 Nathan Hamm (26, from the US) says what in his opinion is a true reflection of the situation in Uzbekistan. Thereby, he tells us why Craig Murray is wrong - and counterproductive.
By Nathan Hamm
Copyright 2005 The Registan and Nathan Hamm
Republished and edited by Thinking-East
To the forum discussion |
Date published: 25/04/05
Section: Themes / Central Asia
2,355 words
Download article's PDF |
Editor's Preface: To see the first edition of this article, click here.
A Registan reader's question
Major Mike Ford of Blackburn left a question recently about former
British diplomat Craig Murray and the issue of torture in Uzbekistan:
I've read the many posts regarding
Craig Murray but, for all the personal attacks on this particular
individual, I am unable to find in your discourse any sense of the true
level of torture in Uzbekistan. I am able to identify the obvious
hyperbolic rhetoric used by Mr Murray but is torture in Uzbekistan
"systemic," as he suggests? Perhaps you could enlighten me with your
expert knowledge of the region so that a fuller picture of this man's
increasingly public campaign in my hometown can be ascertained.
True, I have nothing nice to say about Murray; my co-blogger Laurence
Jarvik isn't a fan either. It is also true that I personally have never
really discussed the level of torture in Uzbekistan, though I have
discussed some of Murray's particular accusations. So, I'll answer the
question that's been posed to me. But I'll also discuss what should be
done and why I don't think Murray's approach best serves the people of
Uzbekistan.
And it's not just a discussion that needs to be had about Uzbekistan.
These are issues that policymakers and analysts face every day, and
they are issues that need to be dealt with responsibly and carefully.
Is Torture Systemic?
First, my short answer on whether or not torture is systemic on Uzbekistan: probably.
Any answer to this question depends upon whether or not "systemic"
means "widespread" or "a policy ordered by the highest levels of the
executive" or even something entirely different.
First off, the big problem is that Uzbekistan's government is
incredibly opaque, so it's exceedingly difficult to tell who orders
what and why exactly officials at certain levels do the things they do.
The government gives very vague guidelines to local officials (whenever
they bother to give guidelines) so decisions are very timidly made if
made at all.
Second off, officials often deal with a multitude of pressures that are
difficult to balance. I ran into this occasionally whenever I had to
ask low-ranking officials to offer fairly tame support for a project or
idea.
The biggest pressures are in the areas of crime and punishment, and security.
There are competing interests in the Uzbek judicial system. In the
fight between prosecutorial expediency and justice, justice always
seems to lose. Police are so poorly equipped and trained to investigate
crimes that prosecutors can usually only get convictions through
confessions. To put it most mildly, police "extract" confessions. Most
readers who have followed arguments on torture know that this produces
inaccurate results and often only gives the outward appearances of
having solved crimes-or as is often the case in Uzbekistan, serious
security concerns.
When I talk about the weakness of the investigative and prosecutorial
arms of the Uzbek judicial system, it's probably important to point out
to those inclined to distrust me (and among Murray's crowd there are
plenty, I'm sure) that my argument, while fairly intuitive, is backed
up Ruslan Sharipov, who has experienced Uzbekistan's prisons firsthand
and was himself was tortured:
…the worst physical violence takes
place at this [pre-trial] stage, when the suspect is entirely in the
hands of the police. They are generally seeking a signed confession
[which is] a document that in court is always sufficient to produce a
guilty verdict, even if the accused recants and says he or she signed
under duress.
The level of pressure applied to detainees means that most will sign
anything after only two or three days, even confessing to a theft of
which he or she is totally innocent. After the extraction of a
confession-[confessions are] commonly the centrepiece of the
prosecution's case-the accused goes to the next stage, a prison in
either Tashkent or another city.
Because confessions are such a crucial element of any trial, torture is
commonplace, regardless of whether the alleged crime is petty theft or
political sedition.
Methods used in the interior ministry include general beatings and more
sophisticated brutality including electric shock, suffocation by
placing a gas mask or plastic bag on the suspect's head, and pulling
out fingernails and teeth.
