Posts

The State Without

 in UK Policy by | View Comments

I was first alerted to the new BBC flagship drama The State Within by a friend who pointed out some of the BBC publicity to me. It concerned a character in the series, a former British Ambassador, who the BBC described thus:

‘James Sinclair. An outspoken critic of President Usman and the human rights abuse he encountered in Tyrgyzstan. As a result he was recalled and subsequently fired from the job of Ambassador. Seen as an embarassment to the UK government, who support Usman and have many commercial and strategic interests in the country. Now determined to turn Western public opinion against Usman. And to force both the UK and US administrations into withdrawing their support for him.’

Now if you substitute the very real Uzbekistan of President Karimov for the fictional Tyrgyzstan, you get a description of me precise in every detail. Uniquely so – there is nobody else that description remotely fits.

There are other coincidences ‘ the Prime Minister of Uzbekistan when I was Ambassador was named Usmanov. James Sinclair is an anglicised Scot like me. I live in Sinclair Gardens. Sinclair’s wife has the common Uzbek name of Saida. I have an Uzbek partner. Like me, his tipple is neat Scotch (not as common as you might think).

Both ‘Tyrgyzstan’ and Uzbekistan are in Central Asia; both have major US airbases threatened by a change of allegiance of the dictator. Both are described by the US and UK as ‘an ally in the War on Terror’ and ‘A backdoor to Afghanistan’. Both have perpetrated a large scale massacre of pro-democracy demonstrators.

Which was fine by me. I like the series, and James Sinclair is well played. I have received scores of emails from viewers, mostly complete strangers, commenting on the series, often asking me about its accuracy.

So I was pretty surprised to hear that the BBC were not just denying that the character was based on me, but denying it vehemently, as though it were an appalling accusation. A journalist had inquired, and received urgent rebuttals from both the Press Department and a producer.

Some of the things which the BBC asserted were simple nonsense. They claimed that many Ambassadors had resigned over human rights, not just Craig Murray. In fact, the only other example is David Gladstone about twenty five years ago ‘ and he wasn’t in a ‘stan’. The BBC even denied knowing that I had written my memoir, Murder in Samarkand. That is very strange, because the BBC had it in manuscript and I had formal meetings with BBC Drama over the film rights..

So what do I think of the series? On occasions the director is over-impressed by his own slickness. Rapid cutting between five second scenes accompanied by urgent percussion undermines some rather good writing, which builds up its own pace without such clich’. The atmosphere is nothing like that of any Embassy. FCO house style is much more ponderous. Nor do we sit in rooms whose walls are inexplicably all made of glass, surrounded by scores of flickering screens.

But that is to carp. This is important television. It touches on some of the most profound themes of our worrying times. In three episodes we have seen persecution of Muslims, attacks on civil rights, US support of dictatorships, false flag War on Terror operations, out of control private military companies, distorted intelligence and a very powerful statement against the death penalty.

Since resigning, I have spent the last two years in drafty halls speaking to small audiences about just these issues, and despairing as to how you reach a mass audience in these days of desocialised consumers sitting in front of their televisions. This series does it.

Bewildered as to why the BBC was denying the obvious connections, I spoke with a senior BBC contact. They sounded about as nervous to speak with me as my FCO friends, but told me that The State Within had terrified the BBC top brass because of its attack on the special relationship and the war on terror. They dreaded the government reaction. An edict on the line to take had therefore gone out to all, including the actors. The State Within is purely entertainment, with no political meaning and has no relationship to any real people, places or incidents.

But it has. The plot of The State Within begins and ends with a terrorist bomb blamed on the ‘Islamic Movement of Tyrgyzstan’, which turns out to be perpetrated by others entirely. In Murder in Samarkand I detail bombings blamed by Colin Powell on the real Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan. British Embassy investigation proved these not to be what they seemed.

Getting my book published involved tough negotiations between the publisher and the FCO, determining what could be published without the government taking legal action. My conclusions on who was behind those bombs were scrubbed out. But I managed to slip past the censors: ‘it is instructive to read Graham Greene’s great novel The Quiet American and acquaint yourself with the historical truth behind it.’ Greene’s novel hinges upon a real event ‘ a terrorist bomb planted by the CIA and blamed on the Viet Cong.

In fact the world of The State Within is more real than you might imagine. There may yet be a story twist to please the conservatives. But already the BBC has produced something brave, relevant and timely, worthy to be mentioned in the same breath as Edge of Darkness.

