Mentions and Non-Mentions 51


I was the answer to a question on University Challenge yesterday! Thanks to all who sent me messages to let me know. If anyone remembers the actual question I should be interested to hear. Apparently none of the students had ever heard of me.

From surprising mentions to surprising non-mentions. The Guardian wrote an excellent editorial on the continuing hypocrisy of the West’s relationship with Uzbekistan. Despite specifically covering the time I was there, and being about torture and rhe West’s reliance on Uzbekistan for supply to Afghanistan, resulting in a willingness to placate the Karimov regime, there is no mention of the British sacking their Ambassador for opposing this policy. It is not, I think, vainglorious to find it a strange omission.

I have mentioned before the Guardian consistently and completely writing me out of their reports about extraordinary rendition and UK complicity in torture. I am reminded of the fact that the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee asked seven different witnesses, including Jack Straw, specifically about me by name and my actions, but refused to allow me to give evidence on my own account.

When you are a whistleblower you become a non-person, simply written out of existence by the various organs of the Establishment, including those which pretend to constitute a form of opposition. Every now and then you get a reminder of your existence, reduced to a curiosity like the subject of a quiz question. But the official narrative closes over you and the truths you revealed, smoothly, like a Jack Straw speech or a Guardian editorial.


Allowed HTML - you can use: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

51 thoughts on “Mentions and Non-Mentions

1 2
  • Clanger

    You get a plug in the CIF. This could have the unfortunate effect of directing all the right wing trolls that infest CIF in your direction; hope not.

  • conjunction

    The question was one of a three part question relating to Samarquand. The answer to one question was Tamerlane. Your question was to identify you as our ambassador, can’t remember whether it mentioned you got sacked.

    Fame at last!

  • conjunction

    The question asked about you as author of your book, but did not mention human rights, or that you had been sacked.

  • kashmiri

    Craig, little chance Karimov changes his policies if West does not talk to him. Actually, he is quite useful in blocking Russia’s influence southwards: just imagine someone like Lukashenko or Aliyev was in his place.

    As regards dictators: http://alphadesigner.com/wp-content/uploads/world-dictatorships-according-to-the-us.jpg

    Besides, having lived a bit in various parts of Asia I am ready to argue that Uzbekistan is not the worst place to live, especially for the poor.

  • Mary

    Well it was bloody Paxman asking the questions! His days as the tool of the USUKIsNATO axis are nearly spent. ‘Is there slaughter on your hands?’ to someone the other day opposed to intervention in Syria. Well past his sell by date.

    .
    Amd as for the Guardian, see the extensive and continued coverage on Medialens.

  • kashmiri

    The above was not to defend Karimov: however, politics is a very dirty business and hardly ever is based on any values. When it is, “values” are used to justify policy rather than to shape it. Whistleblowing is beautiful – but does it prevent wars or stops big corporate interests? IMHO, systems can be blown only from inside.

  • Giles

    I hope no one minds, but I’ve just finished my first attempt at a blog (you get a mention in it, Craig!). None of my friends or family are really that interested in politics, so I thought I would run it past you all here. I would appreciate any feedback if anyone can get through it. I’m not sure if I should start my own blog yet.

    .
    ‘Humanitarian intervention’ is war by another name.

    .
    28 Syrians were killed on Friday in Aleppo in two bomb strikes targeting government buildings which the so-called ‘Free Syrian Army’ has blamed on the government. The corporate media seems intent on running with whatever version of events is handed to it by the ‘rebels’ (for elsewhere, read ‘terrorists’ or ‘insurgents’), whom it portrays as unified opposition to the regime of Bashar al-Assad. As former British ambassador to Uzbekistan, Craig Murray, noted after the Damascus bombings a week previously, “I am very interested that the BBC reports bombings in Damascus as false flag bombings by the Assad regime, when I found that to note false flag bombings by UK/US ally Karimov in Tashkent was treated as crazed conspiracy theory”. The bombings ran counter to the simplistic narrative promoted by the Western media and the various neo-liberal and neo-conservative think tanks and lobby groups which have been pressing for military intervention in Syria since the uprising began last summer. This narrative presents a black-and-white story of good versus evil; of peace-loving Syrians uniting to overthrow a cruel dictator and of ‘Butcher’ Assad ‘pounding’ them (the favoured word of the Guardian and BBC) with tank shells and artillery for their efforts. It is full of naïve assumptions which facilitate a far more insidious agenda.

