Yearly archives: 2007


Frank Goebbels Gardner Strikes Again

With The Queen’s Speech tomorrow and Gordon Brown intent on ramping through 2 month detention without trial for Muslims, the traditional ceremony has been performed of wheeling out the Head of MI5 in advance of the Queen’s Speech to tell terrible lies about the extent of the terror threat. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6149726.stmJonathan “Pinnochio” Evans tells us there are 2,000 potential terrorists in the UK – and then throws in casually that it could be double that.

That is plainly bollocks. it is far too high a figure. The IRA – who were much more persistent and lethal terrorists in the UK – had a membership in the 80’s, when at the height of their bombing campaign, of about 90 actual terrorists. The current 2,000 clearly have severe productivity problems by comparison.

Any genuine security expert will tell you that Evans’ figures are far too high. Assuming the large majority of these “terrorists” are adult male, that means according to Evans at least one in every 150 adult male Muslims in the UK is a terrorist, and at his higher surmise signifcantly more than one in a hundred. Plainly, to anyone who actually meets any Muslims, that is impossible.

Unfortunately, there is no shortage of “Security consultants” who make a fat living from exaggerating the threat of terrorism and then advising on how to counter it. The BBC usually has no problem finding up this kind of so called “Security expert” to reinforce the ludicrous scare. Today the BBC rolled out Dr Sally Leivesley – who they failed to point out is Managing Director of “Newrisk Ltd”, an archetype of those seeking to make money from spreading fear.

And they have the ever reliable Frank Gardner. Chiselled profile held high, impeccable hair swept back, upper lip stiff, poppy impeccably in place, Gardner can be relied upon to retail any absolute rubbish the security services spew out without the slightest danger of passing it through a filter of independent thought. He can also be relied on to produce a meaningless graphic to illustrate the most ludicrous of propositions.

To date his finest hour was when 250 police stormed a house at Forest Gate and shot a completely innocent young postman as he got out of bed. The police explained that they were searching for a “Chemical weapons vest”.

There has never, ever been a “chemical weapons vest”, anywhere in the World. The very concept is nonsense – the point of a chemical weapon is to achieve maximum dispersal of the chemical, and wrapping it in fabric around the human torso would be ludicrous. That is why there has never been a chemical weapons vest.

Nonetheless the noble, earnest Gardner introduced a graphic of what a chemical weapons vest might look like – a laughable photo of a camouflage pattern waistcoat full of suspicious bumps and loops. He might just as well have labelled it a nuclear bomb vest. What a farce! What a wanker!

Anyway, Gardner was at it again tonight with a graphic to explain the latest ludicrous claims. How do they know there are 2,000 terrorists, he asked? Well, they can’t tell us because it’s intelligence, he explained. But the helpful graphic fills the screen, with hundreds of sinister black silhouettes of unknown terrorists, interconnected by numerous black lines indicating networks, nodes and axes of evil. And to explain it all, every so often, there was a not blacked out figure, a suicide bomber or, glowering at us, Osama Bin Laden. Of course!! That’s the evidence!! There really are thousands of them.

I was going to retaliate by producing a graphic of thousands of sinister silhouettes linked by criss-crossing lines, and dotted among them Goebbels, Hitler, Attila the Hun, Stalin, Mao and Frank Gardner. But I can’t be bothered – sounds like a job for Bloggerheads.

The truth is that since September 11 Islamic militants have killed about 70 people in the UK. That’s 12 people a year in a country of 60 million. Every death is terrible, but a threat to our existence it is not. You have a much better chance of drowning in your own bath, of being struck by lightning or of winning the national lottery than of being killed by a terrorist. But that wouldn’t persuade you to give up your civil liberties, or that we have to invade more oil rich countries for our security.

View with comments

Dirty Diplomacy Reaches the Parts…

I would be lying if I said I was not disappointed by the failure of Dirty Diplomacy so far to garner any major reviews in the United States. But it continues to be appreciated in small niches, like the St Paul’s American Asian Gazette :

The book often reads like a travelogue as Murray tells about his compelling travels through the country, and he also publishes previously secret memos and letters add meaning to his stories. It is an appeal to the global community to enter the hot debate over what policies and actions are acceptable in the name of security. Despite the occasionally distracting portrayal of himself as a Lone Ranger defying the evil regime and exposing the wrongs perpetuated by the complicity of others, his tale is powerful and adds a meaningful voice to the growing global call for social justice.

http://www.aapress.com/artsnews.php?subaction=showfull&id=1193960988&archive=&start_from=&ucat=6

Not entirely complimentary, but again nice to know that someone there read it. Meanwhile a very good bit of writing coming from Middlesborough:

First, take a look at pictures of Usmanov. That man appears to have no DNA. The blueprint for his being seem to be the seven deadly sins. In fact, I’d bet each cell in his body positively pulsates with greed, lust and avarice. Have you ever seen such drooping bulldog jowls, tiny pin eyes squinting out of a heaving mountain of rubbery flesh and huge murderous meaty hands other than those not behind bars?