So, if "systemic" means "widespread," then yes, torture is systemic in
Uzbekistan. It is often the only way for police and prosecutors to
secure convictions, and paranoia and overzealous police most certainly
lead to too many innocent people confessing to crimes they did not
commit.
But is the torture an explicit government policy?
On a certain level, this is an irrelevant question. That torture is common is a problem regardless of why.
On another level, though, this question is absolutely crucial. I do
believe the Uzbek government would like to eliminate torture if for no
other reason than it is good for business to do so (I say this for lack
of better phrasing.) If Uzbekistan were a company, the truth is its
reputation would give it less currency with the public than Enron or
Halliburton. The government knows this, knows it suffers as a result,
and yet still lets its paranoia and fear of instability prevent it from
making bold steps toward solving the problem.
It's hard because Uzbekistan is such an opaque state; who has what
powers and where decisions made?-not even the officials know this, so
it is difficult to determine in exactly what way torture is systemic.
It certainly is part of the system, in that prosecutors and police rely
on it to secure convictions. And the government has made moves to
reduce torture, but not with much zeal.
And if that's all you wanted to know, especially those of you who will
have the opportunity to vote for Craig Murray, then you can stop
reading now. If you're going to vote for him because torture happens in
Uzbekistan, go right ahead. Just know that doing so on just that basis
endorses a foreign policy approach that ensures the continued abuse of
human rights and torture in Uzbekistan.
What is to be done?
I believe that heaping condescending scoldings upon the Uzbek
government, as Murray has done, is not an effective strategy for those
genuinely interested in stopping torture in Uzbekistan. Uzbekistan's
government is pretty touchy, and the type of criticism preferred by the
Left tends to lead to backlashes from touchy governments. I'm not
saying that it's necessary to walk on eggshells or keep all criticism
out of the public's view. I'm saying that it's necessary to tone down
the rhetoric and recognize and reward improvements when improvements
occur. And they do occur, despite what bombastic, overheated critics
may assert.
One of the smarter strategies for eliminating torture in Uzbekistan
that doesn't necessarily rely on the goodwill of the government is to
improve the investigative skills of police and the ability of
prosecutors to build cases based on evidence rather than confessions.
It's not as if every prisoner is railroaded through trials. There are
other precedents. On those rare occasions when evidence has been
properly gathered and submitted in court, judges have been willing to
dismiss charges-and in fact have done so when the evidence showed the
culprit's innocence. (I should note here that with some
high-profile cases, there is pressure from the top to round up people
and convict them quickly to maintain the government's image as a
provider of stability, one of its central claims to legitimacy.)
The problem with the combative, lecturing approach is that it results
in the lecturer, be it a state, an NGO, or a particular individual,
breaking contact or losing all leverage with the mid and low-level
bureaucrats, prosecutors, and police officers that are the key to
improving the humanitarian health of Uzbekistan's institutions.
Specialists agree with this diagnosis. For example, when the CSCE
held hearings regarding the State Department's decertifying direct aid
to the Uzbek government due to human rights problems, the experts were
nearly unanimous: the relationship should continue. One of those who
supported the continuation of direct US aid to the Uzbek government was
Abdurahim Pulatov of the opposition Birlik Party. Who supported the
cut-off? Human Rights Watch, an organization whose approach is so
wrapped up in condescending lectures that its role in Uzbekistan could
best be compared to that of a particularly hard-to-kill fly. Sure, they
draw a reaction, but usually only in response to a big commotion.
Robert Kaplan is less of an idealist than me, but he touches on this theme at the end of Eastward to Tartary:
I am afraid that calls in Western capitals for "democracy"-while
branding as "evil" those who do not comply-is an evasion, not a policy.
Holding an election is easy. But because the "state," as Buckhardt
says, "is a work of art," building one from scratch requires guile,
force, and years of toil. …The only way to ensure that the latter
triumphs [liberal democracy] is not to force elections on societies
ill-prepared for them but to project economic and military power
regionally, through pipelines and defense agreements. If our weight is
felt, our values may follow. But if we only lecture sanctimoniously,
new empires that arise in the Near East will not reflect our values.
The human landscape is grim, but great powers throughout history faced
grim landscapes and were not deterred from pursuing their goals.
