Human Rights Watch – Uzbekistan
A useful compilation of reports and documents from HRW on the human rights situation in Uzbekistan can be found here.
Posts
Craig Murray documentary – Date and time change!
The BBC have changed the date and time of the Craig Murray election campaign documentary to Wednesday September 21, at 7.00pm. Please see original post for further details.
‘The Ambassador’s Last Stand’ – A forthcoming BBC TV documentary on the Craig Murray election campaign against Jack Straw
The date and time of the broadcast has now been changed by the BBC. Please see the revised information below:
On Wednesday September 21, at 7.00pm, BBC 2 will be showing ‘The Ambassador’s Last Stand’, the story of the Craig Murray election campaign against Jack Straw in Blackburn, and the reasons for it. More than just a nostalgic look back ‘ it raises issues of the alienation of Muslims through New Labour foreign policy. In the wake of the London bomb attacks these issues are of continuing and urgent concern.
There appears to have been a degree of debate within the BBC about whether to broadcast this programme, perhaps reflected by the decision to change the broadcast day to midweek and the time to coincide with Channel 4 news! We are sorry for the change in information but, as you will understand, it was outside of our control.
For press enquiries or for further information please contact
UK government threatens judiciary with regime change over human rights
By Aine Gallagher writing in Reuters AltertNet
European Union states may have to accept an erosion of some civil liberties if their citizens are to be protected from organised crime and terrorism, EU president Britain told the European Parliament on Wednesday.
Interior Minister Charles Clarke told EU lawmakers the right to life outweighed concerns over invasion of privacy and warned judges in European courts that if they failed to recognise this, the European Convention of Human Rights may need to be changed.
“It seems to me we have to give the same rights to those humans who want to travel without being blown up on an underground train,” Clarke earlier told reporters in London.
“If the judges don’t understand that message and don’t take decisions which reflect where the people of the continent want to be, then the conclusion will be that politicians … will be saying we have got to have a change in this regime.”
Clarke hosts a two-day meeting of justice and home affairs ministers from the 25 EU states on Thursday. They will discuss proposals to log and keep records of telephone calls, email and Internet use to help police track down terrorists.
Ministers will also meet telecommunications industry and law enforcement officials to find a way to reconcile concerns about the cost of the proposed measures, which industry sources in Germany say could run into hundreds of millions of euro.
Since al Qaeda militants attacked the United States in 2001, bombers have hit transport systems in two European capitals, killing 191 commuters in Madrid last year and 52 in London in July.
“THE RIGHT NOT TO BE BLOWN UP”
Clarke’s tough stance on human rights drew criticism from the EU assembly’s Liberal Democrats and Greens.
“We do not agree … that the human rights of the victims are more important than the human rights of the terrorists,” said Graham Watson, British leader of the Liberal Democrats.
“Human rights are indivisible. Freedom and security are not alternatives, they go hand-in-hand … Much as the public may dislike it, suspected terrorists have rights.”
Watson qouted criticism by human rights lawyer Cherie Booth — wife of British Prime Minister Tony Blair — of Britain’s hardline anti-terror measures.
“To … invoke a form of summary justice would in the words of the lawyer Cherie Booth cheapen our right to call ourselves a civilised society,” he said.
EU lawmakers, sticklers for civil rights, have strongly criticised Britain’s drive for a quick deal among EU governments on the data retention plans because it would deprive them of a say on the measures, with some threatening a legal challenge.
Earlier, Clarke told reporters in London there was an impression the EU was not doing enough to tackle some of its citizens’ main concerns over serious organised crime, illegal immigration and terrorism.
He said Britain’s presidency would seek to redress the balance between an individual’s rights and national security by giving authorities more access to information for intelligence.
Law-enforcement agencies needed surveillance cameras, passports and visas should include internationally consistent biometric data, and phone companies should retain details of all calls made for a year, including unanswered ones.
“I say the doubts about civil liberties of a person who’s being photographed on a CCTV camera … or a person who has made a phone call to another person are small civil liberties in comparison with the overall civil liberty of the right not to be blown up,” he said.
Clarke’s comments reflect a frustration felt by the British government that the rights of suspects and defendants, backed by UK courts, were hindering the fight against terrorism and were taking precedence over the rights of ordinary citizens.
“The judges both in my country and in the European Court need to understand that the people of Europe … will not for a long time accept that action cannot be taken against people who are offering a real threat to our way of life because of human rights considerations,” he said.