    .
    The reality is that is very hard to put together a balanced picture of what is happening in Syria, partly because it is a much more complicated situation than the BBC would have us believe, involving disparate groups with widely varying aims, not all of which are peace-loving or democratic, and partly because very few journalists have been able to access the country. One notable exception is the BBC’s Paul Wood, who has been dispatched to Homs where he is entrenched with the rebels as part of an effort to give credence to their claims, which to date have been supported mostly by shaky mobile phone footage, sound recordings and photographic stills that seldom prove anything one way or another. We also have the claims of highly dubious-sounding ‘activists’ in Syria, most of whom speak with London or American accents, who relay stories of ever-escalating atrocities being carried out by the regime and who plead for Western intervention at every available opportunity. Then there are the wealthy and influential Syrian ex-pats, who are regularly invited onto the broadcast media to air their grievances. This group cares more about the expensive shops and restaurants of Knightsbridge than it does about the plight of ordinary Syrians, but they are given substantial amounts of airtime because they at least sound authentic, they support the establishment media narrative, and, of course, they are calling for Western intervention. Social media has been utilised, but we have no way of knowing if blogs and tweets coming out of Syria are fabrications, as turned out to be the case when the blogger “Gay Girl in Damascus” was revealed to be one Tom MacMaster, an American student living in Edinburgh. MacMaster claims it was just a hoax, but both the medium he used and the persona he chose – an oppressed lesbian fighting to express herself under a repressive and intolerant regime – point to very carefully chosen propaganda clearly aimed at appealing to the young, liberal mindset in the West, which also happens to be the most vociferous anti-war section of society.

    .
    Since the Iraq War, the neo-conservative doctrine has been thoroughly discredited and another large-scale war of aggression would be deeply unpopular with the public. It has been replaced by the much more underhand tactic of “humanitarian intervention”, with which we are persuaded to support the overthrow of hostile regimes on the grounds not that they threaten us, but that they are harming their own people. The establishment took note of the widespread public outcry over Iraq and adjusted its methods accordingly, so that war is now peace and anyone who opposes it is an apologist for violence. The process is cynical but effective. We are bombarded with one-sided coverage of a conflict, complete with all the gruesome detail that can be mustered, which gradually builds up to a point at which “something must be done”, before a course of action as innocuous-sounding as a ‘no-fly zone’ is proposed. Any objection to this can be easily nullified as the sides have been switched and the newspeak has the warmonger as the peacenik so that the opponent will be made to look as though they support violence, rape, torture and so on. Incidentally, I do not recall the same shrill voices calling for humanitarian intervention during the actual genocides which took place in Rwanda and Darfur, where one well-armed battalion could have averted tragedy, and nor do they seem to have much to say about state repression in Saudi Arabia or Bahrain, both of which are key allies with whom we trade oil and arms. If there is one thing that gives the lie to the notion of humanitarian intervention, it is the fact that it is only ever applied to states which present a geo-strategic impediment to Western interests.

    .
    In Libya, what began as a UN resolution for a ‘no-fly zone’ ended up as a full-scale NATO-led bombing campaign, with the arming and funding of fundamentalist militia and foreign mercenaries almost certainly supported on the ground by Western special forces. Humanitarian intervention morphed into regime change and most worryingly of all, many on the anti-war left bought the lie. Russia and China will not be fooled twice and the United States, which has a long and shameful history of standing alone in vetoing resolutions against Israel, has termed their refusal to sanction a resolution against Syria an act of complicity in Syrian government violence. As Alexei Pushkov, the head of the Russian State Duma’s foreign affairs committee, told reporters last week, “We are against using humanitarian reasons to change the regime”. It would be easy to deride such a statement, but Russia is under no illusions about the West’s motives or intentions and it knows they are anything but humanitarian. Assad is undoubtedly a thug, but he is correct in stating that external forces are at work and attempting to destabilise Syria for geo-political gain. If the people of Syria wish to overthrow the regime, then that is matter for them to decide and events must be allowed to run their course. It is the motive for intervention that is being questioned here.

