uzbekistan

Tonight, during the Saryusz-Wolski report "Towards a common European foreign policy on energy" the Euro realist MEP Tom Wise will use parliamentary privilege to spell out the allegations against Alisher Usmanov. He has been talking to Craig Murray to ensure that the allegations are accurate and to the point.

The purpose of the debate is to discuss the creation of a single energy policy for Europe controlled by an European Energy Minister (or in Eurocratese a "High Official").

As Mr Usmanov is in the words of Murray [the man who] "ordered the cutting off of supplies to Georgia earlier this year" this is extremely relevant to the debate.

Under the rules governing parliamentary privilege, any news organisation can repeat what has been said in the Parliament chamber, allowing the MSM to circumvent the legal threats being thrown about by Usmanov's lawyers Schillings.

Let the fun begin.

I asked Murray how he first came to encounter the repression that he describes. I wondered if he had been presented with a lot of documentary evidence or if he witnessed some persecution himself.

Well: "It started with me in first three weeks of arriving going to witness a dissident trial, and it was absolutely terrifying. It was like a Nazi show trial, they had dissidents signing confessions saying not only that they had been to Afghanistan, but that they actually met bin Laden – it was that obvious. And the prisoners were looking dishevelled and beaten, and they were surrounded by armed guards and the judge was screaming at them. It was an extraordinary, terrifying experience. Within a few days of that, I received photographs of one prisoner who had been boiled to death at the notorious Jaslyk prison complex. He later turned out to have been a member of Hizb ut-Tahrir. But word got around – the attendance at a dissident trial created a ripple effect because in general no one showed any interest. Very soon, people were beating a path to my door, relatives of those who had been imprisoned, tortured, disappeared, murdered. And over time I started to get a picture of torture at an industrial level, with the common factor that if they were dissidents they were made to sign confessions indicating that they were connected with Al-Qaeda and if they weren’t dissidents, they had to name ten other people as being connected with Al Qaeda – and it was ludicrous, these were people they had never even met!

Mr Murray has posted full texts of all passages the Foreign Office ordered deleted from the book version of Murder in Samarkand, the former Tashkent ambassador's account of alleged British complicity in torture by the despotic Uzbekistan regime. His book contains links to the website.

The passages detail CIA intelligence reports that Mr Murray says were false, and accounts of US National Security Agency intercepts and conversations with John Herbst, the US ambassador in Uzbekistan at the time. The Foreign Office says release of the material is damaging.

[...]

Mr Murray said yesterday: "If the media do not react to this, they will lose the ability to report in any detail material released under the Freedom of Information Act. The documents in question are the supporting evidence for my book. The government continues to claim my story is untrue."

[...]

Lawyers say Mr Murray would be able to argue a defence of public interest for his own non-commercial disclosures, as would the media if quoting from the government documents on his website while reporting on current news events.

Ominously from the FCO's point of view, this time around the disputed documents have also been made available via P2P networks and as Bittorrents. This makes it practically impossible for the FCO to stop distribution, even if if it were sufficiently aggressive (and rash) to attempt to suppress all copies within UK jurisdiction.

Dear Mr Murray

INFRINGEMENT OF CROWN COPYRIGHT

The Treasury Solicitor acts for the Foreign Secretary in this matter. This letter should be treated as a letter before claim in accordance with the Civil Procedure Rules 1998.
It has come to our attention that, on 4 July 2006, you placed 15 documents on your website (www.craiqmurray.co.uk) which you describe as "supporting documents" relating to your book 'Murder in Samarkand'. We have reviewed the documents and it is clear that in each case (save for document 12 and the majority of document 13) the copyright in the documents subsists with the Crown. I refer you to section 163(1) of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 which states:

"163(1) Where a work is made by Her Majesty or by an officer or servant of the Crown in the course of his duties - (a) the work qualifies for copyright protection notwithstanding section 153(1) (ordinary requirement as to qualification for copyright protection), and (b) Her Majesty is the first owner of any copyright in the work".

