richard


Fax your MP!

Craig Murray has urged people to write to their MP calling for free elections in Uzbekistan, and demanding that Britain stops terming Karimov’s murderous regime our “ally”. Having worked in the Foreign Office, Craig has seen how much of a difference a letter to an MP can make.

To support Craig’s call, you can write to your MP via www.faxyourmp.com – it’s quick, easy and free!

View with comments

Conservative Party demands apology from Jack Straw over “disgraceful” treatment of Craig Murray

The Scotsman – Tories Demand Straw Apology over Ex-Envoy:

By Vivienne Morgan, PA Political Staff

Tories today demanded an apology from Foreign Secretary Jack Straw over his ‘disgraceful’ treatment of Britain’s former ambassador to Uzbekistan.

Craig Murray was withdrawn from his post in the Central Asian country last year after criticising its human rights record.

He has said he lost his job because he accused British and US intelligence services of using information allegedly obtained through torture by Uzbek security services.

The Foreign Office said he was withdrawn because he lost the confidence of senior officials and colleagues.

Mr Murray stood as an independent candidate against Mr Straw at Blackburn in the General Election.

During exchanges on future business today, Tory Andrew Mackay (Bracknell) said: ‘Many of us believe that our ex-ambassador Craig Murray has been disgracefully treated by the Foreign Secretary, but no action was taken against human rights abuses in that country.

‘We’d like an apology from the Foreign Secretary from that dispatch box,’ he added to shouts of support from Conservative benches.

Commons Leader Geoff Hoon replied: ‘I am sure that if he judges it necessary there will be a statement on Uzbekistan.’

He added that a detailed report was awaited from the current British ambassador, David Moran, who visited the troubled part of the state yesterday.

Opposition activists have claimed that some 700 people were killed during protests in Andijan and another town, Pakhtabad ‘ most of them civilians shot dead by government troops and security forces.

The Uzbek government of President Islam Karimov has said that 169 people died in Andijan and blamed the disturbances on militant Islamists.

Mr Straw has called for an independent international inquiry.

View with comments

The blood of the Uzbeks, the hypocrisy of the West, and the last great oil grab

The Indepent – The blood of the Uzbeks, the hypocrisy of the West, and the last great oil grab – by Johann Hari: Welcome to the New Middle East. On your left, you’ll see the largest Asian massacre since Tienanmen Square. Look – they’re hosing blood off the streets. To your right, you can see some dissidents being boiled alive, while the local regime smirks they had “an accident with a kettle”. Ah, and here’s a dictator who reminisces about his trips to the White House and brags: “I’m prepared to rip off the heads of 200 people, to sacrifice their lives, in order to save peace and calm in the republic. If my child chose such a path, I would rip off his head myself.”

The debate about Uzbekistan over the past week has been weirdly unreal. The Uzbek people are rebelling because they live in grinding, binding poverty and have no freedoms at all. Many still live on Soviet-style collectivised farms and earn less than $2 a day. True, there is a small Islamic fundamentalist political movement in the country, but in the current rebellion all the classic jihadist tactics – like suicide-bombs or targetting civilians – have been scrupulously avoided, with only the police feeling the force of their rage. Yet all it has taken is for Islam Karimov to cry “terrorism!” and most Western politicians and journalists have acted as though the “war on terror” is the reason why Britain and America are deeply enmeshed with the Karimov tyranny.

Yes, the Uzbek KGB provides us with some intelligence on apparent al-Qa’ida cells, but according to a man who has read all of it – Craig Murray, Britain’s ambassador to the country post-9/11 – it is “totally useless”. This is hardly surprising, since Karimov is “systematically” using torture, according to the UN. Information acquired via electrodes is as useful as the European confessions of witchcraft in the 16th century.

Any benefit to the “terror war” from reading this junk is far outweighed by the damage to that same “war” caused by our association with Karimov. All experts on the region agree that Karimov’s Stalin-era policies of criminalising Islam, no matter how mild or pluralistic, is directly fuelling jihadism. As one member of the European Parliament’s Uzbekistan relations committee explains: “By supporting Karimov, we are helping to create the very thing we fear – Islamic fundamentalism. Islam has never been strong in central Asia. Even before the Russians came, alcohol was widely drunk, prayer observed fitfully. Now, a visitor sees neither beards nor headscarves… yet official persecution is giving fundamentalists their opening in the region. Ordinary Uzbeks, constantly told that all opponents of the regime are Islamic radicals, are understandably wondering whether there might not be something in this ideology.” And by shovelling cash to Karimov and building bases on Uzbek soil, we are ensuring angry Uzbeks will ultimately blame us for their oppression – and possibly make us pay a blood-price for it. Jihadism was born in the Middle East when the West supported savage dictators; why repeat the mistake?

No; the reasons for our governments’ connections to Karimov are rather different. Uzbekistan’s first uprising – the first of many – is right now being crushed by US-trained troops and with US funds, in return for access to the last great oil-grab in history. The Republican regime in the White House wants to be part of the global scramble for the final untapped stash of fossil fuels on earth, before the carbon-burning party winds to an end. Central Asia holds up to 243 billion barrels of crude, worth around $4 trillion – enough to meet the West’s energy needs for years – and Uzbekistan is in the region’s dead (and I mean dead) centre. A strategic decision was clearly taken that, if this requires them to fund and fuel Karimov, the butcher of Uzbekistan – and inadvertently recreate the Middle East in central Asia – so be it.

This isn’t just my view. In 1998, Dick Cheney – when he was still CEO of the oil firm Halliburton – explained, “I cannot think of a time when we have had a region emerge as suddenly to become as strategically significant as the Caspian [central Asia’s source of oil].” Three years later, Cheney was responsible for the National Energy Report, which recommended that “the President make energy security a priority of our trade and foreign policy”. Their words. Their intentions.

At a time when oil supplies are either vulnerable to jihadist coups (as in Saudi Arabia, where our governments still back and arm the odious House of Saud) or are simply running dry, the oil industry is ravenous for new supplies. In some places – like Iraq – this thirst will lead the US to overthrow tyrants but, in just as many places, like Uzbekistan, it will lead them to prop up oil-and-pipeline-friendly tyrants, with the British government following closely behind. The question “do they let us buy and sell their oil?” determines policy, not the question “do they terrorise their people?”

So we ignore the voices of the Uzbek people; nobody wants to know the price for our carbon-economy. The rote condemnations offered by the US and British governments over the past few days do not match their actions. (The US call for “peaceful resistance” – in a country where people regularly “disappear” for joking about the leader – is preposterous). Look at the plight of Craig Murray as British ambassador. Whitehall’s man in Tashkent did everything a representative of democracy should: he spoke out against Karimov’s butchery, and offered dissidents support and protection. He was repaid with the sack, and a vicious smear campaign. There is no point having a fake argument about whether Karimov is a necessary but ugly ally in the “war on terror”, when the real argument is about whether it is worth trading the human rights of 25 million Uzbeks for access to remaining oil supplies.

