After Wirral South, Tony Blair's tone at last weekend's "Passing the Torch" conference was unmistakeably upbeat. However much - correctly - he warned against complacency, the confidence in victory shone through. And Blair was at his sweeping best, pressing all the right buttons to show that he is today's man. It was clear how big the change has been. It was hard, for example, to imagine Neil Kinnock or John Smith exuding the same grasp of - or enthusiasm for - the significance of the global communications revolution for British society.

An absolute plus in Blair's speech was that it was unashamedly internationalist. He placed New Labour at the heart of a Europe-wide advance of the "centre-left", with allies in Clinton's Washington too. And yet it was a curiously restricted internationalism. Britain's national situation was compared to all the possible European cases, from Denmark to Portugal, and of course to the USA. But the non-Western world received not a single mention.

The fundamental global problems: poverty, environmental degradation, political instability, war and violence, the inadequacy of international institutions, were not part of Blair's agenda. And this was not a purely personal omission. Not one of the conference's 19 panels, organised by a wide range of New Labourish groups ranging from the Fabians to Nexus and the New Statesman, concerned the world beyond Europe. This was clearly a national event with European overtones.

A heated discussion on rights and responsibilities in the NS panel barely got beyond family relationships in the UK. Although Anthony Giddens put the issues in a globalising context, the issues of global rights and responsibilities were not mentioned by either side in a hard-fought argument over the significance of morality in the new politics.

Clearly no one had thought to involve any of the campaigns concerned with worldwide human rights, development or disaster relief, let alone those involved with disarmament and the arms trade. Even if they had demands to make of New Labour, all would clearly have sympathised with the mood for change after their frustrations in the long Tory years. Labour's spokespersons in these areas also seemed absent - apart from Robin Cook in his other role as Labour's most consistent frontbench advocate of constitutional reform.

"Passing the Torch" expressed the new confidence of Britain's centre-left, the healing of its old wounds and its clear grasping - in principle, at least, since the thorny issue of the single currency remains to be resolved - of the European nettle. But it also confirmed how far New Labour is a national project in a European framework. There was barely a ripple of real global concern.

Here, New Labour could even learn a little from the old. Fifty years ago, the Attlee government began the process of dismantling empire, with Indian independence. For decades, worldwide opponents of colonialism, militarism and apartheid looked to Labour for support. Nelson Mandela1s warm greeting of Blair, on his recent visit to South Africa, must have reminded him of this tradition.

As with other traditions, Labour's internationalism needs updating. The inauguration of the new South Africa and the transfer of Hong Kong, each in their different ways, mark the end of the long process of transforming Britain1s imperial legacy. The new agenda of global human rights and democratisation, peace-creation and war-management, world social justice and environmental protection, and especially the democratic reform of international institutions, involves moving on from Labour's traditions.

There is clearly a new sense of purpose in Labour's foreign affairs team. Since Cook became shadow Foreign Secretary (his somnolescent predecessor Jack Cunningham removed to Heritage) good policy documents have been produced, so that Labour1s good intentions are on display for those prepared to read the small print.

There is little sign, however, that global problems are central challenges for Blair and Cook, who remain preoccupied with European and national concerns. New Labour's rhetoric makes only occasional glances in the direction of the wider world. Manifestly, resources are not going to pour into overseas aid or peacekeeping if they are not available for many domestic priorities.

There is a disturbing lack of attention even to the things that could be done without spending new money. There is little sign of real imagination, drive or commitment in Labour's approach to developing world institutions and policies. Nor has there been much attention to the anachronistic structure of British government in these areas. Increasingly European issues preoccupy all home departments, but Europe remains a Foreign Office concern. Labour has yet to produce proposals for reform.

Nor has Labour explored the possibilities of redistributing resources within Britain1s international expenditure. Defence issues have been put on ice until after the election, when there will be a Defence Review. However understandable in electoral terms, this ties up resources in weapons systems and force structures which have not altered fundamentally since the Cold War - although the Tories have pared them down - until well into the next parliament.

The Defence team is a bastion of the unimaginative and the Old Labour right-wing, hardly a hopeful springboard for a radical rethinking of Britain1s military contribution to international efforts. Meanwhile, Overseas Development remains a Cinderella outfit, to which Clare Short was exiled after her outbursts in this magazine.

An innovative New Labour approach might look at the international departments and budgets as a whole - FO, Defence and Overseas aid - and restructure them in the light of a real global strategy for the incoming government. The United Kingdom remains, after all, one of the Western triumvirate of nuclear powers and Security Council members, as well as one of the richest countries on earth. If any state other than the United States is going to play a leading role in beginning to tackle the world's problems, Britain must surely be in the forefront. Clinton's USA has generally taken a reactive approach to world affairs - Britain, with its European allies, could make the running with a more proactive policy.

At a "Sovereignty Seminar" at Birkbeck College last month, Lady (Tessa) Blackstone (Labour foreign spokesperson in the Lords) responded to similar criticisms by pointing to Labour1s electoral dilemmas. Faced with a increasingly desparate nationalist Tory party, she implied, it was hardly surprising that Labour's internationalism was muted.

While this is understandable, it could be that it misjudges the electoral issue. One of John Major's few remaining cards is his experience as a world leader. Laughable as this claim may seem to those who know of his contribution to wasting the post-Cold War opportunities, not to mention the appeasement of genocide in Bosnia and elsewhere, it is certain to be a Tory campaign theme. Don't forget that in 1992, Major1s flak-jacketed trip to the Gulf (after the war) figured in the final party political broadcast, and Kenneth Clarke responded to the Tories' "Red Wednesday" scare by repeatedly trumpeting Major's role in the Iraqi triumph.

We can be sure that the Tories have similar film in the can this time, probably from Major's photo-opportunities in Bosnia. It won't be enough to save them, and Labour can respond with the kind of pictures of Blair with our troops which adorned the foreign policy sections of New Labour, New Britain. A more constructive approach, however, would be for Blair to set out his stall as a potential world leader.

The British still do expect, after all, their prime minister to be an important international figure, not just a national spokesperson in the European Union. With the prospect of a clear majority and a full term - hopefully two - Tony Blair may have the best opportunity since Attlee for a British Labour prime minister to make a real difference on the world stage - better, indeed, since he is unlikely to face a new Cold War. It is a challenge New Labour should not refuse. The sooner it moves beyond the current Euro-national framing of its strategy, the better.