Comments on: Book Review: Craig Murray’s Murder in Samarkand

By: Daniel

Daniel — Fri, 18 Aug 2006 13:18:46 +0000

Just a comment to the last paragraph of that article. Sure, a civil servant has to serve his government, but besides that he also has to serve his country and the people of his country. And he has a responsibility to obey the law, human rights and all that stuff. And if there then arises a conflict of interests since the government of his country doesn’t care any more about human rights and other basic principles e.g. that it is illegal to attack another country under international law and that cruel torture is not acceptable under any circumstances then it’s not the civil servant’s turn to resign but it’s the government which has to be kicked out of office.

By: Planeshift

Planeshift — Mon, 14 Aug 2006 09:22:58 +0000

Missing the point.

The issue isn’t the rights and wrongs of what Murray did or didn’t do, or the appropiate behaviour for diplomats who disagree with government policy.

The issue is Britain and the United States providing direct support to a despicable regime on the grounds that it has cast itself as a strategic ally. The whole example shows precisely how little human rights matter to our foreign policy, and that any dictatorship is welcome in our “war on terror” provided it manages to defraud us by persuading us that it is acting as a strategic ally.

By: Liadnan

Liadnan — Sat, 12 Aug 2006 10:42:38 +0000

I accept those points in general. I think the question is one of fact and degree, as most things are. But Murray was an ambassador, which puts him in a rather different position from any other member of the civil service, and he radically disagreed with very “live” government foreign policy which had a direct impact on his posting. The line was in a different place for him than for, say, a midranking civil servant the Home Office.
I am not saying he should have been silent afterwards, either. Far from it.

By: Andrew Bartlett

Andrew Bartlett — Sat, 12 Aug 2006 01:31:03 +0000

On the last point, regarding civil servants and government policy; I think that this is extremely complex – as we do not have a politically appointed civil service, civil servants are expected to serve under a series of many politically different governments in the course of their careers. There has to be room for them to do this, and, at the same time, to be professionals.

Being professional, in this case, does not mean simply being silent when faced with misdemenours by their superiors – a definition of professionalism that seems to have sneaked into English of late – but acting as an independent, competent actor of the Brtish state, even where that comes into conflict with the ideas of their politician masters. Especially as their politician masters are often not accurate representatives of the democracy that they lead. Who seriously thinks that, if it came to a free and secret ballot, Parliament would not stand alongside Murray, even if a New Labour cabinet stands against him?

And more than that; to argue that a civil servant ought not remain in post when he or she is in conflict with government policy would create serious problems domestically. What of the teachers, the doctors, the social workers etc. who are all professionals, who might diagree with government policy, but remain in post and work against it?

By: Hano

Hano — Fri, 11 Aug 2006 17:46:36 +0000

But I do have one serious question: was it right for Murray to stay in his position when he was so clearly unable to support UK Government policy? Absolutely right. Surely what ultimately matters is how we act when confronted by corruption and torture. To remain silent at the very least makes us complicit to it. 'We were only following orders' is not a valid excuse.

By: Talvalin

Talvalin — Fri, 11 Aug 2006 16:40:10 +0000

Excellent review. I recall you mentioning this book before, but it has become more relevant since recently reading a spy novel set in Uzbekistan (Private Wars by Greg Rucka).

Murray’s removal, the appalling human rights record and the use of evidence gained through torture are all detailed within, and it made me want to read up more on the country and its relationship with the UK and US.