We must be honest: that is what the current policy amounts to. At the best of times, trading human lives and human dignity for oil would be repellent, but right now, it would be near-suicidal. Islamic fundamentalism will pose a genuine threat to free societies in the coming age of DIY-WMD, where the technologies of destruction are terrifyingly easy to acquire. We need to undercut the causes of Islamic fundamentalism – particularly Western-backed tyranny in the Muslim world – now.

Even more importantly, the petrol-based economy which these excursions into central Asia are designed to prop up is an environmental disaster for all humans, and finding a new set of dealers for our fossil-fuel habit is not the solution.

Some American environmentalists have tried to turn this insight into what they call a “geo-green movement” to make Americans realise that they need urgently to begin the transition away from dirty fuels, for the sake of human rights abroad and for the planet. It’s time for a British counterpart. For the sake of us and for the sake of the Uzbeks, it’s time to wake up and smell the petrol.

View with comments

The folly of “sonofabitchism”

The Guardian – He’s our sonofabitch: Think of it as the sonofabitch school of foreign policy. Legend has it that when Franklin D Roosevelt was confronted with the multiple cruelties of his ally, the Nicaraguan dictator Anastasio Somoza, he replied: “He may be a sonofabitch, but he’s our sonofabitch.”

More than 60 years on, that serves as a pretty good expression of American, and therefore British, attitudes to Islam Karimov, the tyrant of Tashkent who has ruled the central Asian republic of Uzbekistan since the break-up of the Soviet Union in 1991.

That he is a sonofabitch is beyond dispute. Like so many despots before him, Karimov has looked to medieval times for ever more brutal methods of oppression. Hence the return of the cauldron, boiling alive two of his critics in 2002. Uzbekistan holds up to 6,000 political prisoners; independent economic activity has been crushed; religious practice is severely restricted; there is no free press; and the internet is censored. On December 26, when the world was marvelling at Ukraine’s orange revolution, Karimov was hosting an election that was not nearly as close – he had banned all the opposition parties.

But, hey, what’s a little human rights violation among friends? And Karimov has certainly been our friend. Shortly after 9/11, he allowed the US to locate an airbase at Khanabad – a helpful contribution to the upcoming war against Afghanistan. Since then he has been happy to act as a reliable protector of central Asian oil and gas supplies, much coveted by a US eager to reduce its reliance on the Gulf states. And he has gladly let Uzbekistan be used for what is euphemistically known as “rendition”, the practice of exporting terror suspects to countries less squeamish about torture than Britain or the US. This was the matter over which the heroic Craig Murray, the former UK ambassador to Tashkent, fell out with his employers: he argued that Britain was “selling its soul” by using information gathered under such heinous circumstances.

Brushing Murray’s qualms to one side, London and Washington remained grateful to Karimov. A procession of top Bush administration officials trekked to Tashkent to thank the dictator for his services. Donald Rumsfeld, not content with that 1983 photo of himself shaking hands with Saddam Hussein, praised Karimov for his “wonderful cooperation”, while George Bush’s former Treasury secretary, Paul O’Neill, admired the autocrat’s “very keen intellect and deep passion” for improving the lives of ordinary Uzbeks.

And perhaps this egregious example of sonofabitchism would have remained all but unnoticed had it not been for the past few days. For having ugly friends can only work if people don’t look at your companion too closely – and this week the world saw Karimov in action. When opponents took to the streets last Friday, the dictator ordered his troops to open fire. Uzbek official figures speak of 169 dead; human rights groups estimate the toll at between 500 and 750 – most of them unarmed.

When crowds demonstrated in Lebanon, Ukraine and Georgia, the Americans welcomed it as “people power”. But the brave stand in Uzbekistan brought a different response. Washington called for “restraint” from both sides, as if the unarmed civilians were just as guilty as those shooting at them. In the past couple of days, the tune has changed slightly. Now the state department wants Tashkent to “institute real reforms” and address its “human rights problems”. It is at least possible that Washington may soon decide Karimov has become an embarrassment and that he should be replaced by a new, friendlier face – but one just as reliable. Less of a sonofabitch, but still ours.

Sonofabitchism has always been an awkward business, even in Roosevelt’s day; it hardly squares with America’s image of itself as a beacon in a dark world. But the contradiction – some would call it hypocrisy – is all the greater now. For this is the Bush era, and the Bush doctrine is all about spreading democracy and “the untamed fire of freedom” to the furthest corner of the globe. If that’s the rhetoric, then it’s hard to reconcile with a reality that involves funneling cash to a man who boils his enemies.

Maybe Bush should just break with the past and fight his war for democracy with pure, democratic means. But that would frighten him. Allow elections in countries now deemed reliable – say Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Morocco – and who knows what havoc might be unleashed? Washington fears it would lose its friends, only to see them replaced by the enemy itself: radical Islamists, the force most likely to win democratic contests in large swaths of the Arab world.

That is the conundrum. And yet the case that America, and Britain for that matter, should not only talk the democratic talk but walk the democratic walk is powerful – and not only in pure, idealistic terms. This argument has realpolitik on its side, too.

First, despots make bad allies – who all too often become adversaries. Let us recall two men who once played the role of America’s sonofabitch. In the 80s, the US backed Saddam against Iran and Osama bin Laden against the Soviets. The US gave those men the guns that would eventually be turned on itself.

Second, pragmatic pacts with the devil don’t work. For one thing, by repressing their peoples, tyrannies foment, not prevent, terrorism. But such deals in the name of democracy also taint the very cause they are meant to serve. Thus liberal reformers across the Middle East now struggle to make their case to Arab publics who have grown suspicious that “democracy” means US occupation, a sell-off of oil and Abu Ghraib.

Third, if democracy really is the panacea the Bush doctrine insists it is, then shouldn’t it be trusted to work its magic? Put another way, surely a government that truly represented its people would bring the freedom and stability Washington yearns for – regardless of its political complexion?

Perhaps most reassuring to policymakers would be this fact. Even Middle Eastern democrats themselves are not calling for an overnight revolution; they know that in their stifled societies the only public sphere that exists, besides the state, is the mosque. It is for that reason that if elections were held tomorrow in, say, Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood would take power.

But if the west made the vast financial and military aid it already gives to these regimes conditional on perhaps a three-year programme of gradual liberalisation – lifting emergency laws, allowing proper funding of political parties – then soon some space would open up, terrain occupied neither by the despots nor the mullahs. Different parties and forces could start organising for a future ballot in which they had a decent shot at success.

