Share this
Digg
Del.icio.us
Reddit
Slashdot
Furl
Yahoo
Blogmarks
Technorati
Newsvine
Googlize this
Facebook
Wikio
Export PDF
Print
E-mail
TagsThe similarities between Craig Murray, former British ambassador to Uzbekistan, and a character in a new spy series are uncanny. So why is the BBC denying it?
Now determined to turn western public opinion against Usman. And to force both the UK and US administrations into withdrawing their support for him." Now, if you substitute the very real Uzbekistan of President Karimov for the fictional Tyrgyzstan, you get a description of me precise in every detail. Uniquely so; there is nobody else that description remotely fits. There are other coincidences. When I was ambassador, the Uzbek prime minister was named Usmanov. James Sinclair is an anglicised Scot like me. I live in Sinclair Gardens. Sinclair's wife has the common Uzbek name of Saida. I have an Uzbek partner. Like me, his tipple is neat scotch (not as common as you might think). Both "Tyrgyzstan" and Uzbekistan are in Central Asia; both have major US airbases threatened by a change of allegiance of the dictator. Both are described by the US and UK as "an ally in the war on terror" and "a backdoor to Afghanistan". Both have perpetrated a large-scale massacre of pro-democracy demonstrators.
Fine by me. I like the series, and Sinclair is well played (by Alex Jennings). I have received scores of emails from viewers, mostly complete strangers, commenting on the series, often asking me about its accuracy. So I was surprised to hear the BBC was not just denying the character was based on me, but denying it vehemently, as though it were an appalling accusation. A journalist had inquired on my behalf, and received rebuttals from both the press department and a producer.
Some of the things that the BBC
asserted in reply to the inquiry were simple nonsense. It claimed that
many ambassadors had resigned over human rights, not just Craig Murray.
In fact, the only other example is David Gladstone, about 25 years ago
- and he wasn't in a "stan". The BBC even denied knowing that I had
written a memoir, Murder in Samarkand. That is very strange, because
the BBC had it in manuscript and I had formal meetings with the BBC
drama department over the film rights.
What do I think of the
series? The atmosphere is nothing like that of any embassy; Foreign
Office house style is much more ponderous. We do not sit in rooms whose
walls are inexplicably all made of glass, surrounded by scores of flickering screens.
But
that is to carp. This is important television. It touches on some of
the most profound themes of our worrying times. In the first two
episodes we have seen persecution of Muslims, attacks on civil rights,
US support of dictatorships, false-flag war-on-terror operations,
out-of-control private military companies, distorted intelligence and a
very powerful statement against the death penalty.
Since
resigning, I have spent the past two years in draughty halls speaking
to small audiences about just these issues, and despairing as to how
you reach a mass audience in these days of desocialised consumers
sitting in front of their televisions. This series does it.
Bewildered
as to why the BBC was denying the obvious connections, I spoke with a
senior BBC contact. They sounded about as nervous at speaking with me
as my FCO friends, but told me that The State Within had terrified the
BBC top brass because of its attack on the special relationship and the
war on terror. They dreaded the government's reaction. An edict on the
line to take had therefore gone out to all, including the actors: The
State Within is purely entertainment, with no political meaning and has
no relationship to any real people, places or incidents.
But it
has. The programme's plot begins and ends with a terrorist bomb blamed
on the "Islamic Movement of Tyrgyzstan", which turns out to be
perpetrated by others entirely. In Murder in Samarkand, I detail
bombings blamed by Colin Powell on the real Islamic Movement of
Uzbekistan. A British embassy investigation proved these were not to be
what they seemed to be.
Getting my book published involved tough
negotiations between the publisher and the FO, determining what could
be published without the government taking legal action. My conclusions
on who was behind those bombs were scrubbed out. But I managed to slip
past the censors: "It is instructive to read Graham Greene's great
novel The Quiet American and acquaint yourself with the historical
truth behind it." Greene's novel hinges upon a real event - a terrorist
bomb planted by the CIA and blamed on the Viet Cong.
In fact, the
world of The State Within is more real than you might imagine. There
may yet be a story twist to please the conservatives. But already the
BBC has produced something brave, relevant and timely, worthy to be
mentioned in the same breath as Edge of Darkness. It is just too scared
to admit it ยท The State Within continues tonight on BBC1 at 9pm.
To create link towards this article on your website,
copy and paste the text below in your page.
Preview :
Thursday, 16 November 2006
Subscribe to this comment's feed
Winter Patriot
said:
 |
The Lie That Tells The Truth What an amazing set of coincidences! Congratulations, Craig. They couldn't have done it without you!! |
Diana
said:
|
... Our best wishes to you, Craig, and for your book. And won't it be even more exciting when it's Steven Coogan playing you instead. |
Susan
said:
|
who actually was behind the Uzb. bombings? Craig, your commentary got me interested in the part of your book that got scrubbed out. Could you share with us who do you think was behind those bombings in Uzbekistan? Best regards. |
Uzbek
said:
|
a little clarification M.Usmanov was a Vice... not Prime-Minister. Anyhow, I really would like to read the whole book and discover sensational truth |