We take the position that all of the documents (save for 12 and the majority of 13) were produced by an officer or servant of the Crown in the course of their duties. As you do not have permission or a licence to reproduce the documents we consider that Crown copyright has been infringed. In particular, you should note that the statement on your website that "Net posting is not breaching copyright because there is no charge to access the documents" is wrong as a matter of law. Whether or not a charge is made is wholly irrelevant to the issue of copyright infringement. Further, even if a document is released under the Data Protection Act or Freedom of Information Act that does not entitle you to make further reproductions of that document by, for example, putting them on your website or making further copies to be provided to third parties. The copyright remains enforceable.

As you are infringing Crown copyright, you are required to remove the documents from your website immediately and to provide an undertaking that you will not further infringe Crown copyright by reproducing these documents, or any other document or documents in which Crown copyright subsists and which relate to Foreign and Commonwealth Office matters, without permission or licence. If you do not do this by 4pm on Monday 10 July 2006 my client will issue a claim in the High Court for an injunction requiring you to remove the documents. The claim will be issued without further notice to you. An application for an interim injunction will also be made.

If my client is forced by your actions to issue proceedings, she will seek to recover from you the legal costs incurred as a result. Such costs are likely to be substantial. You are strongly advised to seek legal advice.

We are copying this letter to your publishers Mainstream Publishing. We consider this to be necessary as you state on your website that 'Murder in Samarkand' will be an "interactive book' containing URL links to the Crown documents. In the circumstances we consider that your publishers should be aware of my client's proposed course of action in view of your infringement of the Crown's rights.

I look forward to receiving your response.

Yours sincerely

Gareth Buttrill

For the Treasury Solicitor

Cc. Mainstream Publishing

In publishing "Murder in Samarkand" I had wanted to publish the supporting documentation in the book to cooroborate my story, especially as the FCO is claiming that the story is essentially untrue. In that sense, perhaps the most interesting link in the documents below is the very first document, which is a table of detailed amendments the FCO insisted be made to the text. This is fascinating if you consider just how much it confirms was true, particularly in the conversations it refers to between officials. - More and suppporting documents

On 13 May, 2005, Uzbek government forces shot dead hundreds of unarmed protesters at a demonstration in eastern Andijan.The United Nations and other intergovernmental organisations documented the massacre, but the authorities continue to refuse an independent investigation into the events, and persecute those who seek such an enquiry. An all-out crackdown on civil society has targeted human rights defenders and journalists, and created an information vacuum inside and outside the country.

The government has either shut or forced the closure of the BBC, Radio Free Europe/Liberty, Deutsche Welle, and many international organisations – the United Nations is the latest to come under attack. Numerous Uzbek journalists and human rights defenders have fled the country. A new media law puts Uzbek citizens who work for foreign news organisations without official accreditation at risk of imprisonment.
A year later the memories of this horrible massacre are still very fresh. It is important that we don't let the world forget Andijan.

I got in much later than expected tonight thanks to life and my employers conspiring against me, and read all the other posts before I sat down to write mine.
Which was a mistake, because they are all of such quality, detail and so comprehensive, that I can't come up with anything original after reading them all!

So, in 20ish links, and with a couple of points I don't think made it into today's posts, I am going to try and do a round up of others thoughts and work.

To start, we have a comprehensive primer on the 'Stans' and how the region fits together from Nosemonkey over at The Sharpener. An understanding of the 'Stans', and who is zooming who is essential to understanding the specific issues concerning Uzbekistan, and this post puts it all into context.

Next we go over to the Disillusioned Kid over at The Disillusioned Kid, author of the original pledge. He takes a broad view of the country, it's history, geography and politics and our relationship with Karimov and his Human Rights Abuses..

'Human Rights Abuses' is a phrase we are used to hearing on the news, but torture and repression are so grotesque in Uzbekistan under the Karimov regime that the phrase 'human rights abuses' does not convey the horror. Robin at Perfect does a chilling job of of cataloging some of the regimes excesses, as does Tim at Bloggerheads with his Ballad if Islam Karimov.

Karimov, not the sort of guy to have anything to do with, you would think. But think again, if you have followed the links so far, you will have seen the strategic importance of Uzbekistan. A brutal dictator who didn't play ball got his regime changed by us and the US not so very long ago, but a brutal dictator who sort of plays ball, makes the right noises and is prepared to torture to order, well, he gets propped up by us and the US.

