Craig Murray exposes SOAS academic's complicity with Uzbek tyrant
.. | 29.09.2005 13:28 | Anti-militarism | Repression | World
Dear Professor Bundy,
It is with a heavy heart that I write to you about the activities of Shirin Akiner in acting as a propagandist for the Karimov regime of Uzbekistan. I am very reluctant to do so because I am a passionate believer in academic freedom and the right to express even the most unorthodox of views. However I feel that in her activities in attempting to justify the Andizhan massacre, Ms Akiner has entered the realm of deliberate dishonesty, and demonstrably departed from standards of academic method in a way that SOAS cannot ignore.
Ms Akiner has lied about the origin of her visit to Andizhan as a guest of the Uzbek government. She claims she was in Tashkent anyway, and accepted an unexpected invitation issued on the spot. In fact the Uzbek Ambassador to London, Mr Riskiev, had told a British businessman in London many days before this that the Uzbek government was countering the possible imposition of sanctions by sending Shirin Akiner to produce a report to give credibility to the Uzbek government’s version of the massacre. The businessman immediately told me, so I knew of her visit to Andizhan before Akiner alleges that she did.
On the question of academic method, Akiner operated under the direct supervision of Uzbek government officials. She only spoke to alleged witnesses in the presence of government officials, and indeed I believe it was almost always the regional governor himself, the Hokkim of Andizhan, who was with her. The idea that in a totalitarian state evidence of an alleged government atrocity can be gained by allowing the government to produce the witnesses, and interviewing them in the presence of government officials, is ludicrous, as any decent academic would recognise. It seems to me that on this particular point there is evidence for SOAS to speak to Ms Akiner.
Her account of what happened agrees perfectly with the Uzbek government’s account, which is unsurprising in the circumstances. Her account contrasts sharply with the excellent report by Human Rights Watch, compiled after decent individual interviews with twenty times as many individuals as Akiner interviewed individually, and in the case of HRW, interviewed without the presence of government officials. Akiner’s account also differs from those of journalistic eyewitnesses, including that of Galima Burkabaeva, a reporter for CNN I have known well for three years who was present throughout the events in Andizhan. Galima is now a postgraduate student at Columbia University, and I discussed these matters with her last week.
Burkabaeva says that Akiner’s account is completely incompatible with the truth. In both Washington and New York I found that my audiences – including Columbia University, the American Bar Association and the Brookings Institute – were simply astonished at the propaganda tour of the United States Akiner recently undertook. With the exception of a tiny number of the most extreme neo-conservatives, everyone asked me – literally scores of people – why SOAS was working for the government of Uzbekistan. I do not believe you are aware of the damage Akiner is doing to the reputation of your institution.
Let me be quite plain. I am not seeking to stop Akiner supporting the Uzbek government. Her political views are her own business. I am accusing her of deliberate abandonment of academic method in her Andizhan investigation, in order to produce a desired propaganda result. I presume that she preaches the resulting falsehoods not only in the States, not only on Channel 4 News last night, but also to your students.
I should be most grateful if you would refer this email to the SOAS ethics committee.
One final question. In Uzbekistan everybody, no matter what subject they are studying and at what level, is required to study the works of President Karimov. This starts at elementary school and extends up to PhD. I met one brilliant mathematician who had just submitted their mathematics PhD, but was very worried about the compulsory examination where they had to reproduce and praise passages of Karimov’s books.
I was recently told that Akiner curried favour with Karimov some years ago by securing SOAS funds and other resources for translating Karimov’s execrable books into English. I should like to know if that is true.
Craig Murray
UK Ambassador to Uzbekistan 2002-4
It is with a heavy heart that I write to you about the activities of Shirin Akiner in acting as a propagandist for the Karimov regime of Uzbekistan. I am very reluctant to do so because I am a passionate believer in academic freedom and the right to express even the most unorthodox of views. However I feel that in her activities in attempting to justify the Andizhan massacre, Ms Akiner has entered the realm of deliberate dishonesty, and demonstrably departed from standards of academic method in a way that SOAS cannot ignore.