They are just too scared to admit it.

Craig Murray

View with comments

The State Within

 in UK Policy by | View Comments

The State Within is currently showing on BBC tv. A diplomat’s equivalent of Spooks? It even has its own game where, as a British ambassador you try and use your Line of Influence to shape events in favour of the government.

It goes without saying that none of the characters or events have anything to do with recent history. Or do they? Click here to read a veiw on the script that you definetely won’t find on the BBC!

View with comments

BBC reopens Kelly case with new film

 in War in Iraq by | View Comments

The winds of change continue to blow…

From Times Online

THE BBC is risking a new confrontation with Downing Street by launching an investigation into the death of David Kelly, the scientist at the centre of the storm over the ‘sexed up’ dossier on Iraq’s supposed weapons of mass destruction.

It is reopening the case less than three years after its management virtually imploded with the resignations of Greg Dyke, the director general, and Gavyn Davies, its chairman, in the wake of Lord Hutton’s report into the affair.

The corporation is filming a programme about the alleged suspicious circumstances surrounding Kelly’s death in an Oxfordshire wood. It has told officials who carried out a post-mortem and toxicology tests on Kelly’s body that it ‘wants to quash conspiracy theories’ about the death. But it has interviewed independent doctors who point to unexplained discrepancies in the results of Kelly’s post-mortem. They suggest that neither the wound to his left wrist nor the drugs found in his body was sufficient to kill him.

Via Blairwatch

View with comments

The rules of the game – play to the tabloid gallery

 in UK Policy by | View Comments

A new report has been relaeased by the Joseph Roundtree Trust entitled “The Rules of the Game: Terrorism, Community and Human Rights”

It describes some of the deficiencies in the UK gvernment’s current strategy against terrorism.

‘The key to successfully combating terrorism lies in winning the trust and cooperation of the Muslim communities in the UK. However, the government’s counter terrorism legislation and rhetorical stance are between them creating serious losses in human rights and criminal justice protections’they are having a disproportionate effect on the Muslim communities in the UK and so are prejudicing the ability of the government and security forces to gain the very trust and cooperation from individuals in those communities that they require to combat terrorism.’

The full report (pdf) can be accessed here

View with comments

EU likely to roll back Uzbekistan sanctions

 in Uzbekistan by | View Comments

From EUOBSERVER / BRUSSELS

The EU is likely to drastically scale down sanctions against Uzbekistan at the upcoming EU foreign ministers’ meeting in Brussels on 13 November, as Europe seeks to establish a long-term energy and security foothold in Central Asia.

The sanctions – which consist of an arms embargo, a visa ban on 12 Uzbek officials and freezing high-level bilateral talks – were imposed after last May’s massacre in Andijan, but elapse automatically on 17 November unless renewed by a consensus of all 25 member states.

Uzbekistan has not met any of the conditions stipulated in last year’s EU resolution – such as setting up an independent inquiry into the shooting of at least 180 civilians in Andijan – with European politicians and NGOs agreeing that human rights abuses have worsened in the past 18 months.

But Germany is suggesting cutting sanctions to an arms embargo only, EU diplomats say, after reports from the seven EU embassies in Tashkent said sanctions have achieved nothing except pushing Uzbekistan closer to Russia.

“The sanctions would probably be dropped sooner or later with no political gain for the EU, but now there is still an opportunity to sell them for some kind of closer cooperation,” one EU official said. “Everybody wants to be politically correct, but the [German] calculus is quite persuasive.”

France and Poland are also sympathetic to Germany’s mini-sanctions idea, but the decision still remains open with the UK pushing for the EU to take a hard line. “That’s the only leverage we have,” a British diplomat said. “It would be the wrong political signal at the wrong time.”

The UK’s integrity on Uzbekistan is under a question mark, however, after the former British ambassador to Uzbekistan, Craig Murray, testified to MEPs in April that Uzbek authorities have tortured terrorist suspects on London’s behalf.

Meanwhile, the European Parliament on 26 October gave a mixed message, calling for the EU to keep the arms embargo and extend the visa ban list to president Islam Karimov, but also saying sanctions have “not produced positive results so far” and need “review” in light of any future Uzbek concessions.

The Uzbekistan gambit

German diplomats, the Finnish EU presidency and the European Commission will meet with Uzbek officials in Brussels on 8 November, with Tashkent expected to offer the EU a regular human rights dialogue and to bring forward the abolition of the death penalty from 2008 to 2007.