Our complicity in and support for the dispicable Uzbek regime is covered in some detail in the preview chapter of ex Uxbek ambassador Craig Murray's book, by DanR at the Naked Lunch, Justin at Chicken Yoghurt, James K at Blood and Treasure and with a bit of a leftball from The EasyJetSetter.

Amazing the Kudos playing ball with big oil interests and being "an ally in the war on terror" buys.

And so to the point of the pledge.
Cotton.

A call to boycott Uzbekistan cotton was the source of this pledge, based on an article from Craig Murray. It should be read in conjunction with his explanation of why such a sanction would hurt the regime far more than the people.

The history of cotton farming in Uzbekistan, from it's Tsarist origins through the disasterous Soviet collective years, up untill today's catastrophic state controlled monoculture is dealt with in great detail by Otto at Otto's Random Thoughts and Laurence at Registan, and the result wholesale degradation and poisoning of the environment is covered by Galgacus at Mons Graupius.

It is the human and economic consequences of the cotton culture that drive the calls for a boycott, and Timx over at Time the Dreaded Enemy takes us comprehensively through the economics and abuses of a state controlled market run on child slave labour, as do Sepra, Pitch In For Uzbekistan, with more from Mons Graupius and Registan, Luther over at Vivez Sans Temps Mort, alex at Atopian, and friend at The London Friends of Craig Murray.

I think that's everybody that took part, and I hope I have done everybody justice. More than a hat tip, a hat doff should go to the Disillusioned Kid for starting this off and making something happen today. And credit to all those who's work I have linked here.

A Couple of final points:
Extraordinary Rendition. This is our practice of subcontracting torture to countries like Uzbekistan, when our human rights laws prove a little inconvenient. This is one of the most repellent tactics in T.W.A.T, The War Against Terror, and has been widely documented.
The headset of those who seem to think we are absolved of responsibility if we smuggle suspects to brutal regimes like Karimov's so somebody else tortures them on our behalf disgusts and frightens me as much as those who perform the torture.
Some countries, Italy, and most recently Denmark have stood and spoken out against this obscenity. But here in the UK we are shamed by our complicity.

And Landrovers. Not just any old Landrovers but British Army Landrovers. Shipped over to Karimov via a third party of course, and used in the brutal supression of the protests in Andijan. What better example of a New Labour Foreign policy could there be than unquely identifiable British Military vehicles being used to massacre civillians.

The final word has to go to Muzafar Avazov.
We hear the stories about people being boiled alive by our ally Karimov's security services being sideswiped by our politicians as if they are allegations or rumors.
The stories are not propaganda or an urban myth. 'Boiled Alive' has a name.

His name is Muzafar Avazov.

On 13 May, 2005, Uzbek government forces shot dead hundreds of unarmed protesters at a demonstration in eastern Andijan.The United Nations and other intergovernmental organisations documented the massacre, but the authorities continue to refuse an independent investigation into the events, and persecute those who seek such an enquiry. An all-out crackdown on civil society has targeted human rights defenders and journalists, and created an information vacuum inside and outside the country.

The government has either shut or forced the closure of the BBC, Radio Free Europe/Liberty, Deutsche Welle, and many international organisations – the United Nations is the latest to come under attack. Numerous Uzbek journalists and human rights defenders have fled the country. A new media law puts Uzbek citizens who work for foreign news organisations without official accreditation at risk of imprisonment.
A year later the memories of this horrible massacre are still very fresh. It is important that we don't let the world forget Andijan. Please join us to commemorate this tragic event. Pls tell as many people as you can. We have pushed ahead trying to organise a demonstration for Saturday May 13th.

The police have been now been notified and we have booked the slot opposite Downing Street for around midday on Saturday May 13th (12:30pm - 3pm). This will give us an opportunity to both commemorate the anniversary of the Andijan massacre and bring attention to British government policy - its original support for Islam Karimov at the time of the massacre, the use of information produced from the torture of Uzbek dissidents, the treatment of Craig Murray etc.