Ms Akiner has lied about the origin of her visit to Andizhan as a guest of the Uzbek government. She claims she was in Tashkent anyway, and accepted an unexpected invitation issued on the spot. In fact the Uzbek Ambassador to London, Mr Riskiev, had told a British businessman in London many days before this that the Uzbek government was countering the possible imposition of sanctions by sending Shirin Akiner to produce a report to give credibility to the Uzbek government’s version of the massacre. The businessman immediately told me, so I knew of her visit to Andizhan before Akiner alleges that she did.
On the question of academic method, Akiner operated under the direct supervision of Uzbek government officials. She only spoke to alleged witnesses in the presence of government officials, and indeed I believe it was almost always the regional governor himself, the Hokkim of Andizhan, who was with her. The idea that in a totalitarian state evidence of an alleged government atrocity can be gained by allowing the government to produce the witnesses, and interviewing them in the presence of government officials, is ludicrous, as any decent academic would recognise. It seems to me that on this particular point there is evidence for SOAS to speak to Ms Akiner.
Her account of what happened agrees perfectly with the Uzbek government’s account, which is unsurprising in the circumstances. Her account contrasts sharply with the excellent report by Human Rights Watch, compiled after decent individual interviews with twenty times as many individuals as Akiner interviewed individually, and in the case of HRW, interviewed without the presence of government officials. Akiner’s account also differs from those of journalistic eyewitnesses, including that of Galima Burkabaeva, a reporter for CNN I have known well for three years who was present throughout the events in Andizhan. Galima is now a postgraduate student at Columbia University, and I discussed these matters with her last week.
Burkabaeva says that Akiner’s account is completely incompatible with the truth. In both Washington and New York I found that my audiences – including Columbia University, the American Bar Association and the Brookings Institute – were simply astonished at the propaganda tour of the United States Akiner recently undertook. With the exception of a tiny number of the most extreme neo-conservatives, everyone asked me – literally scores of people – why SOAS was working for the government of Uzbekistan. I do not believe you are aware of the damage Akiner is doing to the reputation of your institution.
Let me be quite plain. I am not seeking to stop Akiner supporting the Uzbek government. Her political views are her own business. I am accusing her of deliberate abandonment of academic method in her Andizhan investigation, in order to produce a desired propaganda result. I presume that she preaches the resulting falsehoods not only in the States, not only on Channel 4 News last night, but also to your students.
I should be most grateful if you would refer this email to the SOAS ethics committee.
One final question. In Uzbekistan everybody, no matter what subject they are studying and at what level, is required to study the works of President Karimov. This starts at elementary school and extends up to PhD. I met one brilliant mathematician who had just submitted their mathematics PhD, but was very worried about the compulsory examination where they had to reproduce and praise passages of Karimov’s books.
I was recently told that Akiner curried favour with Karimov some years ago by securing SOAS funds and other resources for translating Karimov’s execrable books into English. I should like to know if that is true.
Craig Murray
UK Ambassador to Uzbekistan 2002-4
..
Homepage:
http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/weblog.html
Comments
Hide the following 3 comments
we should all think more- say more
29.09.2005 16:57
She appeared on Channel 4 news, eh. Well, blow me down with a feather. Next I'll be hearing that our Indymedia trolls are trolling on her behalf. Perhaps they should get her on one of those anti-Iran protests as well- by the way isn't it time for you New Reich goons to post another bunch of "wicked Iran- let's NUKE them" "news articles" to indymedia- you know the MORE you post, the MORE you get paid!!!
The whole Uzbekistan saga always feels to me like a trip back in time. In the 50's and 60's, spy and adventure novels were full of stories about similar hellholes, with generic suitable foreign sounding names, gloomy stalinist regimes, and mad despots, that our heroes had to deal with. There's little 21st century about this place.
However, the despot tortures and murders Muslims, and that's all that counts to Tony Blair, and the New Reich party he leads! Despots murdering jews for Hitler, and despots murdering muslims for Blair!!!
Interestingly, places like Uzbekistan pose a greater problem to the US government, because of the pattern of American domestic politics. The US administration will not be sorry that it has lost its PUBLIC military bases in that country. Now it functions there at a happier, covert level, like the British.