German foreign minister Frank Walter Steinmeier is visiting Uzbekistan this week to see what the Uzbeks might put on the table at the 8 November meeting, following a visit by the EU’s Central Asia special envoy, Pierre Morel, the week before.

But the EU official quoted above said speedy acceptance of any concessions on face-value would be “a fig-leaf for a Bismarck-style realpolitik” with member states wary of a media backlash from NGOs such as the International Crisis Group (ICG) if sanctions are dropped “for free.”

Berlin already attracted bad press on Uzbekistan after giving special permission for ex-Uzbek interior minister Zokirjon Almatov to visit Germany for medical treatment last November, just days after his name was put on the visa ban list.

The EU’s strategic interests in Uzbekistan include potential new gas supplies and security cooperation for NATO’s anti-Taleban operation in Afghanistan as well as wider intelligence gathering efforts in the “war on terror,” with Germany keeping a military air base in Termez, near the Uzbek-Afghan border.

Uzbekistan’s regional weight also makes it key to Berlin’s plan to extend the European Neighbourhood Policy – an enhanced EU political and economic integration package – to Central Asia under the German EU presidency next year.

Gas and terrorism

Tashkent is reputed to be sitting on 1.86 trillion cubic metres of natural gas reserves – enough to power the whole of the EU for four years – and controls the biggest population, the second biggest economy and second biggest army of the Central Asian states.

“If we do not build the Trans-Caspian pipeline [linking the EU to Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan via the Caspian Sea] we should be aware that this gas will flow to China,” energy commissioner Andris Piebalgs recently told EUobserver.

But analysts warn Europe could be overestimating both the size of Uzbekistan’s gas reserves and its willingness to fall in with EU needs. “Everyone in the region is laughing at the EU, because whatever gas there is has already been sold to Gazprom,” ICG expert Alba Lamberti said.

View with comments

UK Iraq policy a ‘rank disaster’

 in War in Iraq by | View Comments

From BBC Online

…the measure of success in foreign policy should be “minimisation of suffering” and “if that is your measure, our policy has been a rank disaster in the last few years in terms of blood shed. By that measure that invasion has been a much greater disaster even than Suez,”

A high ranking British diplomat, who quit over the war with Iraq, has called policy in the region a “rank disaster”. Carne Ross told MPs the intelligence presented to the public about weapons of mass destruction was “manipulated”.

He also added that “the proper legal advice from the Foreign office on the legality of the war was ignored”. Mr Blair has always defended the war’s legality and the Butler inquiry said there was no evidence of “deliberate distortion” of intelligence on WMD. During his 45-minute evidence session Mr Ross also attacked the “politicisation” of the diplomatic service, and claimed promotion depended on agreeing with Mr Blair.

Mr Ross, who said he had been a friend of weapons scientist Dr David Kelly and had a hand in drawing up one of the government’s weapons dossiers, said he accepted the prime minister was ultimately responsible for foreign policy. But he added: “Policy making in the run up to the Iraq was, I think, extremely poor in that I don’t think the proper available alternatives to war were properly considered.

“I think the presentation of intelligence to the public on weapons of mass destruction was manipulated and I think that the proper legal advice from the foreign office on the legality of the war was ignored.”

‘Creeping politicisation’

Mr Ross, who was head of strategy for the UN mission in Kosovo, and also played a leading role in devising policy on Iraq and Afghanistan, said decision-making power was concentrated in the hands of too small a group. And there was a “political element at work in promotions to the most senior levels of the foreign office”. He said he had also noticed a growing tendency for officials “to tell ministers what they wish to hear in order to advance one’s own individual prospects”.

He told MPs: “There is a kind of subtle and creeping politicisation of the diplomatic service that in order to get promoted you have to show yourself as being sympathetic in identifying with the views of ministers and, in particular, the prime minister.

“Secondly, and this was the case in the Conservative government before Labour took office, decision-making powers have become increasingly concentrated in Number 10… the Foreign Office has become subsidiary to Number 10.”

On Iraq, he said the measure of success in foreign policy should be “minimisation of suffering” and “if that is your measure, our policy has been a rank disaster in the last few years in terms of blood shed”.

By that measure that invasion has been a much greater disaster even than Suez,” he added.

Mr Ross said Foreign Office officials had been split over the invasion of Iraq.

