US/UK Made Use of
Uzbek Torture
by TRNN
It's an awful
place. It's a totalitarian dictatorship. I'd served in dictatorships
before. There's a difference between—any dictatorship's bad, obviously.
There's a difference between dictatorship and totalitarianism.
Uzbekistan is totalitarian. Let me tell you about something that
happened last week, just to give you an example, and it's not nearly as
bad as the absolutely true story about the people who were boiled alive.
Craig Murray is a British political activist, former ambassador to Uzbekistan and current Rector of the University of Dundee.
CRAIG MURRAY, FMR. UK
AMBASSADOR TO UZBEKISTAN: You know, I was a British diplomat for over
20 years. We still have a certain tendency in the British Foreign Office
to look down on the rest of the world. I was seated one day in my
office in the Foreign Office, which is a wonderful, palatial building in
London from which a third of the world used to be governed. And I sat
there, and the phone rang, and it said, "Oh, Craig, Charles here. Would
you like to be ambassador in Uzbekistan?" And I said, "Yes, great,
Charles. Thanks," thinking, where on Earth is Uzbekistan? And I said,
"Why me?" And he said—and this is absolutely true—he said, "Well," he
said, "you speak Polish, don't you?" And I said, "Yes, but I doubt the
Uzbeks do." And he said, "No, but they speak Russian, old boy, and it's
all the same thing." So on the basis of my knowledge of a Slavic
language, I found myself as ambassador to Uzbekistan, where nobody spoke
Polish at all. Fortunately, I did pick up some Russian.
It's an awful
place. It's a totalitarian dictatorship. I'd served in dictatorships
before. There's a difference between—any dictatorship's bad, obviously.
There's a difference between dictatorship and totalitarianism.
Uzbekistan is totalitarian. Let me tell you about something that
happened last week, just to give you an example, and it's not nearly as
bad as the absolutely true story about the people who were boiled alive.
Just last week, a British man of no political interest whatsoever who
had married an Uzbek lady was on holiday in St. Petersburg. And his wife
now has UK nationality but was traveling on her Uzbek passport, because
that way she didn't have to apply for a Russian visa and they'd save
$100. And she was arrested in Russia because her Uzbek exit visa had
expired, because you still need permission to leave Uzbekistan—they
still lock their population in. And the Russians shipped her back to
Tashkent, where she's now in prison for having outstayed her exit visa,
and the couple have been separated.
And there's very little chance the
man will ever see his wife again.
That's the kind of country it is. And
as I say, that's a more workaday example than the boiled-alive people
who were interrogated. But when you think of Uzbekistan, you have to
think of a country that hasn't moved on since it left the Soviet Union.
In fact, it left the Soviet Union in order to maintain the Soviet
system; it left because it didn't want to implement the Gorbachev-style
reforms.
Its president, President Karimov, was one of the members of the
Politburo who had moved to have Gorbachev arrested on that occasion
when Yeltsin was standing on the tanks outside the [Russian] White House
when he first came to great prominence in Western eyes. When you think
of Uzbekistan, you have to think of the Soviet Union, but not
Gorbachev's Soviet Union; you have to think of Brezhnev Soviet Union.
And that's the kind of regime it is, but with, since independence, even
more cruelty. When I was going there, it was viewed as the United
States' most important ally in Central Asia. The Americans had been
given a very large airbase at Karshi-Khanabad, known as K2, from which
supplies and operations were mounted into Afghanistan. I was told that
there weren't that many British interested in Uzbekistan, and my primary
interest was in supporting the Americans, supporting the American
ambassador, and ensuring that Uzbekistan remained an ally in the war on
terror. I was told that whenever I made any speech in public, was to
refer to President Karimov of Uzbekistan as our ally on all occasions.
You know, there are over 10,000 political prisoners in Uzbekistan.
Anybody who is a religious Muslim of any kind, no connection to
terrorism, anyone who prays five times a day, is described, will be
arrested as a terrorist. Any young man with a beard will be arrested.
There are at least 700 Baptists in Uzbek jails because it is illegal to
be a Baptist in Uzbekistan. Many people are there simply because they
are political prisoners. If you enter an Uzbek prison, your chances of
coming out alive are actually quite slim. They still have and operate
the old Soviet gulags. I found more and more evidence of abuse and
torture. Torture in Uzbekistan isn't unusual. It happens to several
thousand people every year. When I'm talking of torture, I'm not talking
of marginal definitions of torture. I'm talking of people being raped
with broken bottles. I'm talking of people having their children
tortured in front of them until they sign the confessions. I'm talking
of people being boiled alive. And the intelligence from these torture
sessions was being received by the CIA and was being passed on—I was
eventually seeing it as it was passed on to me by MI6, because MI6 and
the CIA shared all their intelligence. And there was a common thread. I
was meeting, investigating the evidence of torture. I met people who'd
been tortured and escaped.