Extraordinary Rendition – another European country says no to the US
In June we posted an article on the Italian decision to seek the arrest of 13 suspected CIA agents who are wanted for the kidnapping of Osama Moustafa Hassan Nasr in Milan in Feb 2003. It was a landmark decision which marked an important stand against the illegal process of extraordinary rendition, adopted by the USA as part of its so called “war-on-terror”.
While there is little news being reported on the process of the Italian investigation more recently another country, Denmark, appears to have also taken a position against these practices. It is reported that the Danes have imposed a ban on the CIA using their airspace for rendition flights.
Foreign Minister Per Stig M’ller is quoted as saying:
“The Ministry of Foreign Affairs has made it quite clear to U.S. officials that Denmark does not want its airspace used for purposes that are in conflict with international conventions”
The UK government by contrast is reported to have been asking the CIA to interrogate its terror suspects, held at a network of secret detention centres as part of the investigation into the London 7/7 attacks.
With thanks to Blair Watch
The Uzbekistan blog! – Preview of a book the UK government would like to ban
Thanks to everyone who logged on on the 1st Spetember as part of the day of blogging on Uzbekistan. The book chapter preview is now no longer available on this site but we will continue to post news on the book, its publication, and any further attempts by the UK government to ban it.
Roundups of the many posting on Uzbekistan that took place yesterday can be found here and here.
Update on the Pledge Bank list for Uzbekistan Blog
Tomorrow is independence day in Uzbekistan and will be marked by an international day of blogging on the call for sanctions and how to affect positive change in the country.
A pledgebank list was established to help solidify support for the idea and we are pleased to let you know that the list target has now been exceeded. However, there is still time to sign up or just take part!
A 20 second reminder of why this is a good idea.
The White House silence
US journalist David Corn comments on the White House’s silence on Uzbekistan – an American administration more than capable of being loud and undiplomatic – as the regime victimises witnesses to the massacres in May.
From www.davidcorn.com.
While Bush has been busy rah-rahing his war for freedom in Iraq, has anyone heard him refer to the Uzbekistan massacre that occurred in May, in which perhaps up to a 1000 civilians were gunned down by the military goons of strongman Islam Karimov? No, Bush and his top officials have not said much about this human rights abuse, which is probably the worst attack of this sort since the Tiananmen Square massacre. Karimov has canceled his agreement with Washington regarding an important US military base there (which probably was the reason for Bush’s low-volume reaction to the massacre), but Karimov’s decision has not apparently caused Bush to feel freer to denounce Karimov. (The base is still being used, and perhaps the White House hopes to work out a deal with Karimov.) It’s no surprise that much of the world dismisses Bush’s pro-freedom rhetoric, given that he has much to say about freedom in some places and little to say about freedom in other places.
What reminded me of Bush’s inadequate reaction to the Uzbekistan massacre is a piece by Anne Penketh in today’s Independent. It starts:
‘Uzbek authorities have jailed hundreds of people and forced them to confess to links to Islamists to justify the army crackdown on peaceful demonstrators last May that left 500 people dead, The Independent has learnt.
‘Human Rights Watch reports that witnesses of the massacre in the eastern city of Andizhan and relatives of the victims, have been rounded up and jailed for between 10 to 15 days on fabricated charges. “They are severely beaten and tortured until they sign statements confessing to being members of radical Islamic groups,” a researcher for the group who has just visited the central Asian region said.
‘The authoritarian government of President Islam Karimov has refused all calls for an international inquiry into the worst massacre of civilians by an army since China’s 1994 crackdown in Tiananmen Square.
‘Despite eyewitness accounts contradicting the government version, the Uzbek authorities continue to insist that the army was forced to act on 13 May to put down an attempt by radical extremist Muslims to overthrow it. Human Rights Watch fears that the jailing and coercion of “hundreds, or even thousands” of people is a deliberate tactic aimed at bolstering the government’s case. It appears that some have been so intimidated that they have readily confessed to having been manipulated by the radicals.’
I’m not expecting Bush to address this latest human rights tragedy in Uzbekistan. After all, being consistent on such matters can be hard work.