Meanwhile, the Government hangs on to its right to declare war without parliamentary involvement. The Guardian reports that the government was accused yesterday of giving a “temporising and woolly” response to an inquiry by an all-party committee of peers into the role of parliament over the deployment of British forces overseas.

Lord Holme, chairman of the Lords constitution committee, said the government’s response to its report, Waging War: Parliament’s Role and Responsibility, demonstrated “a complete failure on the part of the government to give any real consideration to our key recommendation – that the role of parliament in the deployment of forces outside the UK should be established in a new convention”.

The government says in its response: “The ability of the executive to take decisions flexibly and quickly using prerogative powers remains an important cornerstone of our democracy”. However, it adds: “Whilst the government could in theory deploy the armed forces overseas without the support of parliament, it would be almost impossible to identify a set of circumstances which would allow the government to act without parliamentary support.”

View with comments

Review: Murder in Samarkand

 in The Book by | View Comments

From neweurasia

I know what you were thinking: ‘It’s about time for another post about Craig Murray, because we haven’t had enough of those.’ Well you are in luck, because I just read his new book, Murder in Samarkand, and am about to ‘ somewhat reluctantly ‘ share my thoughts on it.

But first I should note that, according to Mr. Murray, there are currently no plans to release the book in the States. Luckily, American readers can buy it on the UK Amazon site, although I wouldn’t recommend it as in-flight reading.

Love Murray or hate him, the book is an interesting read that anyone interested in Central Asia or the War on Terror should be familiar with. If you’ve been living in a cave, Craig Murray is the former British Ambassador to Uzbekistan during 2002-2004. He was eventually fired from his post by the Foreign Office, allegedly because of his personal indiscretion, but he argues that he was sacked because of his stance on human rights issues and opposition to the Iraq war. Murder in Samarkand is his side of the story.

The Good

For people who have not had the luxury to spend a great deal of time in Uzbekistan, this book is a wonderful way to obtain information one doesn’t necessarily get from academic journals or news reports. Murray relays the rumors and oral history directly from the mouths of people he meets, including torture victims, KGB agents, and government officials. Naturally all of this information must be taken with a grain of salt, but Murray is fairly up front about how he came by the stories he is told.

I was impressed by Murray’s defense of the accusations leveled against him. He often backs up his points with citations referencing websites on which he posts actual classified transcripts he went to pains to obtain, but was not allowed to publish for fear of legal action.

The book is obviously not a comedy, but there are parts that are hysterical. For instance, in one scene Murray repeats word-for-word Karimov’s ‘paranoid’ speech, complete with a translation from BS into English. I have heard others recount these infamous, rehashed speeches, but Murray describes it in particular detail and directly from the horse’s mouth:

[President Karimov] ‘The greatest misfortune in the history of the Uzbek people is what happened in what you call the Great Game. Unforunately, The British were never able to make any progress stowards Central Asia, and their efforts to do so met with some very historic defeats’

Subtext: your country doesn’t really cut that much ice around here.

‘ and so forth.

Finally, Murray is remarkably candid about his personal life. He seems to hold nothing back about his affair, the end of his marriage, nights spent at strip clubs, etc. There is a flip side to this honesty, however, which will be my first point in the next section.

(more…)

View with comments

Whitewash revisited

 in War in Iraq by | View Comments

The author of the Hutton Report is making a forlorn attempt to salvage his professional reputation by publishing a defence of his judgement, some 2 years after the enquiry. Blairwatch provides a useful reminder and critique of the task facing this rather shaky pillar of the establishment.

The Hutton Inquiry was convened in 2003 with the terms of reference to “…urgently to conduct an investigation into the circumstances surrounding the death of Dr Kelly.”

David Kelly had been an employee of the United Kingdom Ministry of Defence (MoD), an expert in biological warfare, and a former United Nations weapons inspector in Iraq. Kelly’s discussion with BBC journalist Andrew Gilligan about the British government’s dossier on weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in Iraq led to a major political scandal. Days after appearing before a Parliamentary committee investigating it David Kelly was found dead.

The public inquiry into the circumstances surrounding his death, ruled that he had committed suicide, and that Kelly had not said some of the quotes attributed to him by Gilligan. One of the many inconsistencies of the Hutton report is that evidence provided to the enquiry by BBC journalist Susan Watts confirmed that Kelly had indeed had serious doubts about the “45 minutes” claim published by the British government, and that he considered the Number 10 press office to be responsible for the inappropriate insertion of this claim into the published dossier on WMD.