Please try and help out so we don't let the anniversary of this atrocity pass us by without a mention anywhere in Britain...

The following website has regular updates on the event worldwide
www.freeuzbekistan.com
There is also a petition against the repressive Uzbek regime, please sign and circulate.

http://freeuzbekistan.com/apeale.html

Thank you!

There are some things Craig Murray still feels guilty about even though they weren't his fault. The biggest regret of the former British ambassador to Uzbekistan is having dinner with a professor of literature who disagreed with his Government's use of torture.

``While we were eating, the Government kidnapped the man's 17-year-old grandson and tortured him to death. They immersed his hand in boiling liquid until the flesh came off, smashed his knees and elbows then killed him with a blow to the head and dumped his body.

``That had a pretty profound effect on me. I knew it wouldn't have happened if I hadn't agreed to meet his grandfather.'' This is just one of many grim tales Craig Murray collected in his two-year stint in Uzbekistan before his opposition to the US ally's brutal methods brought his career to an end.

Winterbottom & Coogan Reunite for Murder
Source: Mary
February 22, 2006

According to Screen Daily, 9 Songs and Tristram Shandy: A Cock and Bull Story director Michael Winterbottom revealed this week that his company Revolution has optioned Murder in Samarkand, the memoirs of Craig Murray, the former UK Ambassador to Uzbekistan.

Comedian Steve Coogan is in the frame to play Murray, who was sacked in 2004 after drawing attention to torture and human rights abuses in Uzbekistan. Murray's book will be published by Mainstream in June.

Winterbottom anticipates that it will take over a year to set the Craig Murray film up.

From Craig Murray
To Richard Stagg

Dickie,

There is now an extensive correspondence over many months on my efforts to clear my book with the FCO for publication. You have had many months to deliberate.

In the ensuing discussions, I have made, as requested, the following very extensive amendments.

*I have removed two accusations that Colin Powell was lying
*I have edited out those parts of my conversation with the US Ambassador which had the quality of confidence, were indiscreet, or differed from public US policy on Uzbekistan
*I have removed the detail of two SIS intelligence reports
*I have removed the reference to GCHQ telephone intercepts
*I have removed completely references to the role of Research Analysts in intelligence anaysis
*I have made plain that Duncan does not support my recollection that he said Research Analysts were in tears over pressure brought over claims of Iraqi WMD
*I have changed the attributions of several comments made by Uzbek LE staff
*I have given false names to several Uzbek LE staff
*I have removed several references to my contention that the Embassy did not function well before my arrival
*I have removed the reference to an early hiccough in Andrew Patrick's career
*I have changed statements made by Matthew Kydd and Linda Duffield (frankly, I believe my original account was more accurate)
*I have reduced the gruesome detail of the aircraft crash body identification, and particularly taken out physical detail personal to Richard Conroy
*I have removed or toned down a number of personal observations on FCO staff
*I have taken out the reference to Frank Berman being appointed over David Anderson

I believe the above, which is not exhaustive, is proof of a genuine willingness on my part to compromise to reach agreement. I am deeply disappointed that, throughout this process, I have felt no urge on the part of the FCO to actually conclude this matter. Past correspondence sets out the timescale and the FCO's continued invention of new points to prevent the process concluding.

I therefore give you notice that, should I not receive a definitive response from you by Friday 10 February, I shall be going ahead with publication. In that event I will not feel obliged to retain all the above amendments, some of which I believe detract from the truth of the book and which I offered in response to your various requests, in the belief that we were seeking agreement.

Craig Murray

Dear Craig,
Thank you for submitting the revised text of your book, and for the amendments that you have made. However, there are some important areas where you have not met the concerns we have expressed to you. We therefore firmly believe it would not be right for you to publish this book. This is nothing to do with debate and criticism and everything to do with a betrayal of trust.

We do not approve in any way of its contents or condone the fact of its publication. I should put on record that we consider your book to be inappropriate and misleading. It is inappropriate because you were a Head of Mission in the Diplomatic Service, in whom therefore particular trust and confidence was placed. In publishing this book you will be breaching that trust.