    .
    If the interventionists get their way, then Syria, like Libya and Iraq before it, will be left a divided and war-torn mess for decades to come. By arming and supporting the various anti-regime factions, which are controlled more by foreign-backed mercenaries and Saudi-funded Sunni extremists than they are by young Syrians trying to organize democracy on their mobile phones, the West hopes to destabilise Syria under the old practice of ‘divide et impera’, so that Syrians will be too busy fighting amongst themselves to put up any coherent resistance to US-Israeli hegemony in the Middle East. As Syria is Iran’s only major ally in the region, chaos in Syria will ultimately pave the way for an attack on Iran, which could take place as early as this summer. It should be added that Syria is home to many religious minorities who have enjoyed protection under the secular Assad regime. They will be the first victims if Assad is deposed and the Christians who have lived there for millennia will be forced to flee. Most of the objections raised by the few remaining journalists not enamoured with the idea of liberal interventionism have taken its proponents by their word and tend to criticize them for “misplaced compassion” or “wishful thinking”. It is not. It is the planned and deliberate subversion of states not amenable to our economic and strategic interests. The ‘Arab Spring’, which at first was organic and took the West somewhat by surprise, has been quickly and skilfully co-opted and the long-held desire of Arabs to free themselves of authoritarian rule has itself been turned into a weapon to be used against them. Meanwhile, we are being urged into supporting murder and destruction by way of a wholly deceitful and perverse appeal to our humanity.

  • Passerby

    Craig,
    The rule of silence and acquiescence in the world of fishwives, makes those transgressors whom have committed the ultimate sins of making known the duplicitous and inhumane conduct born out of the fishwives’ mendacious, fickle, and inane minds, to be dealt with by the severe wroth of the said class of wifey.
    ,
    Humanity having lost its bearings has been hijacked by the worst elements of the human kind and is being driven relentlessly towards its demise.
    ,
    However, you can always stand proud in the knowledge that you did not relent or let the fishwives to turn you into a monstrous Tartuffe. Craig you held on to your humanity and that is what matters, furthermore, we the other human beings the very real representatives of the human kind appreciate your sacrifices in holding up to the pressures and revealing the truth.

  • craig Post author

    Kashmiri,

    I fear you are not spending enough of your time acutally mixing with ordinary poor Uzbeks. A system designed to maintain strong elite control of all economic activity – either through state or mafia instruments – leaves them poor and powerless, and the social services are collapsing from their Soviet standards. Uzbekistan should be a reasonably wealthy country. It is not a South East Asia where you can say people have traded off freedom for prosperity. The Uzbeks have neither.

  • Iain Orr

    Craig: I get the Guardian pretty regularly – for its Sports coverage, political cartoons; and because it still has some good polemecists, even if I often disagree with them. Thus, I feel entitled to ask the Readers’ Editor about their making you and others into non-persons. I expect to get a reply, even if not one that is published. Watch this space.

  • Iain Orr

    Mary- your link to the story about the BBC’s response to a complaint was an eye-opener and deserves featuring in the Leveson Inquiry. I wonder if there will be an opportunity. Surely some of those still to give evidence are concerned about BBC editorial bias?

  • mike

    Quickie re Georgia/Delhi car-bombs — Reports say bomber was a passing motorcyclist who attached the bomb to one of the cars. This is exactly how an Iranian nuclear scientist met his end last month. Same M.O., same perp?

  • angrysoba

    The question asked about you as author of your book, but did not mention human rights, or that you had been sacked.

