Customer Reviews

Murder in Samarkand: A British Ambassador's Controversial Defiance of Tyranny in the War on Terror

5 star:		(4)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Few of us have done battle with a murderous dictator. "Murder in Samarkand" tells how a British Ambassador did so and survived, only to be stabbed in the back by his own Prime Minister. Tony Blair ignored diplomatic advice if it complicated his relations with George W. Bush. How the British Foreign Office tried but failed to dismiss Ambassador Murray for invented disciplinary offences is an individual tale of injustice. However, the gripping core of this story is of a young and studious Ambassador driven to take absurd risks in remote parts of Uzbekistan as he builds up a dossier of incontrovertible brutalities by his host government. Those who try to obstruct him find this experienced and slightly overweight scholar is no patsy. He disputes the lies of petty bureaucrats. He storms into a corrupt procurator's office and dismisses him as a criminal - a risky way to use an Ambassador's "full and plenipotentiary" powers. But it works. The bully is exposed as a coward in front of those he has bullied. There is even a snow-shrouded chase with President Karimov's goons in pursuit - no wonder film rights are under discussion.

The shocking part of this story - narrated with skill and honesty - is that, at heart, much of the British Foreign Office valued Ambassador Murray's reporting from his Embassy in Tashkent. Dealing with human rights abuses is never easy. Murray knew his way around the policy heavyweights at home well enough to make sure that a controversial speech critical of Uzbekistan had support from the human rights desks. But when the White House complained to Tony Blair and he passed this down the line, spines crumpled - from Foreign Secretary Jack Straw down. This book shows how diplomats can bring shame or honor to their country. There is a simple lesson for Tony Blair (and George Bush) to learn. If you ask diplomats who are trained to report truthfully, to tell lies, the lasting problems will come from the ones who obey you, not the ones who stick to their professional calling.

Allegations of visas in exchange for sex against a British ambassador to some ex-Soviet republic; subsequently cleared on all counts but forced out nonetheless. Like many in Britain that was all that really remained in my memory of the lurid headlines and media reports of a year or so ago - and life carried on.

Anyone for whom that rings bells owes it to themselves to read this book, as does anyone wondering about the true nature of the West's so called 'War on Terror'. It is deeply disturbing on two levels:

1. It documents the appalling nature of the 20 year Uzbek Regime of Islam Karimov. A regime which spans the pre and post-to-date Soviet era. Not in some dry academic fashion either but through the exploits of the Ambassador who, at considerable risk to his own safety, intervened in numerous cases of offical brutality. The reader is left in no doubt that the Karimov regime of Uzbekistan is on a par with the very worst of the worlds self-serving and brutal dictatorships. It was during this period that controversy about US/UK willingness to 'make use of evidence obtained under torture' and US so called 'rendition flights' became public. The ambassador reported that any such 'evidence' from Uzbekistan was useless since the regime was simply in the business of forcing 'dissidents to confirm what the regime wanted the West to hear. His reports were unwelcome.

2. To have the true nature of one the then principal strategic allies in the West's 'War on Terror' exposed to scrutiny was judged by the Foreign Office top brass to be (euphemistically) 'counterproductive'. In spite of him having overwhelming support from human rights organisations and the Ex-Pat British business community, not to mention achieving more genuine influence with the Karimov regime than any of his predecessors, he had to be stopped. The methods employed to stop him were the inspiration of those headlines which hid a myriad of other kafkaesque stratagems . They bring shame on both the British government and the upper echelons of a politicised civil service which even now is doing all it can to prevent both the sale of this book and publication of documents which prove its authenticity.

I can't understand why there are no reviews of this book. It is truly superb, a gripping account of a British ambassador, who defended the principles upon which a genuine democracy is based, waging a battle against a bloody dictator supported by the Bush/Cheney regime and his own government.

Why did Bush/Cheney/Blair support Karimov, whom Craig Morris exposed as a torturer who had boiled an opposition leader in oil? Because of the dictator's "contributions" to the so-called War on Terror: a military base in Uzbekhistan for the Bush/Cheney regime, and a willing accomplice in the torture individuals believed to be terrorists.

Of course Craig Murray suffered at the hands of his own government--the ways are revealed in the book--when he complained vehemently against using "information" which was the product of torture by the dictator's inhuman henchmen. He didn't know it at the time, but the CIA was carrying out a policy now known as "extraordinary rendition."

The book is valuable, not only because it is a well-written account of Craig Murray's insistence on refusing to cooperate with a savage regime that terrified the population of Uzbekhistan in ways that the worst of our nightmares could not conceive, as well as this ambassador's battle against his own government, but also because it provides details of the daily life of a ranking diplomat, a rare occurrence.