The book is misleading because it remains in places factually incorrect and your criticism of your former colleagues is frequently unfair and unwarranted. Your comments in this regard are distasteful and risk bringing the Service into disrepute. In particular, I must makeit clear that we do not recognise the image you present of the operation of the Embassy in Tashkent before your arrival.

The allegations you make about the effectiveness of our representation there are untrue. We do not accept them. The account of your meeting with Research Analysts also contains serious and false allegations. Their publication on your website in September has caused considerable operational damage. These are two examples of specific issues that we have afready put to you and where, together with our more general comments about your text, we have continuing concerns. I hope that you will reconsider these specific points (even if you decide to proceed with publication), and remain happy to meet you to discuss this more fully.

I am also advised that there are a number of passages in your manuscript which could well ground actions for defamation. In addition, I must make clear that if the book is published, we will actively consider a claim for breach of confidence or of Crown copyright, and nothing in this letter should be construed as a waiver of the Crowns rights in this regard. Indeed, I reserve fully the Crowns rights in relation to any publication. Finally, I must specifically remind you of your continuing obligations under the Official Secrets Act.

C R V Stagg
Director General Corporate Affairs

9 February 2006

Mr Richard Stagg
Director General Corporate Affairs
Foreign & Commonwealth Office
London

Dear Dickie,

Thank you for your letter of 8 February about my forthcoming book, Murder in Samarkand. Let me respond to the points which you have made.

Firstly, allow me to note that, over a period of many months, you have consulted exhaustively with all the FCO staff, past and present, named in the book.

Let me then relate that to the question of libel. In your letter you state that you are “Also advised that there are a number of passages in your book which could well ground actions for defamation.”

Let me be quite plain. I have no desire to libel or defame anybody. So I urge you now to disclose to me those passages in the book which you have been advised may be defamatory, so that I may consider if I believe there is that danger, and remove or amend any accidental defamation.

I make this offer in all good faith, that we may avoid the publication of defamation. If you choose not to take up this fair offer, and subsequently the FCO or its employees attempt to block publication through court actions for defamation, it will be evident that this is not an attempt to avoid defamation, but a ruse to block publication of the book as a whole through vexatious and unnecessary litigation.

I repeat I have the strongest desire not to defame anybody. I know the terrible mental anguish that unjust defamation can cause. You will recall that I was myself outrageously defamed and accused, quite groundlessly, of appalling things like being an alcoholic and offering visas in exchange for sex. Of course, in my case it was the FCO which was defaming me. The complete story of why and how this happened is in fact the substance of my book. Which is why you are so keen to identify and reserve possible legal avenues for the government to block publication.

It is not falsehood which scares you, but truth.

It is plain from your letter that you object to the whole concept of my publishing this account. Nowhere in the months of negotiation between us to date did you propose any such fundamental objections as now surface in your letter. Rather you asked for a series of specific amendments, the vast majority of which I made. I am sadly reinforced in my view that this lengthy process was an effort on your part to stall publication, rather than a discussion in good faith.

On the specific points you raise, you claim that the publication on my website of material in September caused operational damage to Research Analysts. There has been numerous and frequent correspondence and personal contact between us since September. I am puzzled as to why you mention this now and have not done so before. The material in question featured on my website for 24 hours and has not done so since.

You requested me to remove material from the book which you believed was misleading on the role of Research Analysts and could cause operational difficulty. I immediately removed that passage from the text in its entirety. The only point still at dispute, is that I have in the text that a member of Research Analysts told me that people in that Department were in tears over pressure put on them to go along with claims of Iraqi WMD. You tell me that the officer, still in your employ, now denies telling me this. I have noted in the book that I say he told me this, and he apparently says he did not tell me this. People can draw their own conclusions. I cannot see why this is such a huge problem for you, or would lead you to want to ban a book.

Similarly, I formed a strong impression that the British Embassy in Tashkent was pretty inactive before my arrival. You say that is not your impression. Well, fine. That seems to me well within the range of views that should be able freely to be published in a democracy without political suppression.

I note your point on Crown Copyright. Again, I am genuinely concerned to act in a legal fashin and I should be most grateful if you would explain to me how my book differs from Christopher Meyer’s in this regard.