This scientific conclusion is based on solid objective evidence. That is, I once spent a couple of hours in Tashkent, the capital of Uzbekistan, and I can unreservedly state that it’s a gangster state. The officials that I had the er. interesting fortune of meeting wore black leather jackets, thick gold chains hung off their necks and their fingers were braced with even more gold.

http://www.comeonboro.com/columns/112303.php

View with comments

Musharraf Presses the Panic Button

It is worth stating the obvious – Musharraf has always been a military dictator, strongly supported by the US and the UK. He has not just become a military dictator. What he has just done is tighten authoritarian control, clamping down on the press, opposition parties and the judiciary. He is becoming a worse despot, taking long strides down the road of authoritarianism, and dashing fond hopes that he may be set on gradually returning democracy.

The timing of his pressing of the panic button seems dictated by a need to pre-empt the Supreme Court finding his re-appointment as President unconstitutional. Its connection to Benazir Bhutto’s return is confusing, but her initial statements seem to be condemnatory, short of actually doing anything about it. It has to be said that, with very few exceptions, Pakistan’s leading democratic politicians are, and always have been, a venal shower. But being clear eyed about that in no way justifies Musharraf’s desperate attempt to extend his power.

A large proportion of the over a thousand or more arrested are in fact the “Good guys” in this – human rights activists, the better journalists and campaigning lawyers. That is inexcusable.

The posturing in the US and UK would be amusing if it weren’t appalling. Rice and the Pentagon have a distinctly different nuance, while the UK government tries to get away with minimal huffing and puffing – and no action. The whole flawed logic of the War on Terror is exposed yet again. I had to watch it as they supported Karimov. A measure of their hypocrisy is that even their mild rebukes of Musharraf are harsher than anything they were meteing out to Karimov – not because they mean it, but because in the case of Pakistan the World is watching and they feel the need for some pro-democratic spin to hide their true actions.

Meanwhile just how close we are to similar government actions to those in Pakistan comes with a government ratcheting up of the anti-Muslim rhetoric following the De Menezes verdict. The head of MI5 is wheeled out today to make the ludicrous assertion that there are 2,000 individuals posing a potential terrorist threat in the UK.

Those confessions and mass denunciations wrung in the torture chambers of Uzbekistan, Pakistan and elsewhere do come in useful when you need to press the fear button again, don’t they?

View with comments

De Menezes and Lies

Of course Sir Ian Blair should resign. Hopefully he might finally do the decent thing once the inquest jury brings in a verdict of unlawful killing.

The main reason he should go is the telling of lies about the incident. For me it is deeply disturbing just how much traction these lies have. Surfing around internet chat on the De Menezes incident, there are hundreds of people asserting that De Menezes did not stop when challenged and ran from the police, while wearing a bulky jacket. Once you can get the germ of a lie into the heads of the public, it sticks. Plainly those police lies retain their force even though news bulletins for a fortnight have been showing CCTV footage of De Menezes perfectly normal behaviour in the underground, and shown quite plainly that he was wearing tight clothes .

He did not run, was not challenged, he walked quietly onto the tube where he was suddenly, with absolutely no warning, held down and viciously murdered. Yet the myths put out to justify his murder appear ineradicable.

View with comments

Really Lovely Review

Occasionally you read a review from someone who really “gets” what I am trying to do, and it gives you a lovely warm feeling inside. For me, that feeling is redoubled when that person is writing from somewhere I have never heard of. So here is a review from the Kingston Observer (that’s Kingston USA, not Jamaica). No. I don’t know where it is either. But I’m definitely going to go there one day now.

Before the torture scandals of Abu Ghraib became public, there was the matter of the prisoner who was boiled to death in Uzbekistan. Craig Murray, the former British ambassador to that country, learned of this tragedy and exposed it, urging the British government to distance itself from U.S. foreign policy. The U.S. propped up the repressive Uzbek regime with half a billion dollars yearly in exchange for the use of an air base. For his trouble, Murray was harassed mercilessly by his own government and ultimately forced out of his position.

By his own unvarnished admissions, Murray enjoys a drink or more and he is a serial adulterer now living with his Uzbek lover, Nadira, in London, but his morality is surely greater than the sum of those two parts. He’s like the Bill Clinton of the British foreign service, messy on the personal side, brilliant and compassionate on the other. He no doubt exposed his own flaws to snatch the opportunity from his political foes. Well done and bravo.