Uzbekistan – America and the European Union have let a dictator get away with murder
Published in The Economist on 25th August
ON MAY 13th, the authorities in Uzbekistan opened fire on a peaceful demonstration of close to 10,000 people in the eastern city of Andijan, probably killing several hundred of them and possibly as many as 1,000. According to survivors, tanks rolled through the main square, firing indiscriminately, snipers picked off their victims from convenient buildings, and, later on, soldiers shot some of the wounded dead. That was three months ago. Since then, the European Union and America have expressed their horror at the worst massacre of demonstrators since Tiananmen Square by imposing the following sanctions on Uzbekistan:
Weary observers of realpolitik might think that they have seen it all before: that the democracies often enough turn a blind eye to misdeeds of dictators like Uzbekistan’s Islam Karimov when it suits them. But this is something special. On few, if any, occasions since the cold war has so little been done by so many in the face of such atrocity. At least China was thrown into the diplomatic ice-box for a few years after Tiananmen, and the arms embargo imposed on it is largely intact 16 years on. Myanmar remains a pariah even among pariahs’in both cases for misdeeds on about the same scale as Andijan. America claims that it is indeed pondering sanctions, but awaiting Europe’s lead. This not a widely noted feature of its foreign policy these days, but there is a kind of sense behind it. A former member of the Soviet Union, Uzbekistan is a part of the widest of Europe’s concentric circles. It is a member of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, and it has a partnership and co-operation agreement (PCA) with the EU. So there is some justification in allowing Europe, with its famous common foreign and security policy, to take the lead.
If so, the European Union has risen to the occasion as grandly as it did over Bosnia, Iraq and on so many other occasions: with a display of spinelessness worthy of a sea full of jellyfish. First, in June, it demanded that Uzbekistan submit to an international investigation to determine precisely what happened in Andijan. Failure to comply by July 1st, it terrifyingly threatened, might lead to a ‘partial suspension’ of the PCA. Some countries wanted to go so far as to threaten a visa ban for (some) Uzbek officials and possibly even an arms embargo’but that was reckoned to be a bit too tough.
July 1st came and went, as did August 1st. Still the EU has done nothing. It has tried to send a ranking bureaucrat, one Jan Kubis, to take a look: but Uzbekistan has refused to let him go to Andijan. Fortunately, outfits such as Human Rights Watch, the Institute for War and Peace Reporting and the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe have proved more enterprising than Mr Kubis’so there is no excuse to be made that the EU does not have a pretty good idea of what happened. The latest word is that the issue of Uzbekistan may be looked at when the EU’s foreign ministers meet in Wales on September 1st. But it is not even certain that the massacre of about 500 people by one of Europe’s associates will merit a discussion there. Meanwhile, the Uzbek government is pressing ahead with its own investigation of what happened on May 13th. This involves beating ‘confessions’ out of demonstrators who are made to say that they carried weapons to the square, and forcing neighbouring Kirgizstan to send Uzbek refugees back before they can tell any more tales to journalists, NGO workers, or even Mr Kubis.
But doesn’t the West ignore equally grisly abuses in Chechnya? Yes, but there it can at least be argued that friendship with Russia is in its vital interest. Friendship with Uzbekistan is not. Uzbekistan has gas, but it is not very accessible to westerners. And until now America has had an airbase, but others in the region will do just as well. The failure to punish Mr Karimov discredits the West, and provides ammunition to its enemies. It has gone on for far too long.
Blair knew of Iraq war terror link one year before London attacks
By Martin Bright writing in The Observer
“The Foreign Office’s top official warned Downing Street that the Iraq war was fuelling Muslim extremism in Britain a year before the 7 July bombings, The Observer can reveal. Despite repeated denials by Number 10 that the war made Britain a target for terrorists, a letter from Michael Jay, the Foreign Office permanent under-secretary, to the cabinet secretary, Sir Andrew Turnbull – obtained by this newspaper – makes the connection clear.
The letter, dated 18 May 2004, says British foreign policy was a ‘recurring theme’ in the Muslim community, ‘especially in the context of the Middle East peace process and Iraq’.
‘Colleagues have flagged up some of the potential underlying causes of extremism that can affect the Muslim community, such as discrimination, disadvantage and exclusion,’ the letter says. ‘But another recurring theme is the issue of British foreign policy, especially in the context of the Middle East peace process and Iraq.
‘Experience of both ministers and officials … suggests that … British foreign policy and the perception of its negative effect on Muslims globally plays a significant role in creating a feeling of anger and impotence among especially the younger generation of British Muslims.’