I met people like the old widow, the photos
of her son who'd been boiled alive. Her son was returned to her in a
sealed casket, and she was ordered to bury the casket the next day,
which Muslims would do anyway. They'd bury the body the very next day.
But she was ordered not to open the casket, not to look at her son. It
was returned to her from Jaslyk Prison. She did in the middle of the
night. She was very, very brave and determined, the old lady. She got
the casket open and the body out, and she took these photographs which
showed that he had been boiled alive. And it was the chap who's now
actually the chief pathologist of the UK who investigated the
photographs for me and produced that conclusion. When people were being
tortured, as we spoke to—we even had letters smuggled out of jails. We
were learning what people had to confess to under torture, and they were
being told to confess to membership of al-Qaeda, they were told to
confess that they'd been in training camps in Afghanistan, and they were
told to confess that they had met Osama bin Laden in person. And the
CIA intelligence constantly echoed these themes.
hey spoke of Uzbeks
having been in al-Qaeda, been in training camps, and having met Osama
bin Laden. In fact, by now we were in 2002, 2003, and apparently we
didn't know where Osama bin Laden was. And the way he managed to see
thousands of Uzbeks every year, [it] should have been slightly easier to
track him down, I felt. It wasn't hard to put two and two together and
work out that the fact that every political prisoner I ever knew of in
Uzbekistan who was taken was tortured. And the fact that we knew what
they were being forced to confess to under torture, and the fact that
the CIA material came up with exactly the same rather dodgy narrative,
it wasn't hard to put the two together and realize that the intelligence
material was coming from torture. But before I did anything, I wanted
to make sure that I was on safe ground.
So I asked my deputy, a lady
called Karen Moran, to go to the American embassy and say to them, say
to the head of the CIA station there, "My ambassador is worried because
he thinks your intelligence may be coming from torture." And she came
back and she reported to me that the reply from the head of the CIA
station in Tashkent was, "Yes, of course it's coming from torture. We
don't see that as a problem in the context of the war on terror."
Now, I
did see that as a problem, particularly when I discovered that the CIA
were bringing in people, flying in people to Uzbekistan, and handing
them over to the Uzbek security services. I'd like to say that I was the
one who discovered extraordinary rendition, but that's not quite true,
because I presumed, I falsely presumed, that these people they were
bringing in and handing over to the Uzbek security service were Uzbeks
who had been captured elsewhere and brought back to Uzbekistan. I did
not realize that in fact they were of many other nationalities and were
being handed over in order to be tortured. That they were being tortured
I knew. That Uzbekistan was a destination for the extraordinary
rendition system from all over the world I really didn't quite realize
at the time. We now know, following, for example, a Council of Europe
investigation, that 90 percent of the airplanes that stopped at the
famous secret prison in Poland had Tashkent as their next destination.
I
complained back to London. I said we're getting this intelligence from
torture. It's illegal, it's immoral, and it's unreliable. It's vastly
exaggerating the strength of al-Qaeda in Central Asia. How did I know it
was unreliable? Well, let me just give you a couple of examples. We had
one piece of intelligence which said that a detainee had admitted to
being at a training camp at given coordinates in the hills above
Samarkand in Tajikistan. And as it happened, my defense attaché, Colonel
[inaudible] had recently been to that precise location, and there was
nothing there. But my favorite example, because—when people were
tortured, they not only had to confess to membership of al-Qaeda, but,
remember, this torture was being done by the direct descendents of
Stalin's KGB. Institutionally it was still Stalin's KGB as set up in
Tashkent.
And they had, exactly as under Stalin, to denounce other
people. They were given names of people to denounce. Very often they
didn't know the name of anyone on this list of names they were given.
Sometimes they did. Sometimes they denounced relatives and classmates.
But the intelligence would contain long lists of names of al-Qaeda
members who had been denounced by detainees, and very often these were
farcical. And I remember one long list of al-Qaeda members which I
received in a CIA intelligence report, and I recognized one of the
names. It was an old professor I knew who was a very brave old
dissident, who had been a dissident in Soviet times, and I knew the man,
and he was a Jehovah's Witness.
Now, there are not many Jehovah's
Witnesses in al-Qaeda. I would be willing to bet that al-Qaeda don't
even try and recruit Jehovah's Witnesses. Now, I'm quite sure that
Jehovah's Witnesses would try and recruit al-Qaeda if they could,
knocking on the cave door, saying, "Is Mr. bin Laden in? But I have a
copy of The Watchtower for him." But I essentially found it hard to
believe a lot of this intelligence. I got called back to London and I
expected there, you know, to have a sensible talk about the merits or
demerits of intelligence and how much evidence I had that it was
obtained under torture. I was absolutely stunned, genuinely stunned—it
changed my whole worldview in an instant—to be told that—and I knew it
was coming from torture—that it was not illegal, because our legal
advisers had decided that under the United Nations Convention Against
Torture, it is not illegal to obtain or use intelligence gained from
torture, as long as we didn't do the torture ourselves.