Is Craig Murray a good guy? Well, he willingly worked for the New Reich, so the answer is a resounding NO!!!. His campaign flows from that VERY British attitude that torturing innocent natives for NO GOOD REASON is counterproductve, and does not further the aims of the Empire. Hitler had many such Civil Service critics as well, people who had no problem with Nazi aims, just some of the Nazi methods. This being so, Mr Murray does serve a good purpose now, as he campaigns on behalf of the mistreated people of his adopted country, and in doing so, hurts the tyrant Blair a tiny bit!
PS did someone question my motives for posting? Or why I would post after having spent a few minutes thinking and writing, rather than dribbling out some inane and worthless 2 line reply. Dear lord, only in Britain. My words speak for themselves. They reflect how I feel, and what I think.
I want to see the warlords of Earth destroyed. Only the people that empower each of these monsters can do this, by applying group morality, and convicting and hanging them for their CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY. I mean this literally. I want to live to see Tony Blair and his cohorts hung by their necks until dead, the same fate as given to those thousands of Nazi murderers after WW2 ended.
We are not cattle, and we are not sheep. We exhibit perfect societal understanding understanding in the way we manage, or would like to manage our own lives, as individuals, families, and as extended groups. If we do wrong in our lives, we are always aware of how other people are doing right in the same circumstances, and even if we can't emulate them at that point, we know those better choices are praiseworthy. The lowest human criminal is ALWAYS able (if they so wish) to advise those they have responsibility for to be better in THEIR behaviour.
Go to any place on this Earth, and the people there will exhibit the same perfect understanding of personal and local behaviour.
So the question is- WHEN DOES IT ALL GO WRONG? The answer is simple. In modern society, we are fooled into giving up ALL our values beyond a certain HIGHER layer of organisation. We are told that in the pyramid of power, OUR VALUES are of no use past the first few lowest layers. As the pyramid rises toward its apex of the visible and invisible ruling power elite, all human morality is discarded. Human morality, the Right and Wrong that you and I inherently possess, gives way to whatever rules best serve the aims of a tiny fraction of the Human Race that we allow to have power over us.
Ever wonder why the plebs are served a constant diet of "look at the funny celebs, watch them play, be amused and fascinated by people whose lives follow completely different rules from your own". This is reinforcement conditioning. Vast numbers of humans at the base of the pyramid looking upward in wonder, seeing those people high above them, and saying "of course our rules don't apply to them- it's just the way it is". Now the vast majority of entertainers are people of no great significance, but as a phenomenon, they are used to train the populice in the idea that fundamental morality, and human values, are NOT fundamental at all.
If GREATER EVIL can actually be emboded, it is in this concept. Think about it. The pyramid accumulates power, the higher one rises. But with this power comes an ever loosening restraint of human morality. By definition, at the apex of the pyramid, all things become possible, including acts of ABSOLUTE EVIL, because the empowering majority at the bottom has accepted a situation where their inate GOODNESS never applies to the people at the top.
Who exists at the top. Well, obviously, these people change across time. We are all supposed to feel we have some say in the choice, but even the simplest analysis shows that this is really an illusion. So, instead, we cross our fingers, and hope that, even with no moral rules to restrict them, these people will work in our greatest interest.
But why??? Why on Earth should that be the case? And what happens if one gets truly EVIL humans in a position of absolute power. What the hell do we do then?
This is where it gets really scary. Places like this give an horrifying answer. What people do is constantly say to themselves "yeah, this person is a total bastard, doing things I really don't like, but isn't that what they all do". Excuse me, what the hell kind of argument is this :( :( :(
Use some logic for god's sake!!!
-has the Earth seen leaders whose acts have been of ABSOLUTE EVIL? YES!!!
-did these EVIL LEADERS arise through the same method? NO!!! Earth's evil leaders have arose under every circumstance, and political system.
-did these EVIL LEADERS keep their EVIL a secret until the moment when it was too late for people to do anything? NO!!! Every EVIL LEADER had a clear progression of ever more apalling behaviour clearly presented to his empowering population.