That surely would be more logically consistent than the current, contradictory reliance on tyrants to advance the cause of freedom. And it might have a chance of working in practice – even in a place as benighted as Uzbekistan.

View with comments

The Metro – 60 Second Interview with Craig Murray

The Metro – 60 Second Interview: by Kieran Meeke, May 17th, 2005

As Britain’s Ambassador to the Central Asian republic of Uzbekistan, Craig Murray spoke out against the human rights abuses of the US-funded regime long before the recent massacre. He lost his job last year and stood against Foreign Secretary Jack Straw in the General Election to protest against Western policy in the region and the war in Iraq.

You warned more than a year ago that Uzbekistan would explode. How angry are you to see it happening?

It gives me no pleasure to be proved right. It’s interesting to see the hypocrisy of Jack Straw and others claiming they are doing something. We’ve long known that this was a terrible regime and it was bound to lead to public protest. And we knew that the regime would act viciously against that protest. President Karimov has the arrogance that comes from knowing he has the support of both Washington and Moscow.

President Karimov of Uzbekistan is a brutal dictator but he’s our dictator. Discuss.

Yes, that’s very much the American line. They argue that our alliance with Karimov is a necessary evil, like our alliance with Stalin in Word War II. There is no such comparison. The only factor driving radical Islam in Central Asia is people despairing at the regime and the lack of any democratic alternative.

What happens next?

Not much. We’ll see more hypocrisy from the US and the UK, calling for everything short of actual change. Democratic elections within a year are the only thing that will defuse the situation. There is no sign we’re going to call for that, nor that we’re going to stop calling Uzbekistan ‘our ally in the war on terror’, nor that the US is going to stop giving the regime a few hundred million dollars a year. There’s no sign Jack Straw will stop using intelligence from the Uzbek security services which is extracted by torture. Coming out of the torture chambers will be people ‘admitting’ they were working for Osama Bin Laden, and Washington will give some credence to all that nonsense.

Intelligence produced through torture is bad intelligence. Why are the CIA addicted to it?

Well, it’s plainly immoral and illegal. Secondly, it’s rubbish. But while the material is untrue, that doesn’t mean it’s not useful. The US Government is delighted to have material that says the Uzbek opposition are Islamic militants. It gives them the excuse to go on backing Karimov.

Is the ‘War on Terror’ a genuine threat or a fantasy from the intelligence services?

A great deal of it is a fantasy. The intelligence about weapons of mass destruction wasn’t true, either, but it was extremely useful. The same is true of intelligence that allows former Met Police Chief John Stevens to say there are 200 Islamic terrorists active in Britain. Active Islamic terrorists, prepared to sacrifice their own lives, but they haven’t managed to kill anyone yet. Not very good terrorists, are they? It’s all complete rubbish designed to keep the population in a state of fear. Tanks at Heathrow to keep a suicide bomber off a plane? It’s plainly bollocks – hype.

We topple an evil dictator in Iraq, yet support an evil dictator in Uzbekistan. Why the paradox? You can’t believe Tony Blair and Jack Straw are evil or stupid.

There certainly are evil people in the White House and the Pentagon. The decision has been taken that, in the war on terror, Britain should be extremely close to the US. Jack Straw finds the alliance over Uzbekistan distasteful but he’s held his nose and got on with it. The Americans are cynical; their interest in Central Asia is all about oil and gas. We back a dictator in Central Asia to get access to oil and gas, and we remove a dictator in Iraq to get access to oil and gas. Explain American policy in terms of freedom and democracy and you get a contradiction. Explain it in terms of oil and gas and it’s completely consistent.

60 SECONDS EXTRA!: Well, the US is the world’s greatest economy. It’s your business to get rid of anything threatening your fuel supplies. What’s wrong with that?

Well, they want to get access to it so they can burn it up as quickly as possible in their massive gas-guzzling cars and with a total lack of concern for energy conservation. They will drive forward global warming.

60 SECONDS EXTRA!: But they don’t believe in global warming…

They claim not to. You have to tie in this political stance to their refusal to sign the Kyoto Agreement. That’s what makes it all so bloody disastrous.

60 SECONDS EXTRA!: To deny the reality sounds stupid, almost insane.

It’s not insane to the interests promoting it. They stand to make huge fortunes in oil and gas. It’s the energy companies who are the lobbyists for the non-existence of global warming. They are just pursuing a very narrow personal interest, which is typical of America. Often they are stupid and their policy in Uzbekistan is extremely stupid. They are going to create Islamic fundamentalism. But this is all in the interests of the military establishment – a bigger threat means more money, better pay, more jobs etc. I seem to have developed a very cynical world view.

What can a Metro reader do?

Write to their MP. As someone who has worked in the Foreign Office, I can tell you it has much more effect than you might think. The MP passes it on and it has to be answered within a week. Six letters and they think the electorate is fascinated by this subject. Write and demand free elections in Uzbekistan and demand we stop calling it an ally.

60 SECONDS EXTRA!: You gave the voters of Blackburn a unique opportunity to judge Jack Straw’s conduct. They rejected you. Should you now shut up?

It’s amazing that 2,000 people voted for someone with no backing, banging on about Uzbekistan. I didn’t enter the election with any thought that I might possibly win and I can think of nothing worse than sitting in Parliament with all those boring farts. I intended to make a point and I did.

60 SECONDS EXTRA!: Do you support ID cards?

Completely appalling idea. As a diplomat, I used to boast that Britain was a free country where you could walk around without a policeman demanding to know who you are. I’ll certainly refuse to carry one. What will happen with illegal immigrants? You can’t deport half-a-million people. Are you going to lock up everyone who refuses to carry them? Will terrorists who forge passports be stumped by forging an ID card or stealing one? It’s claimed to be a cure for everything short of the common cold but it’s an extraordinarily expensive non-panacea.

Craig Murray has urged the public to write to MPs calling for free elections in Uzbekistan, and demanding that Britain stops calling Karimov’s murderous regime our “ally”. Having worked in the Foreign Office, Craig has seen how much of a difference a letter to an MP can make.

To support Craig’s call, you can write to your MP via www.faxyourmp.com – it’s quick, easy and free!

View with comments

(Financial Times) Winds of change reach central Asia

The Financial Times – Winds of change reach central Asia: It was only a matter of time before the Bush administration’s professed desire to spread democracy, especially among Muslims, collided with the obstacle of an undemocratic US ally such as Islam Karimov of Uzbekistan.

