There is a major profile of me in the latest Der Spiegel.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,724471,00.html
It is slightly overdrawn in its desire to paint a contrast between Ambassador Neuen and I, but is not unfair. Where it is wrong is its easy acceptance of the false dichotomy: is it better to suck up to a dictator and gain quiet influence over him, or to take a moral high stand but have no influence?
The mistake is in believing that crawling to a dictatorial regime makes them respect you. In fact the diplomatic cringe posture only enhances the super bloated ego and confidence of power of Karimov and his minions. They perceive diplomatic circumspection as weakness, and they despise the weak.
Remember, the senior officials of the Karimov regime have not encountered a single person — except Karimov himself – who dared to speak to them roughly, for decades. Almost everyone they meet, they have the power to have killed. Let me say that again so it sinks in. Almost everyone they meet, they have the power to have killed. They do have people killed, not infrequently.
The example given in the Der Spiegel article of forcing diplomats to wait for three hours in baking 105 degree heat – quite deliberately – for a ceremony to start, is not a major thing in itself, but is a demonstration of contempt.
By taking a different, robust and forceful approach, I shocked the Karimov regime and I simultaneously gave them world exposure they really didn’t like. In consequence I had far more influence with them – they hated me, but could not ignore me. When the British government moved to remove me, every single British company in Uzbekistan wrote to Jack Straw to protest, stating in terms that I was the most effective Ambassador for British interests. You will find the letters in Murder in Samarkand.
British influence evaporated when the British government made plain to Karimov I did not have their support for a strong line. Britain has had no influence ever since. On your knees is not a position of influence.
Diplomacy is also on my mind with relation to torture. Two former British Ambassadors, Brian Barder and Charles Crawford, have both attacked my analysis of the recent speech of John Sawers, head of MI6. Sawers’ speech was a defence of torture thinly disguised as a condemnation of torture.
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2010/10/lib_dem_ministe.html#comments
I will not waste much time on Charles Crawford, whose efforts are less of a blog and more a public exhibition of Attention Deficit Disorder. But Brian Barder is in an altogether different class, and his views merit further consideration.
Brian makes an argument that I have juxtaposed quotes from Sawers’ speech which were not actually next to each other. He claims that Sawers does not say that we receive intelligence from torture, or that Ministers have approved it.
Brian is talking total rubbish, To quash these accusations of misrepresentation, this is an unedited extract from Sawers’ speech:
“We also have a duty to do what we can to ensure that a partner service will respect human rights. That is not always straightforward.
Yet if we hold back, and don’t pass that intelligence, out of concern that a suspect terrorist may be badly treated, innocent lives may be lost that we could have saved.
These are not abstract questions for philosophy courses or searching editorials. They are real, constant, operational dilemmas.
Sometimes there is no clear way forward. The more finely-balanced judgments have to be made by Ministers themselves.”
There is no doubt that this means that we receive intelligence from torture by other security services, and that this is decided by Ministers. It can mean nothing else. Especially if you consider the background given here.
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2010/06/proof_of_compli.html
Of course, Sawers carefully does not use the “T” word here and only uses it in a passage condemning torture, passed to and swallowed by our complacent media. That is precisely the dishonesty which so annoys me.
The curious thing is that both Brian and Charles, like Sawers, are enthusiastic supporters of the argument that we ought to get intelligence from torture by others. As Brian says:
“For the record, there is no legal, moral, ethical or practical ban on scrutinising information, and where appropriate acting on it, regardless of the way it has originally been obtained or is suspected to have been obtained.”
Let us state the points where I agree with Brian. I accept that MI6 does not torture people. I accept that MI6 does not specifically hand over people to be tortured, request that detainees are tortured, or observe torture.
But Brian completely fails to take account of the UK/US intelligence sharing agreement. Under this. MI6 and the CIA share all intelligence. The Americans do all the things in the above list. Waterboarding and other physical tortures are just one part of the American arsenal. Under extraordinary rendition, hundreds were knowingly delivered up to torture. I have received direct eye witness evidence of CIA staff physically present at torture sessions in Uzbekistan. As Brian knows, MI6 will have received every US intelligence report received from all this activity. And there are numerous examples of MI6 staff assisting the CIA in getting suspects into the extraordinary rendition system. As Brian knows, the human intelligence reports circulating Whitehall are perhaps three to one CIA not MI6 sourced – but the CIA reports in London have been processed and issued through MI6. How does this affect the “Clean Hands” claims Brian accepts from Sawers.
But the fatal flaw in Brian’s – and Sawers’ argument is the frankly pathetic notion that, by regularly and gratefully receiving intelligence from dictatorships which they obtained by torture, we do not condone or encourage torture. Brian hides behind the “ticking bomb” argument that falsely posits that intelligence from torture is rare and relates to an instant and preventable threat. Brian has simply not answered this entire section of my article:
“It is the old man I met who had his children tortured before his eyes until he admitted false family ties with al-Qaida. It is the woman raped with the broken bottle, It is the lady who lived opposite me whose father was blinded as a political prisoner, and who was held down while a truck was run over her legs. All of that and thousands more did not stop the government, despite my profound objections as Ambassador, from accepting intelligence from the Uzbek torture chambers via the CIA.