The letter continues: ‘This seems to be a key driver behind recruitment by extremist organisations (e.g. recruitment drives by groups such as Hizb-ut-Tahrir and al Muhajiroon). The FCO has a relevant and crucial role to play in the wider context of engagement with British Muslims on policy issues, and more broadly, in convincing young Muslims that they have a legitimate and credible voice, including on foreign policy issues, through an active participation in the democratic process.’
Al Muhajiroon, formed by Omar Bakri Mohammed, the radical preacher who fled Britain after the 7 July bombings, was a recruiting organisation for young Islamic extremists in Britain.
Attached to the letter is a strategy document, also obtained by The Observer, which reveals further concerns. It says Britain is now viewed as a ‘crusader state’, on a par with America as a potential target. ‘Muslim resentment towards the West is worse than ever,’ the document, ‘Building Bridges with Mainstream Islam’, says.
‘This was previously focused on the US, but the war in Iraq has meant the UK is now seen in similar terms – both are now seen by many Muslims as “Crusader states”.
‘Though we are moving on from a conflict to a reconstruction phase in Iraq, there are no signs of any moderation of this resentment. Our work on engaging with Islam has therefore been knocked back. Mr O’Brien [then a Foreign Office minister] has expressed his concern.’
However, all mention of the Iraq connection to extremism was removed from ‘core scripts’ – briefing papers given to ministers to defend the government’s position on Iraq and terror.
The document begins: ‘We do not see the Muslim community as a threat. Muslims have always made, and continue to make, a valuable contribution to society.’
The lines to be used by ministers include measures designed to address Muslim concerns, such as the introduction of religious hatred legislation and tackling educational underachievement among Muslims. But there is nothing to address the concerns raised by Jay eight months earlier.
The documents reveal deep divisions at the heart of government over home-grown religious extremism and its connections to British intervention in Iraq.
The Prime Minister has consistently said that the bombers were motivated not by a sense of injustice but by a ‘perverted and poisonous misinterpretation of Islam’. Although Iraq was clearly used as a pretext by extremists, he said he believed it was ideology that drove them to kill. To press home the point, Downing Street issued a list of atrocities carried out before intervention in Afghanistan and Iraq. The claim was later undermined by the MI5, which said that Iraq was the ‘dominant issue’ for Islamic extremists in Britain.
Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, also rowed back from his comments immediately after the bombings that there was no connection with Iraq and the terror threat after it became clear that the public remained unconvinced.
But Jay’s letter shows that the Foreign Office was convinced that foreign policy played a key role in radicalising young Muslims.
The letter outlines a list of 11 ‘work streams’ to discourage extremism. They included delegations to the Islamic world, ministerial briefings for key members of the Muslim community and receptions to mark key Muslim festivals.
It is not known how Turnbull responded to the letter, although it is clear that, by January, there was a significant difference between what was being said within the Foreign Office and what ministers were officially being permitted to say in speeches.
Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman Mark Oaten last night called on the government to come clean about the link between extremism among British Muslims and anger about Iraq: ‘For the government to deny a link between the war in Iraq and dismay among the Muslim community is ridiculous. But to try to cover it up, when senior civil servants have recognised the seriousness of the resentment, is even worse.'”
Pat Robertson to be banned from UK?
With religious ‘extremists’ being targeted by the British government for exclusion and deportation, how would Pat Robertson be treated if he turned up at Heathrow? As yet there appears to have been no statement from Charles Clarke on this important test of his new approach. Maybe the ‘Pat Robertson test’ should now be added to Ken Livingstone’s Nelson Mandela test of such legislation?
The question of Pat’s visa is raised by Profindpages
“We wonder how this new list would apply to Pat Robertson in the U.S. who went on TV and said that the U.S. government should assassinate Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. Isn’t this “Advocating violence in support of particular beliefs”? Will Robertson be allowed into Britain after this, or does this new rule only apply to Muslims who might promote hatred?”
Why Pat Robertson won’t be treated as a terrorist in the US is discussed on the Media Monitors Network
“At the very least, Robertson should be charged under hate-speech laws. But such laws are weak in the United States, and many Americans fear the idea of hate-speech laws. So radio and television broadcasters continue spewing hate and dishonest claims in the exalted name of free speech.”