I cannot recommend Murder in Samarkand highly enough! The book deserves every one of the five stars I have given it.

The book details the real-life story of Craig Murray, a successful British career diplomat that became a pawn in the Great Game. Assigned to become Ambassador to Uzbekistan, he took over a very small embassy with all the attendant issues (morale, support, etc.) He also very quickly became aware of horrific human rights abuses in Uzbekistan that have been substantiated by other NGOs like Human Rights Watch.

His subsequent attempt to stand up against a regime that enjoyed boiling people alive, executing real or perceived enemies of the state in extra-judicial killings, etc. subsequently got Mr. Murray into trouble with the Blair administration since he was stirring the pot with one of their erstwhile allies in the "War on Terror". However, as Mr. Murray so eloquently lays out, it is precisely this type of tyrannical regime that leads to the rise of fundamentalist, extremist groups in the first place.

Mr. Murray went to extraordinary lengths to represent British interests in Uzbekistan and traveled the whole nation to get to know it better. Along the way, he tried his best to encourage Democracy and Rule of Law, a novelty in Uzbekistan. Some of his more dangerous and coloful confrontations included standing up to various local government officials, thugs, etc. and are recounted in gripping detail. It is evident that Mr. Murray risked considerable harm to himself.

Like most other diplomats in Uzbekistan, Mr. Murray could have simply looked the other way, just as the British government instructed him to when he reported human rights abuses and other issues with the regime that the Blair and Bush administrations wanted to cozy up to. That is not to say that he is a knight in shining armor, but he seems to be pretty honest about his personal flaws.

When one of his internal Memos to the Foreign Office decrying the human rights abuses in Uzbekistan was leaked to the press, the British government took extraordinary steps to kick him out of the Foreign Service. With his departure, the British Foreign Service lost one of their more courageous and competent ambassadors, though perhaps he was a bit too honest and outspoken for the diplomatic club.

The US version of this book ("Dirty Diplomacy") names more names regarding the folk working behind the scenes to kick Mr. Murray out of the Foreign Service, thanks to US freedom of speech laws. The British paperback version has more pictures, however. Either book is a very interesting read, and I highly recommend them.

I finished reading this book just one day before my visit to Uzbekistan two weeks ago. I travelled for 10 days and interacted with a cross section of people, and I am glad that I read the book.

First of all, it is a police state. In many ways it was a much harsher experience than my visit to Leningrad in 1985. There is police everywhere, with their florescent red baton and they carry out extensive checks. Crossing from one province to another, is like going through a border crossing, which becomes painful when you are travelling through 6 provinces during a single day. The ordinary people are scared of the police. All the policemen that I saw without exception were fat!!! College students and government workers get drafted in during cotton picking. I saw some minors also working in the cotton fields. Nobody can own property. They can lease it from the state but the state can take it back whenever they want. USD can be changed into the local currency but not the other way around.(Almost impossible)Big black market flourishes. If local people wish to visit Tashkent for more than 72 hours they have to register with the police.

We as tourists had to get a detailed form filled showing expensive goods (camera, gold earnings etc) and currency being bought in, and that document is almost as valuable as your passport. You have to show it to customs when you are going through customs on your exit from the country and you can be in serious trouble if you lose that document. The other thing is you need to register with the local authorities each time you stay in a new hotel. The hotel does that for you, but you have to have those slips of paper with you all the time. Between my mother and me I had 14 such slips. Again you are in serious trouble if you lose these slips.

In the airports we were asked for passports even for internal flights. Once while crossing a province our passports were checked and once we were asked for the hotel registration slips. I was given a warning once for taking a photo of a government building in Fergana. It was not an important building (Like Home ministry / defence). However the policeman was very polite and did not ask me to delete the photo or ask for a bribe. I was scared as I was alone in the evening and the policeman could not speak English. Also in the airport a police official was very insistent that I carry a parcel for him to India and I refused, but it was scary.

However by and large there is one system for tourists and another for locals. We as tourists got waved through most of the time. However we could see the ordinary people being checked. Also long lines for gas( CNG) for the car. Very surprising since the country produces its own gas in abundance.

About the rape cases, here I got a different impression from Mr Murray. It happens rarely and normally to prostitutes. However I was there only for 10 days, and Mr Murray was there for 2 years. You would be very foolish to go to a house of ill repute as I heard of stories of tourists being exhorted for money by the prostitute / police for over 1000's of dollars.

There are so many such countries with function a police state, so I don't think that Uzbekistan is any eyesore. Democracy flourished in India because the British had elections in India several times before the partition. The people were used to the idea.