    .
    Grrrrr!!! I’ll bet someone in the Illuminati had those references quashed.
    .

  • angrysoba

    This is exactly how an Iranian nuclear scientist met his end last month. Same M.O., same perp?

    .
    Oh, don’t be silly. You’re not suggesting that Iran is blowing up its own nuclear scientists are you?

  • mike

    Angrysoba, I’m not suggesting that at all. I think we all know who is behind both events, and why…

  • angrysoba

    Angrysoba, I’m not suggesting that at all. I think we all know who is behind both events, and why…

    .
    Oh, you think Israel is behind all these attacks? Well, ostensibly they will be prime suspects for the attack on the nuclear scientist. I know why but could you give me a motive for them?
    .
    For the two embassy attacks I think Iran would ostensibly be prime suspect as retaliation. Can you tell me why Israel would do them?

  • mike

    Isn’t it obvious? Israel is desperate to attack Iran. This helps generate more pro-attack coverage in the media. Bibi “knew” it was Iran — and Hezbollah! — almost as soon as the attacks took place. These guys are psychopaths. They’re drooling over WW3!

  • Iain Orr

    Relevant to this thread, “The Nightmare of Government” and others is the following paper: “Deportation of individuals who may face a risk of torture – Commons Library Standard Note” , published 14 Feb 2012 – see http://tinyurl.com/7fvgvvp . I have not had time to read it yet, but suspect that it might constitute another Non-Mention (I hope not).

  • Mary

    ‘The BBC’s Jonathan Beale on board the Abraham Lincoln says the US has insisted it will keep the busy shipping lane open.’
    .
    More agro from the US for the Iranians.
    .
    The US aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln has sailed through the Strait of Hormuz, close to the coast of Iran, for the second time in recent weeks.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-17027768
    .
    They have Allan Little down in the Falklands observing the agro being handed out to Argentina and producing this drivel. {http://www.bbc.co.uk/search/news/allan_little}

  • Passerby

    Mike,
    Not so surprising to see Isreal getting referred to without the keyboard warriors staying afar.
    ,
    the main reason for the half hearted “attacks” in which no one has been killed, or injured badly are more to do with souring the relationships and catching fish out of the muddy waters, so to speak.
    ,
    India is defying the US pressure and buying her oil from Iran with gold and and a basket of none western currencies. Georgia and Iran have been engaging in closer ties. also there has been the little news flash of an Iranian or Lebanese “identity holder” who has been throwing grenades in Bangkok (another Iranian oil customer). The insinuations and the fishwife logic of zionists automatically implicates Iran (Mossad has been recruiting from the ranks of the MEK terrorist group in Iraq), however all the noises and drum beating is attracting very little attention, everyone can see the ever more desperate zionist in action with their worn out false flag ops.

  • Passerby

    Mary,
    “Abraham Lincoln has sailed through the Strait of Hormuz, close to the coast of Iran,”
    ,
    ZioBBC at its best, trying to big up the routine and sex up the aggression with the phrase; “close to coast”, with a slight oversight of the shore to ship missiles that can punch a pretty big hole in any battleship. Noecon at their best, big up the nonexistent threats, and play down the capabilities of the foe of the moment.

  • Passerby

    At a meeting with Argentine president Cristina Kirchner, the Left-wing Hollywood actor referred to the Falklands as “the Malvinas Islands of Argentina” and said Britain should entered into a UN-sponsored dialogue over their sovereignty.

    “The world today is not going to tolerate any ludicrous and archaic commitment to colonialist ideology,” he said during the meeting in Buenos Aires.
    ,
    Sean Penn not mincing his words; accuses Britain of ‘colonialism’ over Falklands

  • angrysoba

    Not so surprising to see Isreal getting referred to without the keyboard warriors staying afar.

    .
    It must be “synchronicity”! 😀 Then again, it is harldy a coincidence when you talk about Israel 24/7. More like the ceaselessly typing monkeys syndrome.

1 2

Comments are closed.