Lord Hutton and the UK Government obviously have no problem with paradox!

View with comments

REMEMBRANCE DAY FOR IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN

 in UK Policy by | View Comments

From Military Families Against the War

Members of military families who have lost loved ones or have family serving in Iraq and Afghanistan have designated Saturday November 11 as Iraq and Afghanistan remembrance day.

We have organised a wreath-laying ceremony at the Cenotaph in Whitehall at 2pm on that day. After the ceremony we will be handing in a letter to Tony Blair signed by 500 military family members calling for the troops to be brought home.

We are appealing to members of military families, veterans and service people to join us in holding a minute’s silence and laying wreaths for all the service men and women and civilians killed in Blair’s wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

We will be assembling in Prince Charles Street off Whitehall at 2pm on Saturday November 11th.

Yours

Rose Gentle

Peter Brierley

Military Families Against the War

www.mfaw.org.uk

for further information contact:

Rose Gentle: 07951 767 530

Andrew Burgin: 07939 242 229

View with comments

Labour MP Hypocrisy

 in War in Iraq by | View Comments

Tartan Hero tallies the Labour MPs most responsible for the defeat of last weeks call for an Iraq war enquiry:

A quick glance of Hansard shows that the following EDM1088 signatures, voted against the SNP/Plaid Cymru debate with an almost identical text wording:

The Roll of Shame:

Colin Challen (very disappointing as I admired him for his Climate Change agenda)

Ronnie Campbell

Michael Clapham

Jim Cousins (Labour Scot)

Ann Cryer

Jim Devine (Livingston MP)

Neil Gerrard

Ian Gibson (Labour Scot)

Jim McGovern (Dundee West MP)

Austin Mitchell

Linda Riordan

Jon Trickett

The rush of Scottish, or Scottish-born but representing an English seat, Labour MPs who have rallied to support Blair this time even though they have publicly campaigned against the war on Iraq is galling. Michael Connarty. Ann McKechin. And Joan Ruddock? I used to admire her for her leadership of CND in the 1980s.

Congratulations to Dr Gavin Strang for having the integrity to vote according to his beliefs and previous support for EDM 1088.

It’s very clear that because it was a Nationalist motion they couldn’t bring themselves to support the motion. Talk about putting your party prejudices before your own beliefs, and your own country’s interests, disgraceful. But we wont forget.

View with comments

The sentencing of Saddam Hussein

 in War in Iraq by | View Comments

I hold no brief for Saddam Hussein. He is a gruesome dictator who is much better out of power, and a dangerous man who is much better in captivity. I am nonetheless sorry he will be murdered by the State. Iraq has seen quite enough death already, and like so many of the others, this will merely engender more. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have died already due to the Bush/Blair invasion. The vast majority of them were totally innocent. If you kill hundreds of thousands of innocent people, you are bound to kill the odd guilty one from time to time, whether by accident or design. That is the measure of the Bush/Blair achievement.

This death, just like that of al-Zaqarwi, will be hailed as a “Turning-point” by the invaders, their leaders, puppets and media spokesmen. So was the capture of Saddam, so were the elections, so was the formation of the government, so was the disbanding of the army. It is unsurprising that there have been so many – a downward spiral is just an unending circle of turning points, and Iraq has been embarked on a helter-skelter ride to Hell. Given what came after him, Bush/Blair have achieved the near impossible feat of making Saddam Hussein look like a comparatively better leader for the Iraqi people.

The trial itself was a political charade with the Americans as puppeteers. Judges were repeatedly changed if they showed any sign of independent thought. Defence lawyers who looked too effective were simply murdered. The TV cameras were turned off on the show trial if it got sticky for the US – with an American hand on the button. And the ultimate in stage management, the verdict was handed down two days before the US mid-term elections. Who honestly does not believe that timing was contrived?

I am all in favour of Dictators and War Criminals being punished. I wish Saddam had received a fair trial, and think the Hague would have been much better – he would have been seen to get a fair trial, and I am pretty sure a fair guilty verdict. We should not lose sight of the need to hold justice over the mighty. Bush and Blair are responsible for the unprovoked invasion of a sovereign state, against the wishes of the UN Security Council. They have on their hands the blood of hundreds of thousands of people. I live and hope that I will see the day when they are in the dock.

I will still be against the death penalty.