-did the casual supporters of the EVIL LEADER honestly identify his EVIL? NO!!! These supporters always claimed an acceptable normality in the choices of their EVIL LEADERS, given the circumstances of the time.
-did these EVIL LEADERS use tactics that could be pattern matched to the methods used by EVIL LEADERS of the past? YES!!! The future EVIL intentions of EVIL LEADERS requires that they largely use the self-same methods in deeds (visible and covert) and in propaganda.
-did the deeds and propaganda of EVIL LEADERS pose a problem with support from their general population??? NO!!! The general population ONLY KNOWS those things that it has recently experienced, and is always willing to accept that the way things are today, is the way they have always been, and the way they will alway be.
-did EVIL LEADERS ever benefit their enabling population? DEPENDS. If becoming depraved is not a problem to people, in the past, various parts of the empowering population did sometimes gain material benefit. Of course, back then, wars were not industrialised, and the clashing powers were not armed to the teeth with nuclear and biological weapons. Even destroying ONE city was a lot of hard work, and this was a limiting factor. Today, it is not.
-is there ANY special reason why Britain would not give birth to an EVIL LEADER? NO!!! Actually, the unique circumstances of the UK ideal favour such an event. Standard racism allows the population to deny that this could ever happen.
-is Tony Blair an EVIL LEADER? Blair has the greatest probability of being the world's worst EVIL LEADER, best placed to lead wars that will exterminate BILLIONS of humans. For historic reasons, the UK is at the centre of almost ALL significant human politics, from Europe, Asia (esp China), Middle East, USSR, and the Americas. This is a combination of HONEST BROKER (hoho), EX-EMPIRE, and REPUTATION for rationality. London is the centre of a vast spider's web, and Blair is the spider.
Take an example. Why does Iran play such seeming dangerous games over its nuclear weapons program. Well, Iran's centre of international operations is London, regardless of what people may think (you didn't think that Iran's guy in Iraq, Sistani, spends so much time in London for the sake of his health- or that the SAS took out Iranian opposition in London for a laugh). Iran's plan is Blair's plan. He tells them what they can get away with, because HE can tell them what the Americans are thinking, and how far they will go.
Unfortunately for the Iranians, their friend Blair is NO FRIEND AT ALL. Iran is getting the Iraq treatment. Saddam was invited to invade Kuwait by the US, and then the WHOLE of Iraq was destroyed when it did so, in an orgy of bombing violence beyond anything seen in WW2.
The Iranians think that IF Blair is betraying them, Blair would lose influence with all the other spider-web nations, and that he won't pay that price. This thinking is naive beyond belief, for while Blair initially has to tread as carefully as Hitler before him, once the next phase begins, diplomatic delicacy is out the window.
For the Iranians, the game is spinning out of control. While the Iranians are convinced that the US must win a diplomatic game before they will strike, it is the very INABILITY to win this game that will allow Blair to inform Bush that NOW is the time to put US right/might above all diplomacy, and to truly flex their muscles and show the world how things REALLY ARE. Remember, the moment Hitler said MIGHT IS RIGHT, his true success began. Sooner or later, Blair knows he will move the US to this position, and then, fully blooded, he can begin to prepare them for the MAIN CONFRONTATION- full on war with China. The path to this final war will be strewn with the muslim victims of Blair's genocide against them.
twilight
senescence
05.10.2005 06:30
sick of reading your moronic musings.
some of us have brains and know things.
go read a book.
fedupalready
SOAS Academic Shirin Akiner is Uzbekistan regime agent
17.01.2007 13:06
Thanks
Her boss:
Professor Paul Webley, Director and Principal of SOAS
Email Address:
Telephone: 0207 898 4014
Fax: 0207 898 4019
intro to video:
Lecturer in Central Asian Studies at the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS), University of London, Dr Shirin Akiner has been condemned by human rights groups, liberty campaigners and Craig Murray (ex-UK Ambassador in Tashkent) as an apologist for brutal Uzbek dictator President Karimov. This short report on the Andijan massacre concludes with an interview with Dr Akiner in which she attempts to downplay and justify the horrific murderers by Karimov's regime.
Sharif Junaid is online now Add to Sharif Junaid's Reputation
fergana forever