Murray traveled the Uzbek countryside, consulting with British businessmen and ordinary Uzbeks whose lives are a torment. Growing cotton is a major industry in the country, and at harvest time, university students and hospital patients who are ambulatory are sent to pick the crop.

The political and judicial issues, however, are what landed Murray in his own vat of hot water. His description of a trial he attended is horrific since even the witnesses are tortured to produce the desired testimony. According to Murray, the post 9/11 rage resulted in the practice of sending prisoners to countries like Uzbekistan where human rights is an unacknowledged concept. Muslims are tortured in the name of the war on terror. When prisoners are executed their families are charged for the bullets. The hideous irony, of course, is that the dictator Saddam Hussein received justice at the end of a rope, while Uzbek President Karimov got a fat check from the U.S. Ultimately, Karimov embraced Mother Russia and tossed us out.

By turns unbearably sad and raucously funny, this book is a must read by a man with courage in spades and an acute sense of perspective and humor. Dirty Diplomacy is an extraordinary book.

http://kingstonobserver.com/moxie/columnists/nancy/books-by-nancy-october-20.shtml

View with comments

The Red Soil of Africa

Publisher’s blurb for new book –

In this prequel to Murder in Samarkand Craig Murray asserts that once the red soil of Africa gets into your blood, you are in thrall to the continent for the rest of your life. Returning in 1998 from heading the Political and Economic sections of the British Embassy in Warsaw, Craig becomes Deputy Head of the Africa Department of the FCO. Within two weeks of taking up the job suave, controversial, ex Guards officer and mercenary commander Colonel Tim Spicer walks into Craig Murray’s office. Murray does not like what he finds and reports Spicer to Customs and Excise – and creates the Arms to Africa Investigation that is the first big crisis of Tony Blair’s government. Suspended from duty, grilled by the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee, then quickly despatched sideways to Ghana as Deputy High Commissioner. Murray next finds himself caught up in nightmarish and extremely dangerous face to face negotiations with Foday Sankoh and the murderous rebels of Sierra Leone, famous for mutilating children and pregnant women and hacking off the limbs of thousands of victims. After negotiating with Sankoh and Charles Taylor, now both facing war crimes tribunals, Murray miraculously emerges with a peace deal that saved the lives of tens of thousands, only to have his thunder stolen by Jesse Jackson in a hilariously comical episode.

Strongly commended by Robin Cook and loaded with obscure African honours, Murray then launches into arranging a State Visit for the Queen to Ghana which is part of his strategy to massage perpetual ruler Jerry Rawlings out of office. Outwitting the Rawlings regime in a series of astonishing set pieces, including canoe borne trips to obscure villages personally to supervise voter registration, Murray delivers free and fair elections that enable the opposition peacefully to take power, and Murray becomes a national hero in Ghana. But his public statement that British companies have been involved in corruption in Africa draws down firm censure from the FCO and he is despatched to remote Uzbekistan in order, his bosses hope, that he will never be heard of again….

Told with Murray’s customary style and panache, this near incredible story points up many of the paradoxes of Western involvement in the Africa which Murray loves so deeply. Readers of Murder in Samarkand will enjoy again the alternation of impish wit and moral high mindedness, high jinx and stunning flashes of political insight. And, as ever with Murray, there are several lovers and a variety of alcoholic beverages on the way, as well as green mambas, cerebral malaria and a mischievous Ashanti ghost…

View with comments

Bent Auditors

Usmanov’s PR people claim it would have been impossible for Gazprom to pay a bribe to President Karimov’s daughter Gulnara because

No evidence has ever been forthcoming and the accounts of Gazprominvest [the Gazprom company of which Usmanov is president] are audited by PricewaterhouseCoopers

http://football.guardian.co.uk/News_Story/0,,2202113,00.html

That of course is deeply reassuring. Usmanov is audited by the people who brought you Robert Maxwell’s accounts

http://visar.csustan.edu/aaba/auditmaxwell.htm

and the BCCI accounts

http://visar.csustan.edu/aaba/bccipress.html

I hope that you are suitably reassured.

View with comments

Uzbek Cotton

I was very pleased indeed with the report on Newsnight last night. I thought the discomfiting of the commercial companies pretending they didn’t know was exemplary television. Minister Gareth Thomas’ attempt to convey concern and pretend this was news to the government, when I reported it in detail to them in 2002 and was told to shut up, almost made me physically retch.

You can watch it here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/player/nol/newsid_4670000/newsid_4679900/4679986.stm?bw=bb&mp=wm&news=1

although I fear that link will only work for one day. If anyone knows how to Youtube it or otherwise save it, that would be good.

