“Another chilling reminder of the former Soviet Union is the use of commitment to lunatic asylums to stifle dissidents. We are still seeing examples of this in 2002. Nor does the situation appear to be getting any better. I have been told, by people who should know, that there are significantly more political and religious detainees now than there were this time last year. From my own meetings with human rights groups from across the country there appears to be a broad picture of a reduction in the rate of arrests in the first half of this year but a very substantial increase around August. Just last week saw another highly suspicious death in police custody in Tashkent. There is little sign of genuine positive change in human rights.

“And that is what we want to see: genuine change. By that I mean change which actually increases the liberty of Uzbek citizens in their daily lives. Uzbekistan’s international obligations require genuine respect for human rights. For example, officially censorship has recently been abolished. But you would not tell this by watching, listening to or reading the media, which is patently under strict control and contains no significant volume of critical comment or analysis of central government policy.

“Let me give you an example. In August, the government embarked upon a series of closures of major bazaars in Tashkent and subsequently across Uzbekistan. I witnessed it happen in Namangan, for example. This is not the forum to address the motive for those closures or the rights and wrongs of this action. But it was a radical action, effected with some degree of physical and moral resistance, and closed off the retail outlets through which the majority of manufactured goods are sold in this country. It directly affected the livelihood of an estimated 50,000 people. Furthermore, I have in the last two weeks visited a number of factories in Uzbekistan that have halted production and laid off their workers because their distributors have been put out of business by the bazaar closures.

“As I say, I make no comment on the rights and wrongs of this, though I note that the IMF has recommended that these issues be reversed, not least because of the resulting increase in inflation. But everyone in this room knows this has been a burning political issue in the last two months. Yet one could have watched Uzbek television or listened to Uzbek radio solidly throughout this period, and read the newspaper every day, but still have gathered almost nothing of the flavour of what I have just told you. There is little reporting of basic facts and almost no free debate. I trust that the proceedings of this event will be fully and fairly reported.

“What then are the components of the real change we wish to see? They are not difficult, but they require political will. I believe that people are born with an instinct for liberty, and that freedom and democracy come naturally to people everywhere, once they are given the chance.

“Giving people freedom does not mean that anarchy and instability will follow. Indeed, it is repression which by allowing no outlet for pressures in society risks causing resentment, alienation and social tension. Uzbekistan’s partners and friends want to see a country which is stable, free and prosperous. For that to come about there needs to be change— releases of political prisoners; registration of political opposition parties and human rights groups; the opportunity for people to express their opinions in free elections and through a free media and the right to free assembly; and to practise their religious beliefs without fear of persecution. Deeper economic reform is needed also. We are ready to support that process of change, and by embarking upon it Uzbekistan will be able to transform its standing in the international community and earn the goodwill and increased support of partners whose engagement is at present limited by the problems I have addressed today. I thank you for your kind attention.”

This was stuff that just didn’t get said. The diplomats wouldn’t say it, and if any of the Uzbeks present had made a speech like that they would have been straight into the torture chamber. While I had been making the speech, I had glanced occasionally at John Herbst and watched his facial muscles grow increasingly rigid. I had in effect contradicted everything he had just said and challenged the whole carefully constructed U.S. illusion about Uzbekistan.

In case you think I am exaggerating, it is worth quoting David Stern, a seasoned U.S. reporter on Central Asia, who was present:

"Three months after British Ambassador Craig Murray delivered a speech in Uzbekistan, diplomats and analysts are still debating how Murray has changed the tone of relations between Britain and this former Soviet republic. Murray caused a sensation for doing one small thing that very few people seem to have done here: he told the truth.

Uzbekistan, which sits north of Afghanistan, became a critical ally to the United States and United Kingdom in the autumn 2001 campaign to oust the Taliban from Afghanistan. Despite this elevation in status, though, the country has made only marginal improvements in its record of repressing dissidents. At the opening of the Uzbekistan offices of Freedom House on October 17, Ambassador Murray, with top Uzbek officials and diplomats present, delivered the diplomatic equivalent of a salvo…

The shock value of these statements, as well as others discussing widespread torture in Uzbekistan and the government’s refusal to convert its currency or foster crossborder trade, cannot be overstated. In one fell swoop the British diplomat stripped away the euphemisms that characterize much of the West’s relationship with Uzbekistan.