Like Kaplan, and unlike so many of Murray's adorers, I've seen a slice
of that grim human landscape. Uzbekistan transformed me. The world is a
nasty, brutal place. I firmly believe that Uzbeks deserve all the
rights, freedoms, and opportunities that those of us in the West enjoy.
Wishing it to be won't make it so. Engagement, as unseemly as it may
be, is the only option available to those who want a realistic shot at
addressing torture in Uzbekistan.
Back to Murray and The Real Issue
Murray's Uzbekistan strategy, inasmuch as he has one, has been to walk
the "may our souls be pure" path. It sounds perfectly dandy on its own.
However, as is often the case in this world, we can't have our cake and
eat it too. The alternative, specifically framed, is to walk the "may
our influence make Uzbekistan a better place" path. The issue is how we
can make a difference, and in my opinion, the second path is the best
way to reach our goal.
Let me re-phrase: moral posturing may be good for one's soul, but it
doesn't make a dictator change his tune; engagement produces results.
The primary reason why torture isn't the core issue in the "Murray
controversy" is that the Foreign Office was right to pull him from his
station. Regardless of the truth of his accusations, by becoming a
condescending moralizer, Murray rendered himself ineffective, both as a
diplomat and as a reformer.
There is a third reason why the Foreign Office was right: is Murray
really interested in serving his country or the Uzbek people?
I am very suspicious of Murray not only because of his techniques and
manifest lack of political aptitude, but also because, if one examines
the Press coverage closely, his care about torture in Uzbekistan seems
to always peak whenever the Foreign Office brings up allegations
concerning his behavior as ambassador.
You ask: why is Murray even running if he, as I assert, only cares to
promote his fame and influence? In The Guardian, which has kindly
agreed to give him a free weekly soapbox, he waxes serious. But
what has he said in the recent past?
My immediate plans…I intend to stand against Jack Straw in his Blackburn constituency. Just to annoy him.
I won't selectively quote. But keep in mind that reason number one is to annoy Jack Straw:
And to bring home this question of complicity with dictatorships,
complicity with torture in the War on Terror, because Jack Straw
himself personally took the decision to use Uzbek torture-based
intelligence. It was put to him, he discussed it. He discussed it with
the head of MI6 and they decided they would continue using it. So I
want to hold him accountable for that, and to make sure that the
electors and his own constituency know all about it. I'm not
anticipating being elected I should hasten to say. You can be the first
people to publish that!
What is it that Craig Murray cares about: Uzbeks being tortured or his
government accepting intelligence received from torture? Well, I
think his statement is fairly unambiguous, as are his actions: he cares
more about sticking it to his government than Uzbekistan becoming a
better place. That doesn't necessarily mean he doesn't care about the
latter, but it's a second-order priority.
I understand Murray's point of view, the "we need to worry about
purifying our government" argument. I've encountered it often, and I
believe it's morally reprehensible when purity is gotten by turning
one's back on the plight of another people. I believe it's doubly
reprehensible when made by someone like Murray, who actually had the
power to make a difference-which he renounced with his unprofessional
behavior and his obstinate refusal to accept that maybe the government
making the policy he was employed to enact might have a long-term
vision for making the world a better place. And I believe it's
triply reprehensible to go around professing to care about one
situation while focusing all of one's energy on another situation, all
the while trying to make a quick buck as a career critic.
Major Ford, if you intend to base your vote on a moral foreign policy,
keep in mind that morality is about ends and means. Murray's way, the
antagonist's route, may leave Britain as innocent as a lamb, but it
will certainly destroy the ability of your government to make positive
changes in the Uzbek government. But if you want revenge on your
government, then by all means, put this man-child in office. Just know
though that in the real world, compromises sometimes must be made, and
Murray's unwillingness to compromise will leave the world a colder
place.|
Some links
Written by Rosamel on 2006-12-27 03:18:22
Links for you: mexican pharmacy nexium is page about mexican pharmacy nexium. buy tetracycline uk is page about buy tetracycline uk. skelaxin side effects is page about skelaxin side effects. wellbutrin weight gain is page about wellbutrin weight gain. order paxil is page about order paxil. vicodin sale online is page about vicodin sale online. phentermine for sale is page about phentermine for sale. adderall weight loss is page about adderall weight loss. levitra best price is page about levitra best price. propecia review is page about propecia review. online cardizem is page about online cardizem. lowest price didrex is page about lowest price didrex. cheapest accutane is page about cheapest accutane. order prozac online is page about order prozac online. generic norco online is page about generic norco online. low cost ativan is page about low cost ativan. cheap valium online is page about cheap valium online. doxycycline sales is page about doxycycline sales. hydrocodone ap ap is page about hydrocodone ap ap.