Difficult though it is to be sure of the facts – that is one of the troubles with tyrannies – Mr Karimov’s forces seem to have killed large numbers of his opponents since the start of an uprising in Andizhan on Friday. Some reports say more than 500 have died.

Mr Karimov, who has ruled since independence from the Soviet Union in 1991, has blamed criminals and Islamic radicals linked to the Hizb-ut-Tahrir movement. That is probably a self-serving attempt to paint all the government’s critics as terrorist fanatics. More likely, Uzbeks are inspired by the overthrow in March of Askar Akayev, president of neighbouring Kyrgyzstan.

Unlike in previous uprisings in Ukraine and Georgia, western nations concerned about central Asia do not have the option of backing a pro- democracy movement and letting history takes its course. Unrest in Uzbekistan is driven almost entirely by domestic discontent with Mr Karimov’s cruelty and economic mismanagement, and even if he were ousted there is no guarantee that a democratic government would take his place.

One of the few westerners to emerge from recent events with any credit is Craig Murray, the former British ambassador in Tashkent. He resigned after protesting about his government’s use of dubious information obtained under torture from detainees in Uzbekistan. The US, on the other hand, has been uncharacteristically quiet, with the White House admitting that Uzbeks want a more democratic government but suggesting lamely that this should not be achieved by force.

Unfortunately for US policymakers, Uzbekistan is not an irrelevant tinpot dictatorship. It is the most populous state in central Asia, is seen as a vital ally in the war on terror, and is home to a US air base that made an important contribution to the success of US military operations in Afghanistan. The problem is that Uzbekistan, in the words of Human Rights Watch, also has a “disastrous” human rights record. This combination has led to hand-wringing in Washington.

Speaking to the BBC, Dana Rohrabacher, the Republican congressman, half-heartedly defended US ties with Mr Karimov by comparing them with US support for Stalin during the second world war, and argued that critics of Uzbekistan should bear in mind its support for the war against terrorists.

It may not be long before someone quotes Franklin D. Roosevelt and argues that at least Mr Karimov is “our sonofabitch”. But such ruthlessness is bad policy in today’s connected world. If the US really wants to spread democracy and freedom, it cannot expect to exempt its tyrannical allies from the democratic movement it helped launch in the Middle East, eastern Europe and central Asia.

View with comments

(Times): Ready, steady, cook up reasons for supporting the boiling butcher

The Times – Ready, steady, cook up reasons for supporting the boiling butcher:ISLAM KARIMOV, President of Uzbekistan, boils people alive. Why? For the same reason Saddam Hussein put his enemies in a shredder: because, at the time, he could.

When the West is your pal you are able, quite literally, to get away with murder. And what murder! It is a surprise Karimov has time for governing at all, once he has spent the morning formulating new ways to poach, grill, tenderise, smoke and flamb’ his citizens to death. Boiling water, electrocution, chlorine-filled gas masks, drowning, rape, shooting, savage beatings, Karimov’s Uzbekistan is the absolute market leader in torture right now. The CIA would not shop anywhere else, which is why a mysterious Gulfstream 5 executive jet routinely delivers terrorist subjects from Afghanistan there for interrogation and, perhaps, percolation. Craig Murray, the former British Ambassador, drew attention to this last year, and the noted socialist Tony Blair acted immediately. He sacked him.

Mr Murray’s warnings echo louder than ever now, on the back of hundreds of corpses in the streets of Andijan. Uzbek troops opened fire on an unarmed crowd of protesters on Friday in an act of such brutality that the world finally woke up to the wickedness of the war on terror’s new best friend. Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, called it a ‘clear abuse of human rights’ ‘ no kidding, Sherlock ‘ but struggled to make his voice heard among our American allies. Little surprise. If they had wanted his opinion, they would surely have given it to him.

Live and don’t learn would appear to be the moral to this story. Karimov may be a vicious, murdering, malevolent despot, but he is our vicious, murdering, malevolent despot so, like Saddam, he can boil, shred and gas away until we tire of uses for him. Saddam was in the right place, sharing our hostility towards Iran at the right time, and so we armed him to the teeth in the name of a cause. Karimov, a nasty member of the regional Soviet hierarchy even before independence in 1991, stands beneath another flag of convenience. He is frightened of Islam, rich in gas and oil, and within striking distance of Afghanistan. An American airbase, which Karimov allowed to be built at Khanabad, now protects the American-owned pipeline carrying Central Asia’s black treasure through Afghanistan to the sea. Is it not strange that all our pals have the same thing in common? Just as celebrities end up latching on to other celebrities, so the West always finds itself hanging out with guys who are knee-deep in four-star.

The reason only the West could set the Iraqi people free was because our military and financial support for Saddam Hussein’s corrupt Government had made it impossible for his citizens to rise up alone. So it is in Uzbekistan. When Kabuljon Parpiyev, one of the leaders of the doomed Andijan protestors, spoke to Zakir Almatov, the Uzbek Interior Minister, at the weekend, he claims that he was told: ‘We don’t care if 200, 300 or 400 people die ‘ we have the force.’ It is the backing of the coalition that makes Karimov cocksure and invincible. There are countries around the world that would choose true freedom overnight: if only the coalition’s freedom-junkies would let them.

In 2002, the United States gave Uzbekistan $500 million in aid (as opposed to $36 million four years earlier) of which $120 million went to the army and $79 million to the notorious SNB, Karimov’s secret police. It was the SNB who boiled Muzafar Avazov, an Islamist activist, to death, having already beaten him severely and ripped his fingernails out. The fate of his fellow prisoner Husnidin Alimov does not bear thinking about, considering the Government restricted viewing of his lifeless body. It was also the SNB who came to collect Avazov’s 63-year-old mother, Fatima Mukhadirova, sentenced to six years’ hard labour for the crime of telling the world about the murder of her son. (She was released the day before Donald Rumsfeld was due to visit, during which he praised ‘the wonderful co-operation we have received from the Government of Uzbekistan’ over the War on Terror.)

So the freedom our precious coalition claims to be exporting around the world is not true freedom at all. Rather, it is freedom we are giving back, having conspired with sadists to take away. What the Iraqi people enjoyed at the polling booths in January was freedom on our terms, not theirs. Considering the dreadful human toll, one would think we would then acknowledge that mistake by not repeating it, but no: there were no opposition parties in Uzbekistan’s last election and there are no arms restrictions imposed by our Government, either. Questioned on thisin Parliament in December 2003, Bill Rammell, the junior Foreign and Commonwealth Office minister, said: ‘Uzbekistan is a key player in a region of strategic importance to the UK, so defence co-operation is important. It is important to note that Uzbek armed forces are not implicated in human rights violations.’ In other words: go boil your head. Oh, sorry, you already have done.

