets or ice cream.

Worst of all, the deluded ambitions of our foreign policy have led our forces into two totally unprofitable wars – one unlawful, the other unwinnable. The soldiers maimed and killed in Iraq and Afghanistan were sacrificed not to defend the territory or security of our country but to preserve its status as an ally. They died in Iraq to maintain the "special relationship" and to let Tony Blair act as a "transatlantic bridge".

In exchange for all these sacrifices, the British people have gained almost nothing.

The basic aim of foreign policy is to improve the security of our country. There is no country in the world where Britons are safer as the result of our foreign policy over the last 10 years – including our own.

No one has done anything important as Britain's Foreign Secretary since Ernest Bevin and Anthony Eden, in the post-war world. (Lord Carrington's role in the Rhodesia settlement looks less of an achievement after Mugabe). But regardless of party, Britain's Foreign Secretaries huff and puff around the world as if they were Bevin or Eden. Sometimes they have the bad taste to lecture the heirs to problems Britain created – like Israel and Palestine.

It is time to admit that Britain is a second-rate power, and scale our foreign and defence policy accordingly. We might even seek to become as second-rate a country as Norway – with its high living standards, egalitarian society, low unemployment, fine public services, budget surplus and giant sovereign wealth fund invested for the future. Norwegian foreign policy is unshowy but does some good in the world: it achieved more for peace in the Middle East than Britain has ever done.

Such a future is simply not on offer from any of Britain's mainstream parties. They all want us to continue to sacrifice billions of pounds and soldiers' lives to maintain the illusion of international importance and the dubious pleasure of lecturing the Maldive islands.

Richard Heller is an author and former policy adviser to Denis Healey