Now let me review the book. If Mr Murray was from the Human Rights watch I would have said that he would have done a fantastic job. However he was the ambassador of UK, and it was not his job to address rallies of opposition. No former colonized country likes a European (former colonizer) person to dictate anything to them. It is due to the generous nature of the Uzbek government that Mr Murray, was not asked to leave by them.

Secondly, as an ambassador, you are representing your country. You might call me conservative, but I don't think that it portrays a good impression of your country if you are in a bar during the wee hours of the morning, picking up girls. Uzbekistan despite its floating population of prostitutes is a very very conservative society. Mr Murray gives credence to people who call the west as "The decadent west. "as he is an example of that. You represent the best in your country, and you should behave accordingly.

Thirdly militancy is a problem in Uzbekistan. It is a society in transition. Most people are Muslims, but many have not read the Koran. However they ALL want to know more. Who is going to teach them and fill the gap ??? The Wahhabis from Saudi Arabia, the Taliban ??? or some moderate group. There is a certain stability in Uzbekistan and that is due the governments efforts. You need to give them credit that it is not a Muslim state but a secular state. People are happy that the country is stable.

I got different versions of the Andajain massacre when I was there and also I don't agree with Mr Murray that the government carried out the bomb attacks on its own. Its like wild stories of the US government carrying out the 9/11 attacks and putting explosives in the WTC buildings. Absolute rubbish.

Mr Murray comes as over emotional several times during the book. I think a certain bias is there because of relationship with Nadira. Probably many of the stories that she has told him he has presumed to be factual.

Interesting read all the same. Very honest but it gives a poor impression of Mr. Murray character.

Well those of you who wish to visit Uzbekistan, despite it being a police state, horrible hotels, airports where you almost have to load your luggage into the aircraft, old aircrafts which are not listed in "Our fleet " and with no emergency exit (marked In case of emergency CUT HERE) its a beautiful place. The people are so nice, and there is so much to see and learn, and the cities are clean and really beautiful.

My mother who is 70 loved it and we would go back anytime again.

I note that the favorable reviews of this book, both on Amazon and on the book cover, seem to come from people already convinced that Murray is a victim and a hero and that Uzbekistan (and the United States) are evil.

I don't know whether what Murray alleges can be taken fully or partially at face value or should be rejected outright. I do think he has a point of view that should be heard. A few points for the debate, however:

1. This is a poorly, probably hastily written and edited book which is sloppy and contains internal inconsistencies.
In spite of the bad writing it is highly entertaining (and disturbing) to read.
2. This is clearly written to justify and promote the author--nothing wrong with that, especially if he his telling the truth. But it's worth keeping in mind that there are multiple points of view here
3. He is clearly very disingenuous about his motivation and the evolution of his thinking, even if the rest of his allegations are true: a close reading reveals a bias against both the Karimov regime and the US before he ever reached the country.
4. He has a deep-seated anti-Americanism that goes far beyond a normal European hatred of President Bush or doubt about the Iraq war--in fact, he criticizes the British government for standing firm with the USA after 9/11--on the grounds that the US did not enter WWII until it was attacked itself. This doesn't mean what he says is untrue--but it does suggest he had at least a strong point of view before the events in the book unfold.
5. At various times in the book he accuses the same US officials of a) being totally complicit with the Uzbek regime and b) being totally naive in believing that the regime was reforming. One of these allegations might be true. Both are highly unlikely.
6. While the allegations of the horrors of the Karimov regime ring true, his explanation of the campaign against him starts to wander into the real of highly implausible conspiracy theory: a phone call from the White House to London asking his removal sounds possible. A campaign by (who?) to set him up for the variety of allegations...a poisoning? If we were really all that bad, wouldn't it have just been easier to have him shot?
7. For a diplomat, Murray shows a surprisingly simplistic view of diplomatic policy and priorities. The air base the U.S. was using in Uzbekistan--which he argued was so vital that we were "backing" the regime--was subsequently abandoned, after Murray's time, with little or no consequence on the war on terror.
8. While his descriptions of his highly immoral personal behavior might serve to lend a further air of truth...the fact remains that he is a self-confessed serial adulterer and very heavy drinker. A man with a family who had a time consuming job but chose to spend his free time in strip clubs...none of this means he's lying...but it does, at least in my mind, make it plausible that he may not have totally come clean. He deceived his wife for decades, but he wouldn't deceive us?

Look, this is a fascinating story--I would just counsel that it be read with a healthy amount of skepticism given the source. And that the author not be awarded hero status just because of the enemies he picked...