Following Blair's Middle East summit all sides of the UK press gushed with fulsome praise of our government’s noble intentions for that blighted region. Like children at a fireworks display, leader writers gasped with awe and wonder as a "ripple of change" spreads through the Middle East. The Times likened it to the collapse of communism, as autocracies fall like dominoes under the sheer force of the west’s deep longing for the Arab people’s freedom.

The consensus among the political classes is that Britain's international role is fundamentally a benign and positive one. They may disagree, sometimes vociferously, on what policies are best employed, but this view of the UK government's inherent decency is the assumption within which these debates are framed.

Britain's real role is, to put it mildly, somewhat different. Mark Curtis, historian and former Research Fellow at the Royal Institute of International Affairs, has written extensively on those parts of UK foreign policy its not polite to mention. His work should be studied closely by any progressive with a serious interest in Britains’ role on the world stage. The moral triumphs he details include the overthrow in 1953 of the parliamentary government in Iran and its replacement with the brutal dictatorship of the Shah, the savage war against Kenyan independence that resulted in 150,000 African deaths, backing for Indonesia’s General Suharto as his troops committed genocide in East Timor and the repeated use of the UK’s UN Security Council veto in support of Apartheid South Africa.

New Labour does not break with this fine tradition. Curtis notes its maintenance of the sanctions regime that killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, an estimated half million of them children. “Former UN Humanitarian Coordinator in Iraq Denis Halliday resigned in protest over the sanctions and has since said that "this policy constitutes genocide and Washington and London are responsible”. But this merely stands out in a general pattern. In addition, “key allies of the Blair government with whom arms and trade continue as normal are among the most repressive regimes in the world, such as Turkey - responsible for atrocities against Kurds on far greater scale than even the Saddam regime in recent years; and Saudi Arabia - where human rights organisations are banned, along with any political opposition.”. Then there’s Uzbekistan’s Islam Karimov, who boils his opponents alive, the repressive Gulf states of Oman and Bahrain, and the list goes on.

Yet, with near total uniformity and no small amount of disdain for the facts, Britain is held up by its media as a paragon of virtue whose few mentionable crimes can be dismissed as small diversions from its natural state of magnificence. In fact, contrary to the claims of Blair and his cheerleaders, the fireworks displays the west treats the third world to tend to be more of the "shock and awe" variety.

Such hypocritical talk of our noble mission is of course widespread on the other side of the Atlantic as well. Writing for Foreign Policy In Focus, Stephen Zunes, Professor of Politics at the University of San Francisco, recently exposed the “hyperbole and double standards” in US policy on Syria.

“For example, the United States has demanded that Syria eliminate its long-range and medium-range missiles, while not insisting that pro-Western neighbours like Turkey and Israel—with far more numerous and sophisticated missiles on their territory—similarly disarm. The United States has also insisted that Syria unilaterally eliminate its chemical weapons stockpiles, while not making similar demands on U.S. allies Israel and Egypt—which have far larger chemical weapons stockpiles—to do the same. The United States has demanded an end to political repression and for free and fair elections in Syria while not making similar demands of even more repressive and autocratic regimes in allied countries like Saudi Arabia and Uzbekistan.”. Zunes finishes by warning that "President Bush appears to have few obstacles in his way should he once again choose to lead the country to war.".

Meanwhile US Representative Sam Johnson (R-Texas) claims to have told Bush "Syria is the problem. Syria is where those weapons of mass destruction are, in my view. You know, I can fly an F-15, put two nukes on 'em and I'll make one pass. We won't have to worry about Syria anymore". On hearing this his audience at Suncreek United Methodist Church in Allen, Texas roared with applause.

Consider what your reaction might have been had you read of an Iranian cleric informing his congregation, to wild applause, that he had recommended nuking the United States or Britain to President Khatami. Or if a high-ranking member of the Chinese Communist Party had reported saying this to President Hu Jintao. Then imagine the press in either country singing the praises of their leaders’ brave mission to free the people of the west. You might ask where putting “nukes on ‘em” fits into this great moral undertaking.

Returning to the western media; in The Guardian, at the left-liberal edge of the British mainstream, Jonathan Freedland has warned us that “we cannot let ourselves fall into the trap of opposing democracy in the Middle East just because Bush and Blair are calling for it”, failing to mention exactly who is falling into this trap. Having listened closely to the rousing speeches, and having just interviewed Blair for his newspaper, Freedland can quite easily talk of our leaders calling for democracy. At least more easily than a Saudi Arab or an Egyptian dissident being tortured by the security forces of governments the west continues to support with trade and arms.

Are we falling into the trap of opposing democracy in the Middle East just because Bush and Blair are calling for it? Mahatma Gandhi was once asked what he thought of Western civilization. His response? "I think it would be a good idea.". What do progressives think of western governments promoting democracy? We’d welcome it. Unfortunately the question is strictly hypothetical.