Meanwhile the Guardian has picked up on the government’s stonewalling of Jeremy Corbyn over Usmanov:

http://football.guardian.co.uk/News_Story/0,,2202113,00.html

Arsenal supporters need to press their own MPs on this. You can do this by entering your postcode on this website http://www.theyworkforyou.com/ then clicking on “send a message to your MP” in the first box about him.

View with comments

Saudi Disgrace

%21cid_000801c81ace%2424060aa0%2472387ad5%40Home1.jpg

I was so impressed by this cartoon in the Times I went out and bought a copy as I felt Mr Murdoch deserved my money today. Also great to see Vince Cable of the Lib Dems making a good stand on the issue by boycotting the event. Full marks.

Saudi Arabia is a terrible abuser of human rights whose corrupt and obscurantist regime has spawned the worst excesses of modern terrorism, and exported financial corruption throughout the world. I am stunned by Foreign Office Minister Kim Howells statement today that the UK and Saudi Arabia share “common values”. But on reflection, I think our governments do share common values – a worship of money, and a disregard for common people.

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2007/06/transcript_of_t.html

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2007/08/theres_good_mon.html

View with comments

Newsnight Tonight BBC 2 10.30pm

has an expose on the Uzbek cotton industry. I advised on the making of this and on how to do secret filming in Uzbekistan. This is the stuff that we did a mass blog on over a year ago, and on which I have spoken and down the country in draughty halls at 117 meetings since. Finally we may get some real pressure on the clothes and fashion industries now for their complicity in propping up a fascist regime.

Please do watch.

This short film by the Environmental Justice Foundation is also important:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3n39T35Ia_4

View with comments

A Dark, Dark Place

I cannot believe Alisher Saipov is dead. When last I saw him he can only have been 23 years old, and was so brimming with energy, life and optimism. Now at 26 he is dead, just the latest dissident to be murdered by the Karimov regime. There is a lovely tribute from Natalia Antaleva here.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,,2200568,00.html

Coming so hard on the murder of my friend Mark Weil, I really am overwhelmed by the sheer horror of it all.

http://news.independent.co.uk/people/obituaries/article2970807.ece The dissident movement in Uzbekistan has been almost entirely exiled, incarcerated or murdered now, and the state becomes ever more of a nightmare. I find it crushing – and I am not even an Uzbek.

There is an absolutely vital item on Uzbekistan coming on BBC2 Newsnight on Tuesday 30 October. It looks at the slavery of the people while Karimov and his oligarchs become billionaires. Please do watch it.

Meantime, Jeremy Corbyn, MP for Islington North (and thus Arsenal FC), had tried through a parliamentary question to obtain from the British Government the reports I put in from the British Embassy in Tashkent regarding Alisher Usmanov’s corrupt dealings with the Karimovs and Putin.

Foreign and Commonwealth Office

Alisher Usmanov

Jeremy Corbyn: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish reports received from British embassies relating to Alisher Usmanov. [158765]

Mr. Jim Murphy: Such information would constitute personal data. A request for personal information brings into play the relevant legislative provisions on data release by the Government and would require the consent of the individual concerned.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmhansrd/cm071017/text/71017w0003.htm

That stonewalling answer is, when you think about it, quite astonishing. The government can never tell you about Mugabe, or Slobodan Milosevic, or anyone else, without their consent? Of course it is a nonsense excuse – which leads to the question, why is New Labour supporting Usmanov in covering up his past?

They also will not tell us why (if my sources are correct) he received a British passport:

British Citizenship: Alisher Usmanov

Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay asked Her Majesty’s Government:

Whether Mr Alisher Usmanov holds British citizenship, whether honorary or not; and, if so, when and why it was granted. [HL5411]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord West of Spithead): It is the policy of the Border and Immigration Agency not to comment publicly on individual cases.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200607/ldhansrd/text/71016w0001.htm

Again that is nonsense – you may recall Peter Mandelson had to resign for the second time for improperly facilitating the passport application of another dodgy billionaire. Did the government simply take the line that it could not comment on an individual passport application? No, it did not.

http://www.city-journal.org/html/17_3_oh_to_be.html

For some reason New Labour is trying to clamp down debate on Mr Usmanov. I wonder if Gallagher Holdings, or any of Usmanov’s other companies, will turn out to have made donations or “loans” to New Labour?

View with comments

Dirty Diplomacy

The US edition of Murder in Samarkand has finally hit the shops, under the title of Dirty Diplomacy. Be warned that it is basically the same book, and I do not recommend you to buy both.

Dirty Diplomacy is however a different cut from an original manuscript. So while slightly shorter than Murder in Samarkand, it includes some passages which were not in the UK version, and is less heavily censored because of the protections for freedom of speech in the US.