We mould these little monsters such as Saddam, Karimov and General Manuel Noriega and they do our dirty work until such a time when it is no longer expedient, at which point we extract revenge and dress it up as a moral crusade; or enduring freedom. There are those who believe that, whatever its motives, the war in Iraq can be justified by free elections and the removal of Saddam. Yes, but only if that policy is consistent. If the coalition agenda is to spread democracy worldwide, then it cannot be in bed with a tyrant like Karimov. And if it is, then any good in Iraq is overpowered by the stench of death and hypocrisy wafting across from central Asia.

As it stands, the War on Terror finds an exalted place in its ranks for a man whose idea of government is a dissident casserole. Hey, Tony, what’s that smell? I think your freedom’s done.

View with comments

Craig Murray (Guardian): What drives support for this torturer

The Guardian – What drives support for this torturer: The bodies of hundreds of pro-democracy protesters in Uzbekistan are scarcely cold, and already the White House is looking for ways to dismiss them. The White House spokesman Scott McClellan said those shot dead in the city of Andijan included “Islamic terrorists” offering armed resistance. They should, McClellan insists, seek democratic government “through peaceful means, not through violence”.

But how? This is not Georgia, Ukraine or even Kyrgyzstan. There, the opposition parties could fight elections. The results were fixed, but the opportunity to propagate their message brought change. In Uzbek elections on December 26, the opposition was not allowed to take part at all.

And there is no media freedom. On Saturday morning, when Andijan had been leading world news bulletins for two days, most people in the capital, Tashkent, still had no idea anything was happening. Nor are demonstrations in the capital tolerated. On December 7 a peaceful picket at the gates of the British embassy was broken up with great violence, its victims including women and children. So how can Uzbeks pursue democracy by “peaceful means”?

Take the 23 businessmen whose trial for “Islamic extremism” sparked recent events. Had the crowd not sprung them from jail, what would have awaited them? The conviction rate in criminal and political trials in Uzbekistan is over 99% – in President Karimov’s torture chambers, everyone confesses.

But the torture by no means ends on conviction. In prison there is torture to make you sign a recantation of faith and declaration of loyalty to the president. And there is torture to make you sign evidence implicating “accomplices”. It was at this stage that the infamous boiling to death of Muzafar Avazov and Husnidin Alimov took place in Jaslik prison in 2002. I expect the government will take care that the 23, if not already dead, die in the mopping up.

You may think I exaggerate. Read the 2002 report by Professor Theo van Boven, the UN special rapporteur on torture, in which he denounced torture in Uzbekistan as “widespread and systemic”. Human Rights Watch last year produced a book with more than 300 pages of case studies. One of the uses of Uzbek torture is to provide the CIA and MI6 with “intelligence” material linking the Uzbek opposition with Islamist terrorism and al-Qaida. The information is almost entirely bogus, and it was my efforts to stop MI6 using it that led ultimately to my effective dismissal from the Foreign Office.

The information may be untrue, but it is valuable because it feeds into the US agenda. Karimov is very much George Bush’s man in central Asia. There is not a senior member of the US administration who is not on record saying warm words about Karimov. There is not a single word recorded by any of them calling for free elections in Uzbekistan.

And it’s not just words. In 2002, the US gave Uzbekistan over $500m in aid, including $120m in military aid and $80m in security aid. The level has declined – but not nearly as much as official figures seem to show (much is hidden in Pentagon budgets after criticism of the 2002 figure).

The airbase opened by the US at Khanabad is not essential to operations in Afghanistan, its claimed raison d”tre. It has a more crucial role as the easternmost of Donald Rumsfeld’s “lily pads” – air bases surrounding the “wider Middle East”, by which the Pentagon means the belt of oil and gas fields stretching from the Middle East through the Caucasus and central Asia. A key component of this strategic jigsaw fell into place this spring when US firms were contracted to build a pipeline to bring central Asia’s hydrocarbons out through Afghanistan to the Arabian sea. That strategic interest explains the recent signature of the US-Afghan strategic partnership agreement, as well as Bush’s strong support for Karimov.

So the Uzbek people can keep on dying. They are not worth a lot of cash, so who cares? I travelled to Andijan a year ago to meet the opposition leaders, and kept in touch. I can give you a direct assurance that they are – or in many cases were – in no sense Islamist militants. They died an unwanted embarrassment to US foreign policy. We will doubtless hear some pious hypocrisies from Jack Straw. But when I was seeking funding to support the proto-democrats, the Foreign Office turned me down flat.

The US will fund “human rights” training in Uzbekistan but not help for the democratic opposition, in contrast to its policy elsewhere in the former Soviet Union. When Jon Purnell, the US ambassador, last year attended the opening of a human rights centre in the Ferghana valley, he interrupted a local speaker criticising repression. Political points, Purnell opined, were not allowed.

The western news agenda has moved the dead of Andijan from the “democrat” to the “terrorist” pile. Karimov remains in power. The White House will be happy. That’s enough for No 10.

‘ Craig Murray was British ambassador to Uzbekistan from 2002 to 2004

View with comments

Straw criticises Uzbek ally as former envoy demands sanctions

The Independent – Straw criticises Uzbek ally as former envoy demands sanctions: Mr Murray, who left the Foreign Office after accusing the British Government of using intelligence gained through torture by Uzbek authorities, said: “Jack Straw may say the situation is serious, but talk is cheap. And other than talk, Britain has done nothing. How much money has the Government spent supporting democratic movements in Uzbekistan? The answer is virtually bugger all.

“I was always told to refer to Uzbekistan as ‘our ally’. Is Jack Straw saying that Uzbekistan is no longer our ally?”

View with comments

Anger grows as US government supports Karimov

Anger as US backs brutal regime

Nick Paton Walsh in Moscow and Paul Harris in New York

Sunday May 15, 2005, The Observer

Heated criticism was growing last night over ‘double standards’ by Washington over human rights, democracy and ‘freedom’ as fresh evidence emerged of just how brutally Uzbekistan, a US ally in the ‘war on terror’, put down Friday’s unrest in the east of the country. Outrage among human rights groups followed claims by the White House on Friday that appeared designed to justify the violence of the regime of President Islam Karimov, claiming – as Karimov has – that ‘terrorist groups’ may have been involved in the uprising.

Critics said the US was prepared to support pro-democracy unrest in some states, but condemn it in others where such policies were inconvenient.

Witnesses and analysts familiar with the region said most protesters were complaining about government corruption and poverty, not espousing Islamic extremism.

The US comments were seized on by Karimov, who said yesterday that the protests were organised by Hizb ut-Tahrir, an Islamic group often accused by Tashkent of seditious extremism. Yet Washington, which has expressed concern over the group’s often hardline message, has yet to designate it a terrorist group.