Craig Murray

View with comments

A Complete Review Of Craig Murray’s Seminar or How I Learned To Stop Worrying And Hate The Left

 in War in Iraq by | View Comments

“There is some validity in this critique, and certainly many on the left display an over-simplistic world view. But then so does this commentator, in being distracted from the truth of our illegal and aggressive foreign policy, which has killed hundreds of thousands of people – rather more important than being annoyed by a chap with a beard.”

From Semp

A Complete Review Of Craig Murray’s Seminar or How I Learned To Stop Worrying And Hate The Left

The other night, Bradford University’s Richmond Building was graced with the presence of Craig Murray, the former UK ambassador to Uzbekistan. Uzbekistan is ostensibly a great friend of the UK and the Coallition of the Willing, so dedicated to those noble values of Freedom and Democracy and Justice that when the CIA happens to drop off an individual who may or may not actually be guilty of something, in Tashkent, their security services stop at nothing to drain the suspect of every last drop of information. The standard gamut of what the US euphmeistically refers to as “hard interrogation” techniques are employed, as well as their own homegrown notoriety: the boiling of subjects alive. Either whole or limb by limb. Let Freedom Ring, baby.

So Murray came to Bradford as part of a tour supporting his new book which goes into greater detail about his discovery of this scheme of “extraordinary rendition”, and his subsequent dismissal from his post by the Home Office after he steadfastly refused to be cowed into silence on the matter. Unlike many speakers embraced by the Stop The War movement, Murray speaks with modesty and a cool head. While he does occasionally stray toward conspiracy theorist territory with some of his musings about the motivations for various wars and military strategy, he remains rooted in the overall political mainstream. This granted him a certain credibility that managed to overcome, for example, the faux-blood spattered banner of the Bradford Stop The War Coallition slung haphazardly from the whiteboard behind him. Too bad this credibility has yet to seep into the movement that supports him.

At the end of the evening, Murray opened the floor for a question and answer session. The first participant was a middle aged white man, who stood up and solemnly intoned “I’m going to say something that’s illegal.” At this point I was already thinking “Oh Christ. Here we go. ‘F*ck Tony Blair, down with capitalism. Fight the system, man'”

“You’ll say it’s glorifying terrorism. Victory to Hamas! Victory to the Insurgents in Iraq!”

When I’m angry I typically have two mental states: Quiet seething rage, and Verbose Invective. But I was so stultified by this demonstration of pure idiocy that was I stuck trotally dumb. The brutal tidal wave of deep foolishness pouring from this man’s primary oriphice seemed to knock my brain out of joint, leaving my jaw hanging, useless, totally mute. Before I even had a chance to try to organise my cluster of outraged semi-thoughts into some sort of blistering response at least half the room erupted into spontaneous applause. At that point, hell froze over, the world became a different place and a million and one shrill right-wingers were proved totally correct.

(more…)

View with comments

The Horrors of “Extraordinary Rendition”

 in Rendition by | View Comments

By Maher Arar in FPIF

Canadian citizen Maher Arar, who is barred from entering the United States, delivered his acceptance speech for the Letelier-Moffitt International Human Rights Award in a pre-recorded videotape. This is a transcript of his speech, which was viewed at the award ceremony hosted by the Institute for Policy Studies on Oct. 18, 2006 in Washington, DC.

This award means a tremendous amount to us. It means that there are still Americans out there who value our struggle for justice.

It means that there are Americans out there who are truly concerned about the future of America. We now know that my story is not a unique one. Over the past two years we have heard from many other people who were, who have been kidnapped, unlawfully detained, tortured and eventually released without being charged with any crime in any country.

Maher Arar, a Canadian citizen, was a victim of the U.S. policy known as “extraordinary rendition.” He was detained by U.S. officials in 2002, accused of terrorist links, and handed over to Syrian authorities, who tortured him. Arar is working with the Center for Constitutional Rights to appeal a case against the U.S. government that was dismissed on national security grounds.

View with comments

EU divided over Uzbek sanctions

 in Uzbekistan by | View Comments

By Stephen Castle in The Independent

Sanctions imposed by Europe on Uzbekistan over human rights abuses are likely to be scaled back this month, prompting divisions over EU efforts to expand its influence in Central Asia.

Although an arms embargo is almost certain to remain in place, there is pressure to lift a visa ban on 12 Uzbek officials, and to unfreeze high-level talks.