If there is anyone wanting to find out more about the man himself then Pat Robertson’s own site can be found here
Human Rights Watch – Renditions and Diplomatic Assurances
The current moves by the UK government to deport foreign nationals to countries where they may be tortured can be seen as part of a wider global problem. HRW have published extensively on renditions and diplomatic assurances and their reseach in this area can be found at the link below.
Amnesty International reacts to UK government’s plans for deportation
Amnesty International respond to the anouncement of the UK government’s new proposal to allow deportation of foreign nationals. Their full press release can be found here.
“The new measures, proposed today by the United Kingdom (UK) government, targeting non-nationals considered to be threatening public order, national security and the rule of law, violate basic human rights and the UK’s international obligations, Amnesty International said today.
The Home Secretary Charles Clarke ordered an immediate review of his powers to exclude and deport non-British citizens suspected of “justifying or glorifying terrorism, seeking to provoke terrorist acts, fomenting other serious criminal activity, fostering hatred that might lead to inter-community violence. A global database will list foreigners who engage in different forms of “unacceptable behaviour”, such as radical preaching and publishing websites and articles intended to foment “terrorism”, to be vetted automatically before entering the UK.
“The vagueness and breadth of the definition of ‘unacceptable behaviour’ and ‘terrorism’ can lead to further injustice and risk further undermining human rights protection in the UK. Instead of strengthening security, they will further alienate vulnerable sections of society,” Halya Gowan, Europe and Cental Asia Programme Deputy Director at Amnesty International, said.
“The right not to be subjected to torture or other ill-treatment, or to be sent to a country where there is a risk of such treatment, applies to everybody, irrespective of whatever offence they may have committed. The so-called ‘diplomatic assurances’ that the UK government seeks when expelling people to countries where they may be at risk of being tortured are a clear violation of international law.”
“If the UK authorities reasonably suspect people of having committed certain criminal offences, their immediate duty is to bring criminally recognizable charges against them and promptly try them according to international fair trial standards instead of off loading them to a third country where they may be tortured.”
Amnesty International is concerned that the procedure to be used to process deportations or exclude people who may “threaten public order and national security” may once again include the use of secret evidence at secret hearings.
“The UK authorities will be violating the rights of non-British nationals if they seek to deport them or prevent them from entering the country by not allowing them adequate defence in the course of secret proceedings,” Halya Gowan said.
“The new measures are similar to those brought under the now repealed part 4 of the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 in that they are discriminatory and arbitrary.”
Amnesty International has unconditionally and unreservedly condemned the attacks in London on 7 July 2005, and has called for those allegedly responsible to be brought to justice. The organization also considers that any measures the UK authorities take with the stated intention to protect people from repetitions of such crimes must be consistent with international human rights law and standards.
“Security and human rights are not alternatives; they go hand in hand. Respect for human rights is the route to security, not the obstacle to it.”
UN Special Rapporteur criticises Blairs position on deportations and torture
Tony Blair’s recent statements on deportation and torture receive further criticism, this time from the the United Nations Commission on Human Rights.
The original UN press release can be found here.
Detailed information on the work of the Special Rapporteur on Torture is available here.
“The Special Rapporteur on questions relating to torture strongly condemns all acts of terrorism, including the bombings which took place in London on 7 July 2005 and the subsequent attempted attacks and expresses his sympathy to the Govenrment of the United Kingdom and the families of all the victims.
The Special Rapporteur, an independent expert appointed by the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, would like to refer to the Prime Minister Blair’s statement of 5 August 2005, where he indicated that from now on, due to changed circumstances of national security, the United Kingdom will deport persons to their home countries even in cases where these countries have been found to violate international minimum standards, including the absolute prohibition of torture, in the past. The Prime Minister argues that memoranda of understanding containing what he calls “necessary assurances from the countries to which we will return the deportees, against their being subject to torture or ill-treatment contrary to Article 3″ constitute a sufficient guarantee to avoid violation of article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. On 10 August 2005 a first memorandum was signed with Jordan. The Prime Minister also indicated that the conclusion of other memoranda is on-going.
The Special Rapporteur fears that the plan of the United Kingdom to request diplomatic assurances for the purpose of expelling persons in spite of a risk of torture reflects a tendency in Europe to circumvent the international obligation not to deport anybody if there is a serious risk that he or she might be subjected to torture. The fact that such assurances are sought shows in itself that the sending country perceives a serious risk of the deportee being subjected to torture or ill treatment upon arrival in the receiving country. Diplomatic assurances are not an appropriate tool to eradicate this risk.