Scott McClellan, the White House spokesman, tried to deflect accusations of the contradictory stance when he said it was clear the ‘people of Uzbekistan want to see a more representative and democratic government. But that should come through peaceful means, not through violence.’

Washington has often been accused of being involved in a conspiracy of silence over Uzbekistan’s human rights record since that country was declared an ally in the ‘war on terror’ in 2001.

Uzbekistan is believed to be one of the destination countries for the highly secretive ‘renditions programme’, whereby the CIA ships terrorist suspects to third-party countries where torture is used that cannot be employed in the US. Newspaper reports in America say dozens of suspects have been transferred to Uzbek jails.

The CIA has never officially commented on the programme. But flight logs obtained by the New York Times earlier this month show CIA-linked planes landing in Tashkent with the same serial numbers as jets used to transfer prisoners around the world. The logs show at least seven flights from 2002 to late 2003, originating from destinations in the Middle East and Europe.

Other countries used in the programme include Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria and Morocco. A handful of prisoners’ accounts – including that of Canadian Maher Arar – that emerged after release show they were tortured and abused in custody.

Critics say the US double standards are evident on the State Department website, which accuses Uzbek police and security services of using ‘torture as a routine investigation technique’ while giving the same law enforcement services $79 million in aid in 2002. The department says officers who receive training are vetted to ensure they have not tortured anyone.

The aid paradox was highlighted by the former British Ambassador to Uzbekistan, Craig Murray, who criticised coalition support for Uzbekistan when they were planning invading Iraq, using similar abuses as justification.

Murray said yesterday: ‘The US will claim that they are teaching the Uzbeks less repressive interrogation techniques, but that is basically not true. They help fund the budget of the Uzbek security services and give tens of millions of dollars in military support. It is a sweetener in the agreement over which they get their air base.’

Murray said that during a series of suicide bombings in Tashkent in March 2004, before he was sacked as UK ambassador, he was shown transcripts of telephone intercepts in which known al-Qaeda representatives were asking each other ‘what the hell was going on. But then Colin Powell came out and said that al-Qaeda were behind the blasts. I don’t think the US even believe their own propaganda.’

The support continues, seen by many as a ‘pay-off’ for the Khanabad base. The US Embassy website says Uzbekistan got $10m for ‘security and law enforcement support’ in 2004.

Last year Human Rights Watch released a 319-page report detailing the use of torture by Uzbekistan’s security services. It said the government was carrying out a campaign of torture and intimidation against Muslims that had seen 7,000 people imprisoned, and documented at least 10 deaths, including Muzafar Avozov, who was boiled to death in 2002.

‘Torture is rampant,’ the reported concluded. Human Rights Watch called for the US and its allies to condemn Uzbekistan’s tactics.

View with comments

Craig Murray denounces western support for brutal Uzbek regime

The Mail on Sunday – Surely Blair can’t go on backing this monster who boils his enemies alive: Today the World looks on in horror as scores, perhaps hundreds, of pro-democracy demonstrators in Andizhan pay with their lives the price of Western support for the evil Uzbek dictator, Islam Karimov. George Bush and Tony Blair are culpable in these deaths. They have supported Karimov and obstructed the growth of democratic opposition in the country.

The Uzbek regime has attempted to portray the dissidents as Islamic militants. The White House has been keen to parrot this, saying the demonstrators include ‘Islamic terrorists’. This is how they justify continued support to their favourite dictator, and a regime which has literally been known to boil opponents alive. But the charge is simply a lie. Those demonstrating are not Islamic militants. They simply want freedom, democracy and above all a chance to make a living away from the continued Soviet economic system of Uzbekistan.

I know this because I know them. A year ago I travelled to Andizhan as British Ambassador, to attend a meeting of an organisation called the ‘Democratic Forum’. This was an attempt to set up an umbrella grouping of supporters of democratic change, with the aim of contesting parliamentary elections held in Uzbekistan last December. At least two of the people at that meeting were among the 23 ‘Islamic militants’ whose imprisonment sparked the current uprising. In fact they were businessmen who wanted capitalism and democracy to come to Uzbekistan.

The Uzbek government tried hard to stop me getting to Andizhan that day. We were stopped at repeated police road blocks, one of which I physically overturned to get past, to the consternation of the Uzbek security services, who couldn’t shoot Her Majesty’s Ambassador.

We had been followed for miles by a car containing four leather jacketed men. When we stopped for tea they stopped too and sat at the next table. At the last police check point they overtook us. As we entered Andizhan City they emerged at speed from a side street and tried to ram us. Only the brilliance of our Embassy driver, Sasha, saved us from this unfortunate ‘Accident’.

I kept up relationships with the Andizhan opposition after my visit. They came to my office several times. Andizhan had been a comparatively wealthy town and its middle class had been particularly hit by government anti-enterprise measures taken from November 2002. Alarmed that slight economic liberalisation was leading to the start of an independently minded middle class, the Uzbek government had clamped down on the private sector. Borders were physically closed to private trade, and in the Ferghana Valley near Andizhan cross-border bridges were dynamited. Bazaars were closed by the security forces. Laws were passed ending cash trading and forcing all business transactions to go through state-owned and controlled banks. The economic effects were catastrophic, especially in a dynamic trading town like Andizhan.

There was no outlet for the resulting discontent. There is absolutely no media freedom in Uzbekistan. The Democratic Forum got nowhere. The opposition were banned from the parliamentary elections, which were farcically contested between five government ‘parties’ all supporting the President. We are Back in the USSR.

Yet President Karimov, the great oppressor of liberty and capitalism, has the strong support of George Bush. He is a welcome guest for tea in the White House. Donald Rumsveld, Condoleeza Rice and Colin Powell have all been to Tashkent and lavished praise upon their host. Tony Blair and Jack Straw were all too willing to sack me for speaking out against Karimov’s habit of arresting, very often torturing and sometimes killing political opponents.

View with comments

Outrage grows over US support for Uzbek government

The Observer – Anger as US backs brutal regime: Heated criticism was growing last night over ‘double standards’ by Washington over human rights, democracy and ‘freedom’ as fresh evidence emerged of just how brutally Uzbekistan, a US ally in the ‘war on terror’, put down Friday’s unrest in the east of the country.

Outrage among human rights groups followed claims by the White House on Friday that appeared designed to justify the violence of the regime of President Islam Karimov, claiming – as Karimov has – that ‘terrorist groups’ may have been involved in the uprising.

