Moving on to the substance of Craig Murray’s book.

Chapter One opens with a description of Craig leaving the Embassy in Samarkand (seemingly early in his posting) to attend a dissident trial.

…out I went, still feeling pretty uncomfortable at people calling me ‘Sir’…

Part of Craig’s self-presentation lies in in portraying himself as Mr Unconventional Unstuffy Ambassador, eschewing boring old protocol in favour of Action. This sits uneasily with other passages in the book where he expresses indignation at the poor treatment handed out to him as Ambassador by the Uzbeks:

… I had accepted an invitation to a dinner to celebrate the 60th anniversary of the state tractor factory. (Note: they know how to throw a party in Uzkebistan) All the Ambassadors were invited but I was the only own to turn up apart from the Belgian Honorary Consul. We were completely ignored and left to find our own place at the bottom of the table. I learnt that the rudeness shown to diplomats at Independence Day was typical…

Invited to a concert at Tashkent Conservatoire:

I was the only Ambassador to turn up. There was nothing prepared for me, and I was left to find a place in a concert hall that was overfull.

Had Craig’s office telephoned to confirm and nail down satisfactory protocol arrangements? What I would have asked to be done, if only because then one is on firmer grounds to complain afterwards if there is a mess.

Craig meets relatives of some of the unlucky people on trial, including the beautiful Dilobar:

Her brother was going to be executed and I was trying to make out her legs through her dress. I was filled with self-loathing.

Not for long:

My momentary self-hatred turned to real anger against a system that promotes torture and execution, as well as against fellow diplomats for their complacent acquiescence.

After having ‘snapped’ against a paramilitary who held him back, grabbing him by the throat(!?) and raging "Don’t you touch me!", Craig enters the shabby courtroom.

A superb description by Craig of the seedy, immoral farce which ensues, operating under the communist principle that ‘the prisoner in the dock has to be guilty, otherwise why would he be in the dock?‘

The nasty judge makes no pretence at honesty and justice, summarily and obnoxiously dismissing all defence witness points including claims of torture. Very bad.

Craig leaves, rightly (seems to me) shaken by this experience. He resolves:

… to dedicate every fibre of my being to stopping this horror in Uzbekistan … I would not go along with lies or leave the truth unspoken … If these were our allies in the War on Terror, we were not on the clear moral ground which Blair and Bush (sic) claimed so boastfully.

The grim episode is reported to London, with the result that it is agreed that the UK call for an EU demarche by way of formal protest.

Craig does not comment on this useless outcome. If anything is less likely to make an impact in a place like Uzbekistan it is an EU demarche. Why did he and the Human Rights team in London go for this banal approach?

Was there really nothing else in our diplomatic armoury which might have had a sharper, deeper impact? A Ministerial letter? Instructions to weigh in with the Uzbeks at a high level? Balance of taking action privately as opposed to publicly? How to engage the Americans? Consideration by Craig on how best to Make an Impact, both immediately and over the time of his posting?

Not explained, one way or the other. A pity.

Craig does fairly analyse the difficulty even with plausible sounding dissidents of getting to the bottom of what was going on and why. There were rebel groups of different varieties out there working hard and maybe even violently against the Uzbek regime. Maybe some of those on trial had been involved in illegal activities, even if their trials were manifestly unjust? Not easy for diplomats to decide how best to proceed. Well put.

The chapter ends with Craig seeing unspeakable photgraphs of a dead Islamic dissident – subsequent analysis indicates that he had been killed by immersion in boiling water after earlier torture.

Professional Judgement Rating: 8/10