Analysts point out that what the ambassador said was in essence nothing new … Most of Murray’s statements are common currency among foreign diplomats and businessmen in the privacy of their homes and workplaces. Ye t his speech stood so far apart from official parlance that it struck some listeners as provocative. “You could have cut the tension in the room with a blunt knife,” said one of those present.

The irony of Murray’s speech, some say, is that it caused friction between the U.S. and British embassies, the two foreign representations that are most concerned with democracy and human rights in Uzbekistan. U.S. Ambassador John Herbst was present at the Freedom House function and had delivered, according to observers, a typical American take on human rights in Uzbekistan, that problems exist but progress has been made. After this predictable address, Murray delivered his broadside. “The British ambassador’s speech was an embarrassment for the United States. It showed up the crack in the shield and many thought that he upstaged [Herbst],” said someone who was present … Even if that analysis proves accurate, though, the stridency in Murray’s words has emboldened some other critics of Karimov. “To me the fundamental question is not why did he say this, but why the other ambassadors didn’t?” said one Western observer."

I had achieved precisely what I set out to do. I had irreversibly shattered the conspiracy of silence and brought to international attention the brutality of the Karimov regime. I had also made it very plain that British foreign policy in Central Asia was not subservient to U.S. foreign policy. At least as long as I had my job.

The U.S. reaction was immediate. They had apparently already been trying to undermine me through official channels in London. They now set about a full frontal attack. Another journalist present at Freedom House was Michael Andersen from Danish Radio. He published this account:

Many Western diplomats in Tashkent were disgusted with the U.S. policy, but their governments kept them “on message”. That is until Craig Murray arrived. At 44, Murray was Britain’s youngest ambassador, with a promising career ahead of him. With the waistcoat of his three-piece suit barely concealing his pot-belly, his thick glasses and unkempt grey hair, he looked like a quirky professor from a softer, more decent era. Uzbekistan shocked him. “At the Foreign Office, they prepared me with language lessons, but nobody ever mentioned the 10,000 political and religious prisoners,” he said.

In October 2002 the U.S. ambassador gave a speech in which he praised the close relations between the U.S. and Uzbekistan and argued that Uzbekistan had made ‘some progress’ on “democratic reforms and human rights”. The broad smile he bestowed on his new British colleague as he handed over the microphone quickly disappeared. “Uzbekistan is not a functioning democracy,” said Craig Murray, adding (and contradicting what his U.S. colleague had just said), “nor does it appear to be moving in the direction of democracy.” He then described, in detail, the case of the two boiled prisoners.

“Murray is a finished man here,” one U.S. top diplomat told me over lunch the next day. “A shame that Blair could only find an alcoholic to send here,” another remarked.

____________________ 

Excerpt from Craig Murray’s Murder in Samarqand published by Maintream Publishing (2006).