John Sawers relies on the “ticking bomb” fallacy – the idea that torture happens to real terrorists and they give precise timely information to avert an imminent threat. That is a Hollywood scenario. There has never ever been a real life example that meets the ticking bomb cliche.
We encourage torture, we create a market for it, by accepting its fruits. The regimes who pass us this intelligence know we accept it, and they feel supported and reinforced in their abuse of human rights. Why would they take Western rhetoric seriously on human rights when they know we lap up the products of their torture chamber?
Remember the torturers are not altruists but agents of very nasty regimes. The information passed to us by those regimes is not for our good, but for the good of those regimes – and normally to convince us that the opponents of those regimes are all terrorists, whether true or not. In Uzbekistan, every bit of intelligence we could verify from the Embassy, eg on terrorist training camps in named locations in the hills, turned out to be untrue. Yet the intelligence services lapped up the Uzbek information because it greatly exaggerated the strength of al-Qaida in Central Asia, thus providing a spurious justification for our support of Central Asian dictators, whose help we wanted for our Afghan policy and for access to their hydrocarbons.
Torture does not get you the truth. It gets you what the torturer wants to hear. People will say anything, as their arm is held in boiling liquid, to make the pain stop. The regimes who do this do not hold truth as a high priority.
The torture material regularly received by the UK government is from countries where the vast, overwhelming majority of the people tortured are not terrorists at all but merely dissidents from abhorrent regimes. I speak from first hand knowledge.”
PerhapsBrian would like to answer it now.
Lastly, I am genuinely very saddened to see Brian joining in the smears against me with this:
The author of this scurrilous piece is in some danger of being taken seriously, being (as he constantly reminds us all) a former British ambassador to Uzbekistan who has achieved a certain fame through having insisted, I believe wrongly, that he was sacked from the Diplomatic Service for criticising the practice of torture by the Uzbek authorities and for having repeatedly denounced his own government for receiving, and sometimes acting on, information from the Americans but originating with the Uzbeks, some of which may well have been obtained by torture. He certainly did both these things, with characteristic gusto, but he was eased out of the Diplomatic Service ?” to put it politely ?” for other reasons.
Forget politeness Brian. I have no doubt you have been fed poison from some FCO related source. The best thing with poison is to spew it up.
A final point. The main object of my original post was to start some debate within the Lib Dem blogosphere. Yet no Lib Dem blogger has come forward to defend our ministers. I am not sure many activists currently see some of them as worth defending.
If after reading Brian’s harrumphing you need an antidote, there is an excellent article on Sawers’ pro-torture diatribe here:
http://www.septicisle.info/index.php?q=/2010/10/stepping-out-of-shadows-while-wanting.html
Alfred: That’s as powerful a statement as any I’ve heard. Brilliantly put.
Technicolour, yes, Robin Cook got marginalised, I hear.
In hindsight, it is obvious that the incoming government would inherit complicity in torture, as torture had already become an integral component of the system. We’ve spent years watching the evidence emerge, denied or blocked at many steps, so why should we expect it to have suddenly stopped just because there were elections?
Sawyers’ speech is a masterpiece of rousing, emotive stuff. I felt moved, reading it. Indeed, there are worse powers than the UK, and secret service agents do risk their lives. But most people know at least something about less noble operations of the secret services, such as plots to bringing down governments or subvert pressure groups. None of this is mentioned, so the speech comes across as a marketing campaign to enhance the image of the secret services.
It is in this context that the speech is so alarming. Sawers is presenting the secret services in the most favourable light possible, [and yet somehow] / [so of course] his speech precisely matches the contours of the system as it is currently running, just as it was inherited from the previous government. The secret services can just about do what they were discovered to be doing, without contradicting the letter of that speech. Nowhere does it say “it was wrong that we did this, and we’re never going to do it again. We’re implementing the changes right now”.
Good on Craig for pointing it out. People shouldn’t get upset about his accusations against ministers. Rather, they should slap themselves on the forehead and say “oh yes, we should have thought of that”.
“One of the ways you get influence in places like that is working closely with torturers or the people who preside over torturers, hoping to get them slowly but surely to change course.”
The euphemism is I think “developing democracy”. The neat thing about it is that no matter how slowly things go, it is always getting better and better.
You support state terrorism then get upset when state terrorism encourages non-state terrorism.
Have just read the article in Der Spiegel. It is of course very comfortable to write an article and discuss all this from very safe distance, the editorial office of Der Spiegel for example. It is very different when someone is faced with the reality of torture and constant abuse of their rights by those who hold a power.
Putting it in other words if the one who wrote this article would have spent at least a day in any Uzbek prison or have been visited at night by Secret Uzbek Police SNB then we would have very different article and very different opinion about two approaches-Mr Murray’s and German envoy’s.