The measures were taken in protest at the shooting of at least 180 civilians in Andijan. But unless there is agreement from all 25 EU nations, the sanctions will expire on 17 November.

At a meeting with the EU this week, Uzbekistan is expected to offer to hold a human rights dialogue and to discuss Andijan. Many EU members want a judicial investigation into the massacre, and punishment of those responsible.

But Germany has argued that the visa ban has been ineffective since only eight of those named remain in their posts, and five are in a minor position. Germany’s critics claim that it is motivated by commercial and energy interest in Uzbekistan. But Berlin said a failure to construct a dialogue with Uzbekistan was counter-productive. That position could be supported by France and Spain. However, the UK is pushing for a tough line and said there was a strong case for sanctions to continue.

View with comments

The British parliament is God’s gift to dictatorship

 in UK Policy by | View Comments
By Simon Jenkins in The Guardian

Last night’s vote against an inquiry into the Iraq war underlines parliament’s surrender of its democratic function

The British parliament is God’s gift to dictatorship. If I were an absolute ruler I would get one immediately. Last night Britons were offered the spectacle of their MPs pleading with the government to be allowed an inquiry into the Iraq war. For all the vigour of the debate, they were still humiliated by the government’s supporters. While British soldiers ram democracy down others’ throats at the point of a gun, their representatives seem incapable of performing democracy’s simplest ritual, challenging the executive.

Go here for the full article

View with comments

MPs to vote today on an investigation of Government policy in going to Iraq

 in War in Iraq by | View Comments

From www.impeachblair.org

Members of Parliament today get a chance to cast vote on the need to set up an inquiry into the conduct of Government policy in relation to the war in Iraq.

The debate is secured in Plaid Cymru and SNP Opposition Day debate, and is supported by a cross party coalition of MPs. The motion concerning the debate is based on Early Day Motion 1088, ‘Conduct of Government Policy in relation to the war against Iraq’ * . The EDM and the longer version published in the House of Commons Future Business attracted 164 signatures (including 33 Labour, 60 Conservatives and 59 Liberal Democrats MPs).

Plaid Cymru’s Defence spokesperson, Adam Price MP said today:

“Three and a half years on and Iraq is mired in blood, and the shocking figures published recently show that the death toll has reached 655,000. Neither the Hutton nor Butler Inquiries addressed the question if the Parliament and country were misled into this bloody conflict. I believe that it is essential for the credibility of our democracy that we establish what combination of deception, delusion and ineptitude carried us down this fateful path.

“This debate is not about revisiting old ground ‘ it is an urgent attempt to restore the balance of power between Parliament and the Executive; and of the utmost contemporary relevance if we are to prevent such tragedies from happening again. It will probably be the first and last occasion to restore proper accountability of Government.”

SNP Leader Alex Salmond said:

“This debate offers MPs a second chance – a chance to re-establish Parliamentary accountability over an executive who has led the country into a bloody quagmire – and a last chance to change strategy and direction on the disastrous course of events in Iraq.

“If this motion carries – or indeed even if it records a substantial shift in opinion since the vote which took us to war – Mr Blair’s time in Downing Street will be numbered in days, not weeks or months.”

The text of the motion is based on Early Day Motion 1088:

“That this House believes that there should be a select committee of seven honourable Members, being members of Her Majesty’s Privy Council, to review the way in which the responsibilities of government were discharged in relation to Iraq and all matters relevant thereto, in the period leading up to military action in that country in March 2003 and in its aftermath.”

www.impeachblair.org

View with comments

UK Parliament to Debate Iraq War: Emergency protest called

 in War in Iraq by | View Comments

EMERGENCY PROTEST ON THE IRAQ WAR

TUESDAY 31 OCTOBER ASSEMBLE 5PM-7PM

PARLIAMENT SQUARE, LONDON SW1

On Tuesday 31 October, Parliament will debate and vote on the Iraq war for the first time since March 18 2003. Alex Salmond, one of the MPs who initiated the debate, says: “This is the first time since the invasion of Iraq that the government can be held to account over this illegal and unwanted war.”

STOP THE WAR COALITION has called an emergency protest in front of Parliament when the debate takes place between 5pm and 7pm. MPs must end a war which has brought nothing but mass slaughter and devastation to the people of Iraq. There is no excuse. It’s what the majority of British people want. It’s what even the head of the British armed forces, General Sir Richard Dannatt, wants.

View with comments