Here is a pre-publication review from Booklist, a library and bookseller trade magazine:

Dirty Diplomacy.

Murray, Craig (Author)

Oct 2007. 368 p. Scribner, hardcover, $26.00. (1416548017). 958.70.

Must diplomacy involve duplicity? Murray, an energetic and forthright British diplomat, moved his family to Tashkent in 2002 with high hopes for fostering progress in Uzbekistan. But he soon discovered that under the dictatorial rule of Islam Karimov, thousands of political and religious prisoners were being held without trial, many tortured and murdered. Murray sent urgent communiques to his superiors, then began speaking out. A hero to the oppressed, he was viewed as a traitor in London and Washington as both administrations courted Karimov as an ally as the war in Iraq got under way.

Forced to leave his post in 2004, Murray now boldly details Karimov’s crimes against humanity, his own wild and risky adventures, and the chilling and unconscionable actions of the UK and the U.S. Writing with brio, chagrin, and conviction, Murray admits that as a whiskey-loving, kilt-wearing skirt chaser, he is no paragon. But his determination to stand up for human rights makes him a man of conscience well worth listening to. And he is one helluva storyteller. An electrifying read; watch for the movie.

?” Donna Seaman

This one is from Publishers’ Weekly

Although the subject matter is dead serious, the picaresque subtitle reflects the defiant wit at the heart of this highly revealing memoir by the colorful and prominent former British ambassador to Uzbekistan. Murray’s brief term (2002?”2004) belies his influence as a scrupulous administrator who, whatever his personal failures (and he’s refreshingly up-front about them), proved incorruptible in pursuit of social justice in a nation suffering under a sadistic regime. In addition to competence, wit and considerable daring, Murray displayed a rare integrity in Tashkent that stood out among his counterparts, which was precisely what got him into trouble with both dictator Karimov’s brutal totalitarian state and with his own government, which eventually resorted to an eye-opening campaign to oust him. A deluge of bureaucratic and personal information occasionally blurs the focus in this book, but Murray uses the full weight of his ambassadorship to hold a key ally of the U.S. accountable for deep-seated economic corruption and human rights abuses?”including pervasive use of torture?” and runs headlong into some of the fiercest contradictions in the war on terror. (Oct.)

Those are trade reviews; since publication last week, one newspaper review so far from the New York Post

BATTLING FOR HUMAN RIGHTS, ONE MEMO AT A TIME

By STEPHEN LYNCH

October 14, 2007 — Legend has it that the road connecting Afghanistan to Uzbekistan leads the region in car accidents, as truckers emerging from burkaland catch their first glimpse of Uzbek women in miniskirts and veer off the road.

Sounds like a country America can get behind!

And indeed we have, as is illustrated tragically, and often comically, in “Dirty Diplomacy” by Craig Murray, who served as Britian’s ambassador to Uzbekistan from 2002-05.

Murray argues that because of the Uzbek administration’s support in fighting the Taliban, and providing a friendly environment for oil companies, the U.S. looks the other way when it comes to Uzbekistan’s human rights abuses and economic neglect of its own people. In short, we’re supporting a tyrant – President Islom Karimov – to battle Muslim extremists (as compared to Iraq, where we chose Muslim extremists over a tyrant).

The ambassador’s outrage peaks soon after his arrival, when he attends a dissident trial in a kangaroo court, and the witness, presented with six men from which to pick three criminals, selects the wrong three. The judge, outraged, tells him to chose again.

From that moment, Murray decides to take action, in the best way the British know how – memos. He hopes to shame the rest of the diplomatic corps, his own meager embassy staff and the Uzbekistan government into doing what he believes is right.

As a travelogue, “Diplomacy” is fascinating, serving as a good introduction to a region most Americans don’t know a lot about. Murray rightly notes that it was the Soviet Union that made a mess of things, purposely drawing lines for Tajikistan, Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan that had little bearing on the actual ethnic makeup of those countries (as British cartographers did in the Middle East). The folly is when the U.S. – or anyone – clings to these artifices too strongly. What we learned in geography (or didn’t, considering the study of test scores) isn’t as permanent as we’d like to believe.

In Uzbekistan, rallies for reform often come in the form of Islam, which scares the West now more than Communism. But Murray argues that many innocent believers are being swept up in Karimov’s anti-terrorism efforts.

The failing of “Dirty Diplomacy” is Murray’s self-aggrandizing description of his crusades against injustice. After all, besides driving his country’s state department crazy, alienating his staffers and ending his marriage, he walks away with nothing but his righteous indignation. Uzbekistan is still run by Karimov. The crackdown goes on.