Most of the states with which memoranda might presumably be concluded are parties to the United Nations Convention against Torture (Afghanistan, Algeria, Egypt, Jordan, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Syrian Arab Republic, Tunisia and Yemen) and/or to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Afghanistan, Algeria, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Sudan, Syrian Arab Republic, Tunisia and Yemen) and are therefore already obliged vis-a-vis other States parties (including the United Kingdom) not to resort to torture or ill treatment under any circumstances. Such memoranda of understanding therefore do not provide any additional protection to the deportees.
The Special Rapporteur calls on Governments to observe the principle of non-refoulement scrupulously and to not expel any person to frontiers or territories where they run a serious risk of torture and ill treatment. In addition, the Special Rapporteur requests Governments to refrain from seeking diplomatic assurances and the conclusion of memoranda of understanding in order to circumvent their international obligation not to deport anybody if there is a serious risk of torture or ill treatment.”
Updates to the archive – new media files added!
Four new items are added to the archive today. These include 3 streaming audio radio interviews from earlier this year and an article on Craig Murray’s work in Uzbekistan from back in 2003. To listen to the audio files you will need Real Player that can be downloaded for free from here
Within the interviews category, TV and radio media files are now indicated with a Real Player icon so they can be readily identified.
Archive entries:
Lord Liverpool and Tony Blair?
A posting on Medialens looks at the historical background to Lord Liverpool, a politician referred to in a recent article on this site.
“Prime Minister Liverpool equated Parliamentary Reform with treason. At a peaceful and massive meeting – around 50-60,000 – in Manchester’s St. Peter’s Field in 1819, demanding Reform , troops attacked the assembly and killed nine men and two women, and wounded 400. This event became known as the “Peterloo Massacre’
Far from reviewing the error of his resistance to reforms, Liverpool responded to Peterloo by rushing in the Six Acts. This law forbade meetings of more than 50 people, extended the power of summary conviction by magistrates, made ‘blasphemous and seditious libel” a transportable offence, and placed a heavy tax on newspapers.
There is a parallel today. Blair’s government, instinctively authoritarian as was Liverpool’s, seizes on catastrophic events, resulting from his own criminal policy, to take repressive measures and rush in laws against freedom of speech.
Lord Liverpool’s henchman and foreign secretary from 1812-1822 was Lord Castlereagh, about whom the redoubtable poet Shelley wrote after Peterloo.
I met Murder on the way
He had a mask like Castlereagh.
His come-uppance was a bitter one. Deranged by power, Castlereagh suicided in 1822. Chroniclers record that on the news the Capital’s “mob” celebrated in the streets, and at his funeral cheered.
Something perhaps for Blair and his henchmen to ponder?”
Uzbekistan in 20 seconds
A short and punchy multimedia presentation on Uzbekistan by Tim Ireland of Bloggerheads. Watch it. Act on it.
The killing of Jean Charles de Menezes
Craig Murray reacts to the latest revelations about the probable murder of Jean Charles de Menezes
I am not sure which scares me most ‘ the way the police murdered Jean Charles de Menezes, or the lies they told about it afterwards. It is worth bearing in mind that when the Police and the Home Office went into overdrive to spin their dramatic falsehoods ‘ that he vaulted the ticket barrier, ran through the station, wore a padded jacket and leapt onto the train ‘ they still thought they had killed a terrorist, not a Brazilian electrician.
We now know that Mr Menezes had a ticket and passed the barrier the normal way, walked quietly through the station, picked up a newspaper, boarded the train quietly and sat down. He was then pinioned by a policeman and shot at eleven times by at least two others while immobilised in his seat.
That makes it not just an unlawful killing, but plain murder. And it would still be murder even if Mr Menezes was indeed a terrorist. That was unequivocally established by the Death on the Rock case, where the European Court ruled that it was illegal to assassinate IRA terrorists in cold blood in Gibraltar, whether or not they were engaged in a bombing operation.
The government are acutely aware of that precedent. That is why the lies about his bizarre behaviour were so quickly concocted, and assiduously spread. They did so with the help of a compliant media establishment that repeated these lies ad nauseam to an excited public. And of course, the liar in chief was Sir Ian Blair himself. He must now resign immediately. I have never believed in eugenics, but the evidence of the unique propensity to lying of the clan Blair is pretty compelling, though I confess my sample of two is statistically insignificant.