| Some links
Written by Marie on 2006-12-12 01:28:41
Links for you: didrex info is page about didrex info. lortab is page about lortab. discount provera is page about discount provera. buy allegra d is page about buy allegra d. beclovent fast delivery is page about beclovent fast delivery. buy viagra is page about buy viagra. buy sonata is page about buy sonata. overnight acetaminophen is page about overnight acetaminophen. darvocet medication is page about darvocet medication. over the counter winstrol is page about over the counter winstrol. buy cheap advair is page about buy cheap advair. ambien zolpidem is page about ambien zolpidem. actos medication is page about actos medication. buy generic amoxicillin is page about buy generic amoxicillin. hydrocodone order cheap is page about hydrocodone order cheap. crestor and alcohol is page about crestor and alcohol. cipro xr is page about cipro xr. online pharmacy olanzapine is page about online pharmacy olanzapine. hydrocodone overnight is page about hydrocodone overnight.
| "His care about torture in Uzbekistan s
Written by David on 2005-06-12 18:35:57
Nathan Hamm clearly subscribes to the view that if you repeat a lie often enough, people will start to believe it. To this end, he has repeatedly claimed that Craig Murray's criticism of the Uzbek government was somehow motivated by a desire to deflect criticism of his own conduct.
"His care about torture in Uzbekistan seems to always peak whenever the Foreign Office brings up allegations concerning his behavior as ambassador".
So let's just look at the timeline of Craig Murray's ambassadorship in Uzbekistan (from http://www.craigmurray.co.uk/archives/2005/04/timeline_of_cra.html):
August 2002: Craig Murray is appointed British Ambassador to Uzbekistan, a US ally in the "war on terror".
October 2002: In a speech to "Freedom House", Craig Murray details grave concerns over the human rights situation in Uzbekistan.
November 2002: In a secret telegram to London, Craig Murray first criticises the receipt by the CIA and MI6 of intelligence extracted through torture.
November 2002 - March 2003: Craig Murray continues to speak out about human rights abuse in Uzbekistan, and support local human rights activists.
8th March 2003: Craig Murray is summoned to London and told formally of Jack Straw's decision that intelligence material obtained under torture is both legal and useful.
March 2003 - August 2003: Craig Murray continues to speak out about human rights abuse in Uzbekistan.
August 2003: The Foreign Office presents Craig Murray with 18 disciplinary charges, including an allegation that he gave out British visas to Uzbek girls in exchange for sex. He is suspended and given a week to resign. He denounces the charges, and refuses to resign. The charges are not made public.
October 2003: The Guardian newspaper discovers that Craig Murray has been suspended, and reports details of the charges against him. A senior unnamed Foreign Office source talks of a "campaign of systematic undermining" against Craig Murray to pressure him to stop criticising the Uzbek government. The source suggests that the pressure was partly "exercised on the orders of No 10". The Foreign Office refuses to make any official comment.
January 2004: All 18 disciplinary charges are disproved, and Craig Murray returns to his post - though he is disciplined for speaking to colleagues about the charges.
January 2004 - July 2004: Craig Murray continues to speak out about human rights abuse in Uzbekistan, and support local human rights activists.
July 2004: In a strongly-worded secret memo, Craig Murray criticises the British and US policy of accepting information extracted through torture by the Uzbek government. "We are selling our souls for dross", he says.
October 11th 2004: Craig Murray's secret memo is published in the Financial Times, following a leak by an unknown official.
October 15th 2004: Craig Murray is sacked from his Ambassadorial post "for operational reasons", but remains on the Foreign Office payroll.