The hope, of course, is that by packaging that indigation into the story of a “Scotch Drinking, Skirt Chasing … and Thoroughly Un-repentant Ambassador,” as his subtitle states, Murray can get the U.S. to recognize how it’s hurting itself.

By supporting Karimov’s regime, we may be driving more Uzbeks into the very arms of those we hope to defeat. If his dictatorship falls, will it be replaced by Western-friendly democrats? Or will it be the disgruntled Muslim dissidents, bearing a grudge?

Blowback’s a bitch.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/10142007/postopinion/postopbooks/one_man_takes_a_stan.htm

Which is not bad considering it’s a Murdoch tabloid. And here comes Playboy!

Dirty Diplomacy:

The Rough-and-Tumble Adventures of a Scotch-Drinking, Skirt-Chasing, Dictator-Busting and Thoroughly Unrepentant Ambassador Stuck on the Frontline of the War Against Terror

By Craig Murray

Scribner, 384 pages, Hardcover$26.00

Reviewed by Frank Marquardt

Don’t be misled by Dirty Diplomacy’s subtitle. As Britain’s ambassador to Uzbekistan from 2002 to 2004, author Craig Murray mostly drank vodka, chased only one woman and failed to bust any dictators.

On this last point, it’s not for lack of trying. Soon after taking up his post, Murray is shown pictures of a corpse of a man who, prior to being immersed in boiling liquid, was beaten around the face and had his fingernails ripped out. That event provided the inspiration for the British release of the book’s more accurate title: Murder in Samarkand: A British Ambassador’s Controversial Defiance of Tyranny in the War on Terror. Murray attempted to expose the country’s human rights record, in which people are falsely accused, imprisoned and tortured, and women are routinely raped by the police.

Unfortunately, this wasn’t the party line. British officials, standing side-by-side the Americans, seemed more intent on recognizing Uzbekistan’s progress toward freedom — of which there has been arguably little — than its transgressions in the area of human rights. America’s reasons for championing Uzbekistan, in turn, seem to have had a lot more to do with the U.S. desire to maintain an airbase in the country than any actual action by the Uzbekistan authorities to create a more democratic country or free market economy.

Defying the diplomats at home got Murray into some trouble, setting off a media storm in Britain; higher-ups tried to remove him under a set of trumped-up charges. At first, Murray prevailed, remaining in Uzbekistan, but eventually he was forced out. Dirty Diplomacy offers his side of the story. As an inside view of the work of an ambassador, it’s interesting; as an indictment of British and American hypocrisy in their so-called “War on Terror,” it’s damning. The irony, for America at least, came in May 2005, when Uzbek police killed an estimated 700 protestors, and soon after evicted the American airbase. Hardly diplomatic — but dirty, indeed.

http://www.playboy.com/arts-entertainment/reviews/books/dirty-diplomacy/dirty-diplomacy.html

View with comments

Sex and Bicycles

I flew back from Ghana yesterday. As ever, long periods of blog silence from me mean I am in Africa and my internet access plans did not work out.

We are now very close to recovering the craigmurray.co.uk address, which will get many thousand old links across the internet working again.

My eye is caught today by this story from the Telegraph.

A man has been placed on the sex offenders’ register after being caught trying to have sex with a bicycle.

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/cgi-bin/mt.cgi?tab=comments&__mode=list_comments&blog_id=2&saved_deleted=1

Of course this lends itself to humour. Questions of “What? How?” spring immediately to mind. Never having claimed to be politically correct, I can make jokes about having slept with a few bikes myself. (That joke may not work outside the UK).

But in fact this raises very serious questions indeed, and I believe Mr Robert Stewart’s rights have been very seriously infringed. It is plain from the report that he was conducting his sex act in a locked room. What is the difference in principle between pleasuring yourself with a dildo, a blow up doll or a bicycle, your pillow or a vibrator? People masturbate with all kinds of things – is masturbation in private a crime? The consequences of being on the sex offenders register are very severe, especially for employment. Mr Stewart’s rights have been most severely infringed. We should stop sniggering and start being outraged.

View with comments

Further British Involvement in US Rendition Programme Comes to Light

CBS reported last week on allegations that U.S. authorities held terrorist suspects on the Indian Ocean island of Diego Garcia as part of a secret prisons network. Diego Garcia, an island of great apparent beauty, is part of the British Indian Ocean Territory. What goes on there is the business of Westminster.

The UK Parliament’s Foreign Affairs Select committee have received a report from the charity Reprieve that details the involvement of the British territory and British officials in illegal CIA activities on the island. Assurances received from the US government about these activities have received little credence from British MPs. Andrew Tyrie, a conservative who has led investigations looking at other British involvements said:

“These assurances come from the same government that invented the rendition program, authorized the use of techniques that all in the civilized world would call torture, and continues to hold hundreds in the moral and legal black hole of Guantanamo Bay,”

Meanwhile, in Italy the trial of CIA agents accused of kidnap continues in absentia.