Confronting such bustards like Karimov is the best tactics if you are to save lives of people or trying to improve something in a very difficult situation like the one in Uzbekistan. I am saying this as the one who was saved by Mr Murray’s involvement and the one who witnessed brutality of the regime towards those who dare to even think of speaking against them. But reading quite substantial amount of books about Central Asia and Western politics in general, I now have to admit that it will be very long and very problematic to change or improve situation in Uzbekistan. The West is quite clearly have chosen immediate security ?” even very short and spontaneous- over long term strategy towards Uzbekistan. Putting it in other words Western approach towards Uzbekistan is no more different then towards for example Egypt or to some respect Saudi Arabia. The West will support Karimov and his successor until they provide West with the access to their military compounds and guarantee that every kind of religious (Islamic) extremism will be suppressed (as more cruel as better). The West does not seem to understand that this strategy will ?”in the long run- turn into very catastrophic consequences. It will inevitably lead to instability in Uzbekistan and as the consequence of this to instability in whole Central Asia. Failure to influence regime to liberalise economy and politics will turn very dear to the West. Karimov and his successor will always benefit from the balancing between Russia, China and the West and will always play on the geopolitical interests of latter for their own good.
It is very shameful, but it is very unlikely that there will be another diplomat like Mr Murray in Uzbekistan or anywhere else in the world. Those who rule the world would rather accept Karimov and allow him to place his billions to Switzerland then allow someone to criticise the catastrophe over the 27 million population. Why one need to ask the government to send an army or navy to colonise the nation when one can do so by supporting this nation’s bloodiest dictator who would be happy to colonise this nation for the one who wants to benefit from the wealth that the nation can offer?
Points:
Alfred says this: “When governments claim the right to accept intelligence routinely obtained by torture they clearly demonstrate that they are not with us, but against us.”
Since ALL governments pretty much do this, since all governments see it as the most basic responsibility to protect their citizens, ALL governments are against their people? A pretty radical and not very helpful uber-libertarian conclusion, methinks.
Put it this way. If a politician campaigned on the proposition that rather than accept some information possibly gleaned by way of torture, s/he would let some voters die in terrorist attacks (as the principle is ‘worth fighting for’ and they’ll be heroic losers in that fight), what are her/his election chances? I think small.
Technicolour says that Craig lost his posting in Tashkent because of 17 false charges, so how could he ‘sustain influence’?
In my view Craig’s own book demonstrates many striking examples of his own professional incompetence (as well as some very good work). I have explained a number of them in detail on my website, if anyone is interested in core diplomatic technique. Above all he completely failed to do the basic job of working out a plan for dealing with the Uzbek regime then getting important others at HQ and locally behind it. Read his book – simply not mentioned!
That erratic behaviour and some personal issues primarily led to his downfall – a great pity.
Uzbek in the UK: “I now have to admit that it will be very long and very problematic to change or improve situation in Uzbekistan.” Well, sure. All the more reason why Craig’s head-on collision with Uzbekistan and Western policy achieved next to nothing.
I agree that snuggling up to brutal dictators is an unhappy way to proceed. But if we start toppling them (Iraq, Milosevic – where I played a significant personal diplomatic role) that does not always work out too well either?
We did stand firm but peacefully against the Soviet Union, mainly thanks to Reagan and Thatcher who were reviled mightily at the time for being ‘hawkish’.
Plus Craig and many people passing by this site seem to think that Western governments should mind their own damn business when it comes to dealing with (especially) brutal regimes of an Islamic tendency. What specifically does anyone here recommend by way of action against eg the regime in Uzbekistan? And if a good policy can be identified, how precisely should it be taken forward when eg Germany and some other important countries won’t agree?
“It is very shameful, but it is very unlikely that there will be another diplomat like Mr Murray in Uzbekistan or anywhere else in the world.” At last – something we all can agree on!!
I see, Charles. So please tell us, what exactly *was* the FCO doing to exert pressure on Karimov? If something was being done, why wasn’t Craig informed about it? Surely it would have been highly relevant to his position as British Ambassador there?
It’s difficult to do take official action about a problem if you don’t acknowledge it. Who within the FCO assured Craig that there was an effective policy to tackle the human rights abuses? It seems to me they were instead exploring legal excuses for inaction, even turning a blind eye, all the while legitimising Karimov internationally by presenting him as a partner in the war against terror. The FCO (under the direction of Jack Straw) decided to continue to stifle the protest. The reason cited related to protecting the relationship with the CIA. So what exactly *was* being done about human rights in Uzbekistan, Charles?
You accuse Craig of not having a ‘plan’. His initial plan was to inform the FCO senior management, so that diplomatic pressure could be exerted at a governmental level in accordance with the UK’s explicit policy commitments on human rights. If the FCO had informed the Karimov regime that the UK strongly disapproved of his inhumane treatment of Uzbek dissidents (and would not excuse it as a legitimate tactic in the fight against international terrorism), Karimov would be the one facing the tough decisions. But that didn’t happen. The plan was vetoed internally. Why? Well, as you have Craig’s book to hand, I won’t need to elaborate. I’m sure the problem was undoubtedly “weighed alongside other information” and “placed in a wider context” of British interests, but there didn’t seem to be much weight given to the global concern for human rights.