You told me that you had personally played a major role within the FCO in supervising the preparation of the “Dirty Dossier” on Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction. I am afraid that one consequence is, that when you try to lecture me on truth, I am sorely tempted to laugh at you. I have lost my livelihood through all this. You have lost something infinitely more precious.

Finally, you threaten me with the Official Secrets Act. I am confident I am not breaking it. And if you really want to ask a jury of twelve honest citizens to send me to prison for campaigning against torture, good luck to you.

Yours Sincerely,

Craig J Murray

Murder in Samarkand: The FCO prepares for legal action

The Foreign and Commonwealth Office seem determined to stop me publishing my book. They are threatening four grounds of legal action:

a) Libel
b) Crown Copyright
c) Breach of Confidence
d) Official Secrets Act

The first point is that plainly this is an attempt to suppress the book and prevent publication by scaring me (and the publishers) with the threat of legal action. This will not work, as neither of us scare easily.

Let us then consider each of these proposed legal actions in turn –

Libel

I am confident that the book is entirely true, and thus does not libel anybody. The FCO is likely nonetheless to try to run a vexatious libel action by one of its staff named in the book. The book cannot be sold in the UK during such action, and this is the most likely way they will attempt to in effect ban the book by using millions of punds of taxpayers’ money in an endless court process

Crown Copyright

Following the publication of Christopher Meyer’s book, Jack Straw said that in future the government would actively consider the use of Crown copyright to prevent such further publications. This is a stretching of the copyright law, and the argument goes like this:

When I was in Uzbekistan, I was employed by the Crown, so the intellectual property in anything I learnt belongs to the Crown, just as the copyright of anything created by a Microsoft software designer belongs to Microsoft.

There are three problems in this. First, I don’t think my contract said any of that, while I bet the Microsoft contract does.

The second problem is that they are claiming by book is untrue and inaccurate. They are lying, but that is their claim. If they want to maintain that claim, how can they possibly argues that the Crown has copyright over things which are fictitious and did not happen while I was in their employ? The notion is absurd.

The third problem is much more fundamental. If this applies to me, it would also apply to every other employee of the crown, including not just Christopher Meyer but also, for example, Tony Blair. Now we know that Tony Blair has obtained a huge mortgage on a house based on a guaranteed advance for his memoirs of his time as Prime Minister. Now under the government’s new argument, Blair has sold something that didn’t belong to him at all, but belonged to the Crown.

The FCO will argue that it is for the Crown Prerogative to decide when to exercise Crown Copyright and when to let it go. In other words, they would sue me and not Tony Blair. And who exercises the Crown Prerogative? Why, the Prime Minister, of course.

So let us be clear about this. By delving about in the most remote and arcane backwaters of Britain’s unwritten constitution, the government is seeking to undermine freedom of speech and claim the power arbitrarily to ban books. If this argument were accepted by the courts, the government could ban books under Crown Prerogative without having to give any explanation or reason as to why they decided to ban a “Dissident” book but allow their own propaganda.

It is essential to fight this completely undemocratic development.

Breach of Confidence

The FCO attempted to frame me with false disciplinary allegations, and leaked the details of those allegations to the press. Plainly they had broken the relationship of confidence between us. Furthermore I believe I am revealing illegal action by the government, breaking both international and domestic law by being complicit in torture.

In these circumstances a “whistleblower” is protected from this kind of legal harassment. There is no way that the government would win this before the European Court.

Official Secrets Act

This is, of course, the ultimate attempt to scare us by threatening prison against free speech. The large majority of official documents quoted in this book were released to me under the Data Protection Act. There are no other official documents which have not already been released all over the web. I am confident this is bluster – to ask a jury to convict someone for revealing government malpractice is not sensible, and I would love to see Jack Straw in that witness box.

This is an important fight. We have a government committed to illegal war abroad and an attack across the whole spectrum of civil liberties at home. After banning books comes burning books. If at some stage of the fight they want to send me to prison, I am prepared. We have to show that we will not be cowed, and that the truth cannot be suppressed. Frankly, if the government think they can bury this book, they are even barmier than I thought.

Craig