And, Stephen Grey, author of Ghost Plane, has published an excellent article on rendition as experienced by refugees following the recent US military intervention in Somalia.

Update: Amnesty International are calling for other european governments to initiate independent investigations into their involvement in the US-led programme of renditions and secret detention. See Denmark: Authorities must come clean about renditions

View with comments

Usmanov: Truth Will Out

If you read the awful Mark Franchetti article (see below) and strip it of spin, some facts do emerge which confirm the truth of my account.

– Usmanov’s “pardon” did indeed come from Uzbekistan and had nothing to do with Mikhail Gorbachev, contrary to the lies of Schillings

– Usmanov was never a political prisoner opposed to communism. He was indeed convicted for corrupt dealings. He claims he was the accidental victim of a friend being set up – even if that were true, it does not make him an anti-communist political prisoner, which is how Schillings attempted to portray him.

– I published that

Key to this triumph has been the Uzbek oligarch Alisher Usmanov, chairman of Gazprominvest Holdings. This subsidiary is the channel for massive slush funds. In November 2004, for example, a payment of $88 million to Gulnara, the daughter of President Karimov of Uzbekistan, secured Uzbekistan’s gas contracts for Gazprom from under the noses of the United States, which had originally secured them through a bribe from the subsequebtly defunct Enron. In a series of transactions typical of Gazprom, at the same time Usmanov transferred half of a Russian bank, Mapobank, to Putin’s private secretary, Piotr Jastrzebski. Jastrzebski was Usmanov’s former flatmate at Moscow Diplomatic Academy and bagman for Putin. Putin instructed Karimov in return for the cash to kick out the US military base which dominated Central Asia, and Gazprom had secured the strategic kingpin to dominate the Central Asian and Caucasus gas reserves.

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2007/06/russian_journal.html

Usmanov now tells Franchetti:

He also became close friends with fellow students Sergei Yastrzhembsky and Sergei Prikhodko, both now aides to Putin

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article2652774.ece

Now that is the first published admission I have seen of the key Usmanov/Jastrzebski relationship. Franchetti shows that I was right about this, and about the origin of that relationship as students. Might this not indicate to a less biased observer that my sources on Usmanov are sound?

That makes three absolutely key things I have published about Usmanov that are now shown to be true. Is there one thing I have published that has been disproved by the hordes of mainstream media looking to attack us?

View with comments

Mark Franchetti Fills His Stomach and Switches Off His Brain

Bloggerheads and others have already done great’work in exposing those journalists easily bought up by a billionaire’s favour and hospitality.

http://b-heads.blogspot.com/2007/10/hooray-for-mainstream-media.html

But crass Mark Franchetti wins the prize for rolling over in return for a chauffeured visit to a billionaire’s mansion and indulging in “a lunch of lamb stew and red wine served by the butler in one of his private dining rooms, a hall lined with gilded central Asian vases.” He then gives us a propaganda piece so cringeworthy as to be astonishing coming from a once great newspaper.http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article2652774.ece

He approvingly quotes Usmanov’s crude attack on me:

Usmanov rejected the charges and threatened to sue Murray “if he can first prove that he is completely sane”.

Of course I have neither mansion nor butler to entertain the Franchettis of this world, so evidently I must be mad.

Franchetti then goes on to retail without analysis Usmanov’s ludicrous account of the circumstances of his conviction for fraud, corruption and theft of state property.

Usmanov says it was all beacuse of an attempt in 1980 by the Moscow KGB to stop his friend’s father becoming head of the Tashkent KGB. To stop the father the KGB cooked up an elaborate plot to get the son to accept a bribe, tricking him into thinking this was part of an intelligence operation. However the person paying the bribe gave it to Usmanov, because he knew that Usmanov was a friend of the person he wanted to bribe. So Usmanov accidentally in good faith accepted the brown envelope for his friend, who was being set up by the KGB to get at his father.

How is your Bullshit-meter reading? Some thoughts that did not occur to Mr Franchetti:

– This is 1980. Brezhnev is the President of a confident centralist Soviet state. If the Moscow KGB wanted rid of someone under Brezhnev, they would not have to cook up cock-eyed plots involving framing their son.

– Paying a bribe is a risky occupation. How likely is it that a smuggler would pay a bribe by giving the cash to a friend of the person they wished to bribe, and asking them to pass it on?

– The Brezhnev KGB were quite efficient. If they had cooked up this cock-eyed plot, they would have got the bribe to the right person.