Critics said the US was prepared to support pro-democracy unrest in some states, but condemn it in others where such policies were inconvenient…

The aid paradox was highlighted by the former British Ambassador to Uzbekistan, Craig Murray, who criticised coalition support for Uzbekistan when they were planning invading Iraq, using similar abuses as justification.

Murray said yesterday: ‘The US will claim that they are teaching the Uzbeks less repressive interrogation techniques, but that is basically not true. They help fund the budget of the Uzbek security services and give tens of millions of dollars in military support. It is a sweetener in the agreement over which they get their air base.’

Murray said that during a series of suicide bombings in Tashkent in March 2004, before he was sacked as UK ambassador, he was shown transcripts of telephone intercepts in which known al-Qaeda representatives were asking each other ‘what the hell was going on. But then Colin Powell came out and said that al-Qaeda were behind the blasts. I don’t think the US even believe their own propaganda…

View with comments

Vicious crackdown in Uzbekistan

The Guardian – Uzbek regime clamps down as unrest flares: Uzbekistan was in a state of ferment last night after bloody clashes in Andijan in the volatile Ferghana valley.

The government of the central Asian state shut down foreign broadcasts and tightened security at important buildings in an attempt to stop the unrest in the eastern valley from spreading.

Neighbouring Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan and Kazakhstan – which all share part of the restive valley – closed their borders as the tide of popular discontent sweeping through the former Soviet region flared into violence.

Yesterday’s clashes in Andijan were sparked by the arrest of 23 Muslim businessmen, facing what human rights organisations claimed were trumped-up charges of religious extremism.

The defendants, who were freed in a storming of the Andijan jail, were accused of having links to the outlawed Hizb-ut-Tahrir party.

This radical Islamist group, whose purported heartland is in the Ferghana valley, is accused of mounting attacks in Uzbekistan that killed more than 50 people last year, allegations the group denies.

Yevgeny Primakov, a former Russian prime minister, told Interfax news agency: “The events in the Ferghana valley pose a great danger to stability in the region. It is critical not to allow a split between the north and the south of Uzbekistan.”

Uzbek authorities have been displaying more signs of nervousness and intolerance. They cracked down on media and dissidents after Georgia’s “rose revolution” in 2003 that ousted President Eduard Shevardnadze. Many foreign non-governmental organisations were banned.

Up to 6,000 political dissidents are in jail, and the government, suspicious of both religious groups and business, has closed down private enterprises.

Allison Gill, Human Rights Watch’s representative in Tashkent, said protests had arisen more often owing to economic issues and government interference than in response to political or religious grievances.

She said the 23 men arrested in Andijan were subscribers to the Akramiya religious ideology. The movement gives Muslims a set of rules for life – including requirements to strive for success and give tithes to the poor.

“Akramism is compromised mostly of successful businessmen – like the 23 in jail,” Ms Gill said, adding that rights monitors were aware of 50 arrests over suspected links to Akramism this year.

Protests about the trial began 10 days ago when the men’s employees gave out leaflets. “It looks like last night the employees whose jobs were threatened went to free the defendants.”

She doubted that much of Uzbekistan would learn of the unrest but said she would not be surprised if it spread to other towns. Uzbekistan’s poor human rights record has received little publicity since the US recruited the country as an ally in its “war on terror” in October 2001 – setting up a military base in the southern town of Khanabad to aid operations in neighbouring Afghanistan.

Hundreds of millions of dollars of aid flowed in, with critics accusing the US of turning a blind eye to the torture record of the regime of the president, Islam Karimov.

The White House last night urged restraint but added that some of the prisoners who had been freed were from a “terrorist organisation”. They did not elaborate, and the US embassy in Tashent could not say who they were referring to.

“We don’t know who they are talking about,” said Ms Gill. “The use of the word terrorist is unjustified and plays into Uzbek government policy by justifying torture by calling it anti-terrorist measures.”

One leading critic of the abuses, the former British ambassador to Tashkent Craig Murray, highlighted a case in which one prisoner was apparently boiled alive.

Mr Murray believes that his publicising of the abuses eventually cost him his job. He said that the unrest would spread, but it would take time. Of the news blackout, he said: “I have spoken to three people in Tashkent who have no idea about Andijan.”

‘ Russian prosecutors said yesterday that the oil billionaire and Kremlin critic Mikhail Khodorkovsky, due to hear a verdict on fraud and tax evasion charges on Monday, would face further charges of money-laundering. A member of his legal team described the charges as “a direct and blatant attempt to exert pressure on the judges”.

View with comments

Thankyou to all those who voted for Craig Murray

We would like to say a heartfelt thankyou to all those who have supported the Craig Murray Campaign, and especially to the 2,082 people who voted for Craig on Thursday. The election may now be over, but the issue of British complicity in torture is not going to go away.

View with comments

Straw aide linked to ‘voters’ in empty flat

The Independent – Straw aide linked to ‘voters’ in empty flat: JACK STRAW has been urged to investigate how 10 voters in his constituency were registered at a seemingly empty flat above a shop owned by one of his key election campaigners.

Hussain Akhtar, a Blackburn councillor considered to be the foreign secretary’s right-hand man in the town’s Muslim community, would not discuss the matter with The Sunday Times but said the voters were ‘gone’.

The property was boarded up with ‘Vote Labour’ placards during the election campaign. One of the listed tenants was first registered to vote at Akhtar’s property about two years after she says that she left.

The case emerged as concerns grow about the accuracy of the electoral roll and the potential vulnerability of the election system to abuse. The Electoral Commission has called for new laws to improve their administration.

There is no evidence that Akhtar has been involved in wrongdoing, but he is under pressure to explain how the 10 voters ‘ and himself ‘ are registered in a property which appears to be empty.

Tony Melia, the Liberal Democrat candidate for Blackburn who came third in Thursday’s poll, said: ‘I have made a complaint about this matter to Jack Straw.

‘We need to know why these people are registered at this address, who registered them and, most importantly, whether they voted. I am particularly concerned at voters who are registered and moved out some years ago.’

Labour had feared that Straw would lose many votes over the Iraq war. Akhtar was one of the campaigners used to mobilise the Muslim vote.

One of the tenants on the electoral roll at Akhtar’s property in Whalley Range, Blackburn, is Afrin Hussain. Electronic records of the electoral roll indicate that she was first registered there in 2002, although the spelling of her first name was then Afrian.

She said yesterday that she had moved out five years ago and was now listed on the electoral roll at a separate address with her husband. She had voted in the election.

‘We just don’t know how we got registered at Whalley Range. I will go to the council next week and tell them what has happened,’ she said.

Most of the voters at the address are thought to be part of Akhtar’s extended family. ‘Some people have been moved to different addresses and everybody knows it. The people have moved from here, they are gone,’ he said.