One of my chief allies in fighting for human rights in Uzbekistan was Professor Douwe Korff, a key member of the legal team that brought the British government to book over Death on the Rock. It is typical of this government that Charles Clark’s reaction in his Evening Standard interview is to threaten British judges with new legislation to restrict their power to defend liberty. He also specifically threatened legislation to remove us from European Court jurisdiction ‘ no more Death on the Rock cases, then.
You could read about Douwe and I working in Uzbekistan in my forthcoming book, except that I have now received four letters and last evening a phone call from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to tell me I can’t publish it. It tells of Jack Straw’s decision that MI6 should use intelligence obtained under torture by foreign intelligence agencies. They don’t want you to know that. I had hoped that Straw’s decision was an isolated bit of over-zealousness.
I now know that it was part of a systematic lowering of our standards on human rights across the board. Blair is, beyond denial, leading the most authoritarian government since Lord Liverpool In fact Blair’s proposals outdo for sheer illiberalism the notorious Six Acts, which every schoolboy for generations learnt of as the most heinous assault on British liberties, happily overcome.
Blair’s media support is of two sorts. The right wing press share this analysis, but applaud it. They have the most populist right wing leader in British history, and are delighted. On the other side The Blair project cheerleaders who dominate the Guardian are stuck with their monstrous delusions.
The BBC remains cowed by the Gilligan affair, and large job losses. The fact that Gilligan told the truth ‘ there were no Iraqi WMD ‘ perversely diminished rather than increased their confidence. Telling the truth gets you shafted. Toeing Tony’s line gets you promoted.
Tony Blair’s new raft of ‘Anti-terrorist’ proposals includes deporting people for visiting certain bookshops and websites. Police continued their policy of ramping up media hype by smashing open, for the cameras, the door of a Muslim bookshop in Leeds. The owners had actually given them the keys and invited them to look around. No propaganda value in that, so out came the battering ram.
The media have carried rubbish in screaming headlines about the bomb attacks on 7 and 21 July. They were perpetrated by Al Qaida, they were funded from Pakistan, the two groups were linked. All rubbish. And of course we had Tony Blair’s repeated assertion that anger at our invasion of Iraq was in no way the cause. To understand was to excuse.
I condemn terrorism unequivocally. It is in every sense immoral and unreasoned. But it is not a natural phenomenon like the Birmingham tornado – Blair’s actions provoked it. The invasion of Iraq based on a tissue of lies, the co-operation with security services of regimes that practice torture throughout the Muslim World, the support for Bush and Sharon on settlements policy, the imprisonments without trial and other attacks on liberty in the UK.
After the 9/11 attacks, I recall the general reaction of the British intelligentsia was to ask why the Americans failed to understand what it was that caused them to be hated in much of the rest of the World. In our own hurt following the London bombings, we are making the same mistake.
It will be little comfort to the family and friends of Mr Menezes, but there is some hope that his death and the exposure of the spin that surrounded it will cause some reaction to the way this country is headed.
It is essential to the survival of liberty in this country that the killers of Mr Menezes stand in the dock. Doubtless the press will mount a campaign to defend them. Isn’t it time we were given their names? I don’t recall the identities of other alleged killers such as Barry Bolsara or Peter Sutcliffe being protected before their trial. The police have happily given out the name of several people who turned out to be completely uninvolved, including a Leeds muslim chemist who went on holiday to Egypt (dead suspicious).
Let’s have the names of the killers. At least we can avoid sitting next to them on the tube. Given the manner of cold-blooded execution, I suspect they may turn out to be SAS or MI5. But the blame must not stop with the men who pulled the triggers. Nor does it lie solely with the people that provided the so-called intelligence identifying Mr Menezes. The real blame lies with those who sanctioned the ‘shoot to kill’ policy defended in such macho fashion by Jack Straw and Charles Clarke.
They must now resign. British liberty will not recover until Charles Clarke and Ian Blair stand in the dock for their part in this murder.
“Should Not Be Known”
As we approach September 1st, the day of international blogging on Uzbekistan and the call for sanctions against cotton exports, we are posting the following excerpt from Chapter 12 of Craig Murray’s forthcoming book.