I actually think Craig’s plan was very diplomatic, and if the UK government had lived up to its explicit foreign policy commitments, instead of targeting Craig on trumped-up charges to shut him up, the Uzbeks would got the message loud and clear. I conjecture that they would have had to clean up their act to protect their own international interests; Craig could have served his full term and moved on to advance British interests elsewhere.
Where do you think this reasonable, diplomatic, plan broke down?
Craig’s “head-on collision” as you put had negligible effect because his was the only head colliding against a formidable dictatorship. More than that. The FCO not only abandoned him, it attacked him. If the UK had stood behind him from the beginning, or even reassured him that their “operatives” were pursuing a clandestine plan to deal with Karimov’s brutality, I dare say there would have been a much better – diplomatic ?” outcome for all.
So, Charles, “Since ALL governments pretty much do this [accept intelligence routinely obtained by torture ]…” we have no choice but to do the same. Is that what you are saying?
At one time “ALL governments pretty much” practiced slavery, burnt witches and generally acted as do those Uzbek “Bustards” (as Uzbek in the UK admirably describes Boil-You-Alive Karimov’s gang). But is that much of an argument for doing likewise?
As a justification for encouraging a vile practice of limited value that has always been illegal in England it seems weak indeed. And it takes no account of the negative consequences, such as making Britain and her allies hateful to all freedom loving citizens of Uzbekistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc.
“since all governments see it as the most basic responsibility to protect their citizens …”
Well, I’ll refrain from raising the issue of 9/11, you know the greatest terrorist attack on civilians in the history of the world, which has never been the subject of a judicial inquiry and about which the official US Government report is said to be total crap even by it’s authors (Oh, God, now I have invoked the St. Louis representative of the Greater Israel Fruit Joooz company.), but on precisely what basis are we to infer that “all governments see it as the most basic responsibility to protect their citizens” other than the babbling of politicians like Tony Blair and George Bush whose mendacity is most easily discerned by observing whether their lips are moving.
“If a politician campaigned on the proposition that rather than accept some information possibly gleaned by way of torture, s/he would let some voters die in terrorist attacks (as the principle is ‘worth fighting for’ and they’ll be heroic losers in that fight), what are her/his election chances?”
Interesting question. I’d probably vote for them, especially if they had a clear understanding that for the West to prevail, for it to be desirable for the West to prevail, the West must adhere to values worth fighting for and, if necessary, dying for.
Anyway, to believe that in an age of astounding technological advancement, in an age of money-no-object wars, effective intelligence gathering depends on the use of torture, seems absurd.
I am beginning to understand the arguments of Sawers, and his cheerleaders Barder and Crawford.
1. The Karimov regime is bad, it tortures people.
2. The US military is good, it does not torture (except for a few bad apples in junior positions) it outsources it.
3. The British government is just the pinnacle of goodness, it doesn’t even outsource torture, it gets the Americans to outsource it.
Craig’s “head-on collision” as you put had negligible effect because his was the only head colliding against a formidable dictatorship. More than that. The FCO not only abandoned him, it attacked him. If the UK had stood behind him from the beginning, or even reassured him that their “operatives” were pursuing a clandestine plan to deal with Karimov’s brutality, I dare say there would have been a much better – diplomatic ?” outcome for all.
Posted by: nextus at November 2, 2010 6:16 PM
_______________________________________
I thought the same until quite recently I understood that it is much more that needs to be done in order to improve situation in Uzbekistan and in Central Asia. ‘Head-on collision’ will not necessarily work in Uzbekistan and this was clearly demonstrated after the Andijan tragedy when karimov (it sickens me to write his name with capital letter) refused to allow independent investigation and kicked US out of the K2. Russia and China were more than happy to back bustard because of the strategic importance of Uzbekistan and Central Asia for these two regional superpowers.
Dictator karimov and others in Central Asia have wide choice of those who will back them up and those who will tolerate their repressive policy towards their citizens. Those like karimov do not care about future of the nation and about long term security. They benefit from their power, make money, transfer bloody money to Switzerland, Dubai and other tax heavens and have their bags ready in case there is major popular uprising. They are not interested in long term projects, recommendations on how to improve situation, make economy work, liberalise political and social life of the nation. For them personal benefit is more important than anything else.
It is very hard to work out what policy would work when it comes to satisfying greed of such bloody bustards and at the same time benefit millions of Uzbekistanis and Central Asians.
If West pushes too hard for the Human Rights and political liberalisation, this will inevitably lead to that West being pushed out from the region by China and Russia which are not concerned with these issues at all. If West ignores these very important issues that require immediate attention then the region will end up in very serious trouble in long term.