Those are only a few of the improbabilities about the Usmanov story. Now I can understand that under the influence of Usmanov’s red wine Franchetti was having problems of discernment. But Franchetti cannot be defended in his dealing with the issue of the diassappearance of Usmanov’s criminal record.

Franchetti notes,

The convictions were later overturned by Uzbekistan’s Supreme Court, which ordered his police record to be expunged.

and Franchetti goes on to use the line:

Although he was fully absolved in 2000 and no longer has a criminal record,

In fact, being absolved by Uzbekistan’s Supreme Court means nothing whatsoever. Uzbekistan is a totalitarian state and has absolutely nil judicial independence. The conviction rate in Uzbek criminal cases is over 99%, which gives you an idea of how fair the trial procedures are. The internet is full of information about the legal, judicial and human rights situation in Uzbekistan, but this Human Rights Watch report might be a good start on judicial independence.

http://hrw.org/backgrounder/eca/uzbek0305/uzbek0305.pdf

The Supreme Court of Uzbekistan receives its orders from President Karimov, arguably the most vicious dictator on earth and a friend of Alisher Usmanov. Karimov wiped out his criminal record for him. So how much you trust Usmanov comes down to how much you trust Karimov. Karimov’s state frequently tortures dissidents to death.

What makes Franchetti’s piece so disgusting is that he knows full well what the political situation in Uzbekistan is, and he knows full well that the Supreme Court of Uzbekistan has no independence and that a pardon from it for an oligarch has no meaning. It is simply that Franchetti chooses not to share this information with his readers, because the Times has decided to puff Usmanov. Mark Franchetti is no fool; he is rather a disgusting and unprincipled man and a disgrace to his profession. Amazing what some people will do if given the services of a chauffeur and a butler for an afternoon.

Meanwhile Usmanov is still too cowardly to sue me – and his excuses for avoiding the courts become feebler:

I won’t fall so low as to fight those who want to blacken my name.

Indeed – why have the truth tested before an honest jury, when you can just buy up cheap journalists instead?

View with comments

Raising Money For Amnesty

I am off this afternoon to speak to the annual conference of Action by Christians Against Torture (ACAT) in Bristol. Meantime a nice little report of the Malvern meeting for Amnesty International, which hopefully raised them quite a bit of money.

Amnesty event a great success

SACKED ambassador Craig Murray’s visit to Malvern was a great success, with about 600 people crowding into the Forum to hear him speak.

http://www.malverngazette.co.uk/mostpopular.var.1745984.mostviewed.amnesty_event_a_great_success.php

Interestingly, I always get bigger audiences where people are sold tickets (£10 at Malvern, I think) than when the meeting is free. I think this is perhaps because of the incentive for the organising group to publicise.

View with comments

Islamic Jihad Union

I have posted previously on the so-called Islamic Jihad Union, which appears to be a creation of the Uzbek Security Services and the CIA, and the extraordinary claims that it was responsible for a plot to blow up a US airbase as well as bars and nightclubs in Germany.

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2007/09/islamic_jihad_u.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1595387,00.html

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2007/09/the_mysterious.html#comments

A recent ARD documentary further unpicked this story. For example German prosecutors have said that the group bought bomb-making equipment (tape, batteries and a watch) from a garage store. The documentary makers contacted the store, who checked their till receipts and found that they had sold none of those items on the given day.

We now have vital confirmation that the only link between the three alleged terrorists and the “Islamic Jihad Union” is an allegation from the CIA. Thanks to the excellent Moon of Alabama for picking up on this vital interview:

The leader of the Islamic terror research group of Germany’s internal intelligence service, Benno Koepfer, thinks the above is wrong. There is no IJU. Here is an interview published today in the German daily TAZ (my slightly shortened translation):

TAZ: Were the three bomb-builders backed by the Islamic Jihad Union?

BK: I doubt that these three were working on orders by some fixed organization named Islamic Jihad Union.

TAZ: The IJU claimed responsibility for the actions of those three.

BK: There are many indication that such claims on Internet sites were done by some free loaders. There was only public information in these claims.

TAZ: What about the supposed 2004 assaults by the group in Uzbekistan?

BK: Uzbekistan does not have a free press. It is hard to verify what really happened in Uzbekistan.

TAZ: Where is the origin of the earlier assumption that the bomb builders are related to the IJU?

BK: Those were informations from U.S. intelligence services.

TAZ: Could the IJU be an invention of western intelligence services?

BK: I will not speculate about that.

TAZ: Can you voice these doubts without problems?

BK: Yes. It is important to tell the public that there are such doubts. If it would surface three years from now that IJU never existed, it would be more troublesome for the intelligence services.

http://www.moonofalabama.org/2007/10/lets-bury-the-i.html#more

View with comments