After leaving Ergashev, I said goodbye to Vakhida, who left in a police car for the airport, to fly back and work for Nick. I would be without an interpreter for the rest of the day, but would be joined by a professional one in the morning in Namangan, to which city we were due to head that night. I judged we still had plenty of time to visit the University, and told Gafur so. He was standing smoking and chatting with the escorting policemen. They looked dubious and called the Deputy Hokkim, who had repaired to a nearby chaikhana while I was with Ergashev.
“Please, Mr Ambassador,” he said, “it is late, and it is dangerous to drive to Namangan after dark.”
“It’s not that late. An hour at the university and we can be away by five.”
“But I believe we are not expected now at the University.”
My hackles were beginning to rise.
“Well, think what a pleasant surprise it will be for them.”
The deputy gave a wan smile, and got back into his Daewoo Maxima, which had dark pleated curtains at the windows. I climbed into the back of my Discovery; it seemed strangely empty now, with only Gafur and I in it. The police cars started off and we followed. After about twenty minutes, we were heading out of town.
“Gafur, where are we going?”, I asked.
“This is the road to Namangan, ambassador.”
“Is the university this way?”
“No, Ambassador.”
“Do you know where the University is?”
“Yes, I think so.” I had explained to the Embassy drivers that, within reason, they should always reconnoitre the day’s calls in the early morning or the evening before.
“Then stop.”
“Sorry, Ambassador?”
“STOP! We’re going to the university.”
Obviously impressed by the drama of the moment, Gafur slammed on the brakes and we slewed to a halt. The lead police car and the Hokkim’s Daewoo carried on ahead of us, turning round a corner. The police car behind had to brake quickly, and the doors opened as the police got out to see what the problem was. Gafur, having halted, was turned round looking quizzically at me.
“The university, Gafur. Drive to the university.”
“OK, sir”
It was a wide road, and Gafur spun the Discovery round. We sped off, leaving the puzzled policemen standing in the street staring at us. Gafur had worked out we were giving the escort the slip, because he drove like crazy through the streets of Ferghana. The escort caught up with us again just as we pulled up in front of the university. I waited for the deputy hokkim on the steps. He simply gave me a wan smile. I wanted to go straight to the English department, but he insisted that we should first call on the Rector. I was happy to concede that one.
The university building was a large brick edifice that would not have looked out of place in any British provincial university. The Rector was sour-faced and unwelcoming, and we endured fifteen minutes of stilted conversation over tea. We then walked down to the English centre, our footsteps echoing from the vaulted ceilings. The most striking thing about the University was that it was so devoid of life ‘ there seemed to be virtually no-one around.
In the English language centre I met two charming old ladies who taught there. They showed me with great pride the books they had been given by the British Council, and their cataloguing system. The only thing that worried me was that they all appeared to be neatly on the shelves, as opposed to being used by students. I had another cup of tea with the old ladies and two part-time students who had come in. They all said how delighted they were to meet a genuine English speaker. Their standard was very good, given that none of them had ever visited an English speaking country. They asked me about Big Ben and why the English are so fond of gardening. I asked them where everybody was, which brought a moment’s silence and no real answer.
The authorities had not wanted me to visit the University because of its resemblance to the Marie Celeste. I was later to discover the answer to the question, where has everyone gone? They were all in the fields picking cotton.
Even the massive labour forces held on the state farms are insufficient when it comes to harvest time. So other forced labour is drafted in. Staff and students are brought in from colleges and universities, which are effectively closed for the entire autumn term. An able-bodied university or college student will expect normally to spend two months in the cotton fields. Older schoolchildren will do the same, and even children as young as eight might expect to spend two or three weeks in the fields. Civil servants and even factory workers can also be drafted as the size of the harvest and weather conditions dictate.
Conditions can be appalling. The workers sleep in the fields, or in rough barracks. Sanitation is poor, food consists of a bare gruel, and water is taken straight from irrigation canals. The harvest regularly lasts through into October or early November, when temperatures can drop below freezing. Each farm and each region had its quota to produce in the State five year economic plan, and managers and hokkims were under extreme pressure to fulfil their quota.
Those drafted in for the harvest are not paid, but they are, for the most part, very successfully brainwashed by constant propaganda on television and radio, in newspapers and on banners and posters about harvesting the nation’s “White gold”. It is chilling to hear a bedraggled ten year old in a field talking about their patriotic duty to pick cotton to fund the nation’s independence.
IWPR – The cost of Uzbek white gold
This is a presentation from the Institute for war and Peace Reporting that looks in detail at the Uzbekistan cotton industry and the involvement of child labour.