October 16th 2004: In a Radio 4 interview, Craig Murray speaks out against his sacking, claiming that he is a "victim of conscience". He goes on to give other media interviews, in which he is critical of the Foreign Office.
October 21st 2004: Craig Murray is charged with "gross misconduct" for criticising the Foreign Office publicly.
February 2005: Craig Murray resigns from the Foreign Office, and announces his intention to stand as an Independent candidate against Jack Straw in Blackburn.
As you can see, the situation is almost the exact opposite of what Nathan Hamm claims. Craig Murray began speaking out about human rights abuse in October 2002, nearly a year BEFORE the Foreign Office first brought disciplinary charges against him. And after those disciplinary charges were shown to be completely bogus (in January 2004), Craig Murray continued to speak out. It therefore makes rather more sense to suppose that the bogus charges brought against Craig Murray were motivated by his outspoken position on Uzbekistan rather than the other way around.
Nathan Hamm's criticisms of Craig Murray are based on a series of lies, and the above is just one of many examples.
Hamm characterises Murray's position, somewhat opaquely, as "we need to worry about purifying our government", going on to suggest that "it's morally reprehensible when purity is gotten by turning one's back on the plight of another people".
Hamm contrasts this with the approach that he claims to favour; "engagement".
"Engagement, as unseemly as it may be, is the only option available to those who want a realistic shot at addressing torture in Uzbekistan... engagement produces results."
The problem for Nathan Hamm here is that Craig Murray never advocated disengaging from Uzbekistan and "turning one's back"...
In September 2002, Craig Murray wrote:
"Engagement makes sense, but it must mean grappling with the problems, not mute collaboration. We need to start actively to state a distinctive position on democracy and human rights, and press for a realistic view to be taken in the IMF... We should step up our public diplomacy effort, stressing democratic values, including more resources from the British Council. We should increase support to human rights activists, and strive for contact with non-official Islamic groups."
Ironically, this view is not a million miles from the one that Nathan Hamm professes to believe in. The chief difference is that while Hamm favours continuing financial support to the Karimov dictatorship, Murray would channel aid through non-governmental civil society groups. Given that Karimov's forces recently used weapons bought with Western money to massacre hundreds of men, women and children, (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/4550845.stm), Hamm's view seems rather more questionable than Murray's.
The position characterised by Hamm as "morally reprehensible" is one that Craig Murray has never actually held or advocated.
Craig Murray has never proposed that we turn our backs on Uzbekistan. In fact, as an ambassador, he worked on hundreds of individual human rights cases, and is believed to have been instrumental in securing the release of Fatima Mukhadirova, who was jailed after speaking out about the infamous boiling to death of her son Muzafar. Craig Murray has also played a key role in raising international awareness of the problems facing the Uzbek people.
Hamm's belief that Western policy in Uzbekistan is all about "making the world a better place" looks especially naive in the light of this comment from Michael Andersen, who has reported from Uzbekistan for the last four years: (http://www.craigmurray.co.uk/archives/2005/05/what_we_need_in.html)
[I]An old study mate of mine, now an adviser to Donald Rumsfeld, told me in Tashkent, "What we need in this region is an aircraft carrier in a smooth, calm sea and Uzbekistan is that aircraft carrier." He laughed and told me to "grow up" when I asked him about the human rights abuses of the Uzbek regime. "Mr Rumsfeld is right," he sarcastically told me, "Uzbekistan is stable - stable and quiet as a graveyard."[I/]
What seems to be at the heart of Nathan Hamm's very obvious animosity towards Craig Murray is the fact that Britain's former ambassador actually had to audacity to criticise US policy in the region. Nathan Hamm's vitriol against Murray seems to reach its peak when the media criticises US support for the Uzbek dictatorship. Of course it's understandable that, less than four years after the Twin Towers attacks, "blind patriotism" in the USA is still at an all time high. It nonetheless seems disgusting that such sentiments have inspired Hamm to fabricate smears against a principled man who put his career on the line for the sake of the ideals that we claim to hold so dear.
|
Powered by AkoComment 2.0! |