Yes, I agree ‘Uzbek in the UK’, but like any deal or relationship, political diplomacy has many dimensions, as Charles would no doubt emphasise. You can target your condemnation while still co-operating. Indeed that’s what Craig was doing before they removed him. The FCO’s policy of weighing up an overall decision about whether to engage and appease is simplistic and does not convey a strong moral message.
A government that values human rights highly may have to offer something else the regime wants, with conditions attached, to gain leverage; or, conversely, to threaten sanctions. That’s diplomacy in a nutshell. There are always trade-offs. The disturbing fact is that in Uzbekistan the UK was offering to tolerate systematic cruelty because of other assets that were prized more highly, particularly access to military bases in Central Asia. For that reason it was not prepared to exert pressure on human rights issues. It was already part of the moral calculation, and the government must take responsibility for. It chose to appease Karimov for its own strategic military interests. This strengthened Karimov’s international confidence – for heavens sake, the UK was even prepared to scuttle one of its own Ambassadors to stop him speaking out against them. Andijan was one of the tragic consequences that followed. Those protesters had already been abandoned by the international community. That would not have been Craig’s way.
It could have been handled so much better.
Before any frenzied critics jump in, I’m not suggesting something ludicrous like Craig’s removal being the sole or main cause of the Andijan massacre. My point is that Karimov’s open defiance of international opinion signalled a huge swell in arrogance on the international stage, which I believe was fed by the continued policy of appeasement – of which Craig’s episode was perhaps the most conspicuous example.
Russia and China of course hardly set shining ethical standards. But someone needs to.
Yes, very interesting discussion, thanks.
Uzbek in the UK: would you not think it more likely that Karimov decided to change backers before he carried out the Andijan massacre? I’m not sure how the US expulsion relates to the nuances of diplomacy, or to the effectiveness of ‘head on collision’ in any event: they weren’t starting to be critical of Karimov, were they?
Charles: standing ‘firm but peacefully against’ does sound like the sensible middle ground between toppling brutal dictators, or snuggling up to them, I agree.
sorry, belated google:
“Undersecretary of State R. Nicholas Burns was going to pressure Tashkent to allow an international investigation into the Andijan protests..Burns was also going to warn the government, one of the most authoritarian in the Islamic world, to open up politically — or risk the kind of upheavals witnessed recently in Ukraine, Georgia and Kyrgyzstan, U.S. officials said.”
They didn’t carry out their threat, I notice.
Mi Se
UzbUk: “Dictator karimov and others in Central Asia have wide choice of those who will back them up and those who will tolerate their repressive policy towards their citizens. Those like karimov do not care about future of the nation and about long term security.”
Indeed. The holistic dynamics of international politics add further dimensions of complexity. This doesn’t mean that we should stop objecting to moral atrocities for the sake of pragmatism, however; it means the issue should be incorporated into negotiations with the other interested parties. Any acceptance of information from the CIA should be accompanied by strong condemnation of the atrocities, not a secret resignation that they are a necessary evil to ‘protect the relationship’. It’s a complex web that incorporates diplomatic efforts in Russia, China and neighbouring states, not to mention the UN. But if the FCO, CIA and other agencies are systematically quashing reports of torture and extraordinary rendition to protect their own cosy intelligence channels, the diplomats are making international decisions on the basis of false information.
Yes, there may be a Panglossian optimism in this push for transparency. There is no simple solution, or guaranteed path to progress. Rogue states do not always act rationally. I accept that actual diplomatic efforts are always complex and involve unwelcome compromises. But I contend they should not also be murky. The compromises should not be covered up.
The compromise over torture in Uzbekistan (like other places) *was* covered up. Craig was one of the people who exposed the cover-up. I believe that particular compromise is unacceptable by the moral standards on which international law is constructed. Of course, that’s *why* it was being covered up. The ideologues wanted to protect their synthetic political equilibrium.
Diplomatic relations, in my view, should reflect the genuine condemnation of moral atrocities, not gloss over them. The system could then adjust towards some other set of international compromises (no doubt with their own sets of moral dilemmas). But at least in this case we would be standing up for what we purport to believe in. I think that would be an ethical advance.
I actually thought the article was rather good.
sorry, belated google:
“Undersecretary of State R. Nicholas Burns was going to pressure Tashkent to allow an international investigation into the Andijan protests..Burns was also going to warn the government, one of the most authoritarian in the Islamic world, to open up politically — or risk the kind of upheavals witnessed recently in Ukraine, Georgia and Kyrgyzstan, U.S. officials said.”
They didn’t carry out their threat, I notice.
Posted by: technicolour at November 2, 2010 10:55 PM
________________________________________
Yes, they did not and the BIG question is WHY? It seems that facing the reality and analysing the situation in Uzbekistan clearly (as clearly as US can analyse, obviously from the prism of their hegemonic dominance in the region) US department of state decided not to go ahead. The most obvious reason is that in Ukraine, Georgia and even in Kyrgyzstan, there was an opposition and what is even more important organised opposition to the government. There were leaders or potential leaders who could have been supported and could have been brought to power. I see no such forces in Uzbekistan. Years of brutal political cleansing, repressions towards any organised local NGOs left karimov the only available leader. Whether US want him or not they at that time (and even today) do not have anyone who could potentially ‘lead’ the nation without risking civil unrest that is potentially dangerous to whole region. This is in short term of course.