In other constituencies some candidates said they believed the lack of checks on the electoral roll and voting process may have resulted in fraud. In Birmingham Ladywood Ayoub Khan, the Liberal Democrat candidate, has called for an inquiry into allegations of ‘personation’ ‘ voting under someone else’s name ‘ and hopes to challenge the result.

In North Lanarkshire, council officials believe that they may have found evidence of two instances of personation and have told the police.

View with comments

Help us make history in Blackburn. YOUR vote could tip the balance. Craig Murray’s final campaign diary from today’s Guardian.

The Guardian – Our man in Blackburn: As you read this, the polls will be open. The voters of Blackburn will be streaming out in their happy thousands to vote for me and to consign Jack Straw to political oblivion. Or not, as the case may be.

The campaign continues to produce its lighter moments. A postman told one of my canvassers he was voting for that nice Mr Rigging. We were stumped by this, until we realised that our election communication is headed: “You can beat Labour vote rigging.”

I was delighted to be approached by a whole crowd in the pub last night wanting my autograph. I was overwhelmed by my own popularity and thought I was home and dry. Then I discovered that they thought I was “that bloke that’s shagging Sally on Corrie”. I don’t know who that actor is, but evidently he must be a man of great good looks and charisma. Now that Ian McKellen is on Coronation Street, I console myself that being mistaken for one of the cast is socially acceptable.

One of our slogans has been “British Bulldog, not Bush’s Poodle”, which has the advantage of confusing people entirely about the political direction we are coming from. This at least gets them to open the leaflet and read more. It was devised by Edward, who used to work for Saatchi and Saatchi. He claims it appeals to both left and right. It could, of course, alienate both instead. I suppose we’ll soon know.

My mate Matt was canvassing when he was attacked by the two largest poodles imaginable. The unrepentant owner of these gruesome animals declared herself deeply offended by the jibe at poodles. Happily, the militant poodle front seems outnumbered by the gratified bulldog owners.

Getting a platform has proved difficult. The local council has failed to meet its legal obligation to provide public meeting rooms in schools, community centres, etc. We had Moazzam Begg on Sunday to talk about his detention in Guant’namo, and we had to hire a private ballroom. The council claimed they couldn’t staff a public room over the bank holiday, but community centres were used by Straw for public meetings on the bank holiday Monday.

What’s more, on the Saturday of the bank holiday weekend the Returning Officer tracked me down to Puccino’s cafe, where he told me that there had been a complaint that my posters did not meet the legal requirement for a publishing imprint. I pointed out the publishing imprint to him, and he vanished. There seems to be no shortage of energy for stifling democracy, but less for promoting it.

Straw refuses to meet me on a platform. The cathedral organised a so-called hustings on Sunday from which I was barred. The BBC has rubbed salt into the wounds of its refusal to give me election coverage by putting in requests from four different programmes to interview me after the polls are closed. I did eventually get a confirmation that a central BBC decision had been taken not to cover my campaign. Helen Boaden, head of news and current affairs, replied that the BBC could not cover me because its regional political team “was unable to assess if I had significant electoral support”. Why are they unable to assess it? What are they being paid for? So if anyone hopes to see me on election night, you will have to watch on ITV.

It seems to me essential that Straw is punished for the illegal war, for the decision that the intelligence services should regularly use information obtained under torture, for the dossier of lies on Iraqi WMD. At least in Blackburn Labour must pay. The argument that it did well on employment and health, as advanced by Polly Toynbee, is precisely the argument deployed in favour of Hitler and Mussolini. I don’t see how any self-respecting person can vote Labour, no matter which orifice they cover with their fingers.

So how will we do? Well, surprisingly well. There is real anger at the war. People don’t like liars. And Straw is plainly very worried. Unlike previous elections, he has not been out to marginals to support other candidates. Rather Gordon Brown, Robin Cook and even the Iraqi deputy prime minister have been here to bolster him. Neither the Lib Dems nor the Tories see this as winnable; they have not brought in a single big hitter. Of whom is he scared? Me.

Blackburn people have plenty to protest about. I have offered nothing but honesty and hard work. I have no idea if that might prove enough.

Anyone want a Green Goddess, slightly used?

View with comments

Straw’s seat is a hot spot of postal vote fraud claims

The Independent – Straw’s seat is a hot-spot of postal vote fraud claims: In the Lancashire constituency of Blackburn, where the Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, is defending his 9,249 majority, the vote-rigging allegations have intensified as polling day nears.

“I’ve come from Uzbekistan to Blackburnistan,” says Craig Murray, Britain’s former ambassador to the central Asian republic who is campaigning to unseat the Foreign Secretary. He left the Foreign Office after speaking out against the Government’s use of intelligence obtained by torture.

“This is very much a Labour rotten borough,” he said. “There is a nexus of the police, the authorities and business – if we were in the Soviet Union, you would say mafia.”

The jailing of a Blackburn city councillor – an Asian Muslim representing Labour – for rigging postal votes in the May 2002 local elections has failed to silence the rumour mill. Voters in the Muslim community, which makes up almost a quarter of the electorate, say now they are being strong-armed by mosque leaders and councillors to vote Labour. The number of postal votes registered in Blackburn is 20,000, compared to 7,600 in 2001.

View with comments

You CAN beat Labour vote rigging

Blackburn is buzzing as the campaign reaches its climax. Volunteers and well-wishers continue to stream into our campaign office, and there’s every sign that an upset may be on the cards.

Craig Murray’s election address has finally been released by the Post Office, and delivered to every household in the constituency. His message is a simple one: You CAN beat Labour’s postal vote rigging.

An astonishing 16,000 postal votes have been requested in Blackburn alone, and there are widespread fears of fraud.

This isn’t just about the illegal war in Iraq, and the lies that were told to take us there – it’s about democracy itself. If you’d like to join the fight for the last hectic days of the campaign, do drop by our office on 15 Railway Road, Blackburn, or telephone us on 01254 695 919 / 07979 691085.

View with comments

Desperate Jack Straw ships Iraq’s Deputy PM to Blackburn to shore up crumbling support

In a desperate and highly controversial bid to avoid defeat in Blackburn, Foreign Secretary Jack Straw has enlisted the support of Iraq’s answer to John Prescott, Deputy Prime Minister Barham Salih.

Salih visited Blackburn last week to address a gathering of Labour activists at the Audley Community Centre. At a hustings meeting shortly afterwards, Jack Straw was asked why, with Iraq in turmoil, the country’s Deputy Prime Minister had been dragged over to Britain to intervene in our election.

The enlistment of Iraq’s Deputy PM for New Labour’s party-political purposes must also raise serious questions about the supposed independence of occupied Iraq.

View with comments