In long term karimov’s policy will lead to very serious disturbances in Uzbekistan and in whole Central Asia. Even if he manages (and I see no reason of why not) to ‘lead’ the nation till his last day (of life I mean) there is great uncertainty of what is going to happen when he is gone (to hell I hope). My gut feeling is that now US is working out the strategy of after-karimov relationship with Uzbekistan. US do not want to be excluded from Uzbekistan in the time when karimov is gone which ultimately allows Russia to influence the course of actions and place their own pro-Russian president-dictator.
Yes, very interesting discussion, thanks.
Uzbek in the UK: would you not think it more likely that Karimov decided to change backers before he carried out the Andijan massacre? I’m not sure how the US expulsion relates to the nuances of diplomacy, or to the effectiveness of ‘head on collision’ in any event: they weren’t starting to be critical of Karimov, were they?
Charles: standing ‘firm but peacefully against’ does sound like the sensible middle ground between toppling brutal dictators, or snuggling up to them, I agree.
Posted by: technicolour at November 2, 2010 10:30 PM
________________________________________
Yes, karimov was thinking about changing backers before the Andijan, but he did break up with the US only after they supported demands of the independent investigation. Only after the US has clearly demanded investigation karimov ordered ministry of foreign affairs to notify US ambassador that Uzbekistan demands US forces to leave K2.
There are of course number of theories about the Andijan Tragedy itself. Some think it was US orchestrated attempt to topple karimov, others think it was Russian attempt to force karimov to accept Russian patronage, and I think that it was karimov himself who was a reason of the Andijan Tragedy has happened. Ferghana Valley itself is a very difficult and controversial sub region with its economic and interethnic tensions. If any upraising could have happened in Uzbekistan it certainly had to be in Ferghana Valley where people experience the most tragic consequences of karimov’s failure of economic and social reforms.
US started to criticise karimov even before the Andijan with the Congress refusing to approve some of the financial support that karimov was receiving from Washington, while providing support to Nazarbaev. For karimov this was a huge blow that despite all his support to Washington he was being refused what he thought was payment for his loyalty. Also, one needs to look at the facts that karimov had more friends and understanding in Pentagon and department of state was always more critical towards karimov’s policy.
Russia on the other hand played were well. They were aware that it will be hard for Washington to swallow the execution of hundreds of women and children in Andijan and assured karimov that they will provide him necessary support and will insure that Washington will not take any further actions against the regime. China was also more than happy to support karimov as it was a great pleasure for Beijing to see US getting a boot from K2.
Andijan, therefore, clearly demonstrated that when it comes to karimov and Central Asia in general one must choose between Human Rights and civil liberties and influence over the regimes. The only way to obtain such influence is by supporting regimes and insuring their security. When even such powerful and almighty state as US ignores this ‘simple’ formula it is faced with the harsh reality of being kicked out and loosing influence over the region.
“I’d probably vote for them, especially if they had a clear understanding that for the West to prevail, for it to be desirable for the West to prevail, the West must adhere to values worth fighting for and, if necessary, dying for.”
–Alfred
I’d probably vote for them too, Alfred, without expressing it quite in your terms (“for the West to prevail”.) I deplore the hypocrisy of even *attempting* to stand on the moral high ground while practising, justifying, or creating a market for torture — and wiggling around the legalities of it, as the Bush admin did.
“the West must adhere to values worth fighting for and, if necessary, dying for”
Yes, if only so we can look in the mirror and not be disgusted by what we see. And that includes, for me, not accepting material that one knows (or is 99% sure) has been acquired through torture. If that meant that a bomb went off in Dublin, I’d take my chances.
I’ve probably said here before that one of the Dublin bombs of 17 May 1974 went off less than 50 yards from my office.
“Three exploded in Dublin during rush hour (killing 26 people and an unborn child) and one exploded in Monaghan ninety minutes later (killing 7 people). Most of the victims were young women, although the ages of the dead ranged from five months to 80 years.
“No-one has ever been charged with the attacks, which have been described by the Oireachtas Committee on Justice as an act of international terrorism with allegations of the involvement of British security forces.[1]”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dublin_and_Monaghan_bombings
I have asked Charles Crawford here if he believes MI5 were concerned about human rights in the North of Ireland. The reason I asked is that if he accepts that they were not (overly concerned) I’d like to know why we should believe that MI6 has been, or now is.
Uzbek in the UK: Thank you for this valuable insight. I’ve met many Uzbeks, but they don’t tend to talk about the politics in such an enlightened manner.
The US/UK does seem to be faced with a very ‘simple’ formula: turn a blind eye or be kicked out. But that’s precisely the way Karimov wants to cast it. It’s a bully’s technique, and Karimov is one of the world’s most powerful bullies.
This is just like the simple bivalent formula that US hawks like Bush, Cheney and Bolton apply to their moral decisions – because it saves all the messy evaluation of interethnic dynamics, understanding interlinked foreign interests, sympathising with oppressed peoples and frustrating efforts at careful diplomacy.
The dictator’s selfish interests may be simple, but they are embedded within a complex network of international relations. The diplomats of Russia and China are well practiced in exploiting these complex relations for their own ends. The US hawks, however, tend to opt for the simple bully mentality. The fact that the US was ejected from Uzbekistan I think had much more to do with their overall foreign policy and attitude in economic and military negotiations than a moral condemnation of the Andijan massacre; perhaps Andijan was a trigger.
We should be careful not to polarise the diplomatic options as simple compliance vs condemnation. The “head-on” collision metaphor is misleading. Craig tried to make the UK government aware of the massive human suffering and cruelty, through confidential channels. He also tried to use his public position to make the Karimov regime well aware of the fact that the torture had now been exposed internationally. Was he too blunt and naive? We’re talking about an astute and skilled diplomat who brokered complex deals in West Africa and Eastern Europe (which is why he was promoted so quickly). I wouldn’t certainly characterise him as a hawk.
The simple alternative is to yield to the dictator’s demands because we want something from him: in other words, to tolerate torture for ends that are deemed more “valuable” than the human rights of dissidents. Of course, this is a caricature too. Charles is advocating more sophisticated methods of applying pressure, and stressing the need to keep your own government onside. Craig witnessed the human horror of the situation and was not willing to accept the government’s appeasement policy.
Personally, I’m morally in step with Craig’s indignation; though ideally I would be strategically aligned with Charles’s cautious backroom diplomacy. But I think the ignorant and evasive manner in which Craig was rebuffed by the FCO, and by Jack Straw in particular, meant that the backroom approach would be entirely ineffective. The FCO chose to obscure and fudge the issue, and refused to be open and honest with one of its senior officials (for “security” reasons). A principled manager in any organisation would see that kind of exclusion as a resignation issue. Craig could not tolerate the rebuff and chose to fight it. We’re all familiar with what happened as a result. Whistleblowers get treated in a similar way in the business world too. It’s a major failure of institutional ethics.
So I think the US misjudged Uzbekistan, the FCO misjudged Craig’s moral passion, and Craig misjudged the government’s willingness to abide by its own ethical foreign policy commitments. A nasty business, all round. Well deserving of the title “Dirty Diplomacy”.
Nextus,
You seem to confuse two issues. One is the acceptance of intelligence gained through the routine use of torture, the other is whether you collaborate in other spheres with a torturer.
Almost certainly, if you wished to end the use of torture in Uzbekistan you’d have to work for the overthrow of the regime, which would mean avoiding all collaboration with it. However, that is not, so far as I understand it, what Craig’s argument with the FCO was about. Rather, his aim was simply to end Britain’s use of intelligence from torture.
If, in fact, Craig was working to undermine the Uzbek regime, then admirable though this would have been, his ouster from the government service would have to be viewed in a different light.
The question of collaboration with torturers and tyrants in Central Asia cannot be separated from the justification for US/NATO invasion and occupation in the region. If western intervention in Central Asia is a matter of vital national interest to the western states involved, then we must accept what allies we can find. Or as Churchill put it in defense of the alliance with the tyrant and torturer Joe Stalin following Germany’s invasion of Russia: “If Hitler invaded Hell, I would at least make a favourable reference to the Devil in the House of Commons”.
Alfred, I don’t think I am confusing two issues; I think I’m linking them together (as you go on to do yourself).
Craig was not simply aiming to end Britain’s use of dodgy intelligence. He was protesting against turning a blind eye to their atrocities to protect the US/Uzbek relationship. Recall his famous quote that we were “selling our souls for dross”. And also his speech to Freedom House, when he contradicted the US ambassador by declaring the Uzbekistan was not a functioning democracy. Clearly, he wasn’t just asking the FCO to ignore dodgy tip-offs from the CIA. He was concerned about the plight of the Uzbeks. But that’s a long way from suggesting he was “working to undermine the Uzbek regime”.
The point where I have qualms is where you say “we must accept whatever allies we can find”. I reiterate that it’s not a dichotomy. There are many dimensions to international relations. I refer you back to my previous post.
I agree with Alfred.
‘If western intervention in Central Asia is a matter of vital national interest to the western states involved, then we must accept what allies we can find. Or as Churchill put it in defense of the alliance with the tyrant and torturer Joe Stalin following Germany’s invasion of Russia: “If Hitler invaded Hell, I would at least make a favourable reference to the Devil in the House of Commons”. ‘
I have benefited from this debate, but it brings me back to this question. What is the purpose of the US stance in Asia?
George Friedman, apparently the progenitor of a right-wing Texan think-tank, claimed several years ago in ‘America’s Secret War’ that the Iraq war was motivated by a desire to have a bunch of major US bases in the middle east as Saudi Arabia was not a reliable ally. I have always thought that this attitude, coupled with a carelessness about propogating even more enlightened interventions such as the CIA-led sponsoring of the mujahadeen against the Russians, (ie in leaving them abruptly with no follow-up) and other similar catastrophes (Somalia for example), have all tended to stimulate the development of fundamentalism.
This is the neo-con project, and its defence is presumably to stabilise the influence of Anglo-American democracy/hegemony on the planet.
The question is then, does this project have any merit?
Is the problem in the project per se, or in its methodology?
Incidentally, with regard to the discussion on Andijan, I would be interested to be pointed in the direction of any published sources Uzbek and Nextus have for their conclusions about the motivation of the Chinese and Russians in the area.
Nextus,
I accept correction on what Craig aimed to do in or about Uzbekistan when ambassador there. However, on our treatment of allies the question depends on what is at stake. “Dazed and Confused” draws the inference that I had in mind; namely, that if the war doesn’t justify playing footsie with buggers like Karimov, then in my view we should never have got into it and we should, even now, acknowledge our error and get out of it.
Only if you argue that the war in Central Asia is of vital importance to the US and its allies can you discuss the multi-dimensionality of the question of how to treat a stinking tyrant like Karimov.
And even on that premise, treating Karimov in any way other than that which he demands seems unlikely to yield much advantage to anyone. It’s not as if folks in Afghanistan who are being bombarded with depleted uranium and other NATO-provided forms of mutilation or violent death are going to say, “see how sharply the Brits deal with Karimov, we should therefore support the totally corrupt, drug-dealing, puppet Government that they and their allies have set up for us.”
Thanks to all contributors for this exchange.
One question if I may to Charles & Co… Do you envision a limit to what you could tolerate from a Karimov type regime ?
I guess you would not be too much affected if, say, they would start to boil alive all newborns of some obscure mountainous Muslim tribe as long as the Afghan war logistics is not disturbed.
But would what about using gas chambers to exterminate all Christians ? Would that be acceptable ? Where do you put the limit – assuming there is one ?
I think this really isn’t a question of whether the torture of thousands of people on the basis that one of them might be guilty of something is OK or not: most people plainly see that it isn’t. Of course one can construct rationales for it: one can for almost anything.
Uzbek in the UK: thank you. I’m not sure I see why Andijan proves a point about how to deal with dictators: the US may have left K2 (quite happily apparently) but they still have an embassy don’t they? And presumably, still some influence? While their support for Karimov in the years before doesn’t seem to have improved the situation either, on the contrary.
(lost middle paragraph, apologies)
I think the problem is that we’re gradually accepting the question as a sane one. To suggest publicly that it might be necessary to accept information gathered from the activities of the Shankill Butchers, while the Shankill Butcher were still operating, would have been inconceivable, even in the wake of an IRA attack. And yet here we are, debating something very similar, no?
“I think the problem is that we’re gradually accepting the question as a sane one.”
Exactly.
yes, I see what you did there, Alfred. Now, how should I torture this cat?
Fascinating debate and so necessarry.
It is hard to understand what makes western Governments so desperate that they have to administer and support the murderous foibles of regimes such as that holding Uzbekistan enthralled for such a long time.
Whoever in the western world ever questioned the longivity of a rabid regime that conducts child labour and tortured people before the end of the USSr a regime that should have been booted out by 1992.
Todays agenda of negating human rights and encouraging just such regiomes in their torturous behaviour, for dubious evidence needed to uphold a construct of a global war on terrorism, is not something I would support.
Torture, if we value the achievements multicultural exchanges, trade and relations bring, has no place.
Torture undermines relationship we have fostered, sows mistrust and ambiguity, it encourages all the inherent instability we are trying to avoid in the first place, its like one is begatting oneself, dare I use this analogy.
I fully agree with Uzbek, Clark and other making the point that the resulting instability in Central Asia is down to the mistrust of Governments and their insecurity, fostered and protected by us.
Torture does encourage more of the same, to deny this and bellittle human rights abuse by attending fashion shows and pampering some rich child does not strike me as a viable solution to curb the drugs trade that uses Uzbekistan as a transit.
Our conduct in central Asia is purporting to encourage safety at home, but it is spreading violence and terror, by indulging torture and using its useless info, a self perpetuating policy. Our resolve to support such regimes creates enemies we do not need.
I do not trust the statement given by John Sawers, it leaves room to go both ways.
How can I trust a man who was involved in shaping the decisions that carried war to Iraq under false pretences?
After the exposee on Wikileaks, frankly, how can we trust any of those who were cheerleading us on, who are now clambering for dull excuses to justify a continuing agenda of torture in third countries, as well as state terror.
I question special relationships and would not want a entente frugale, i’d rather prefer a European peace and defence force. Why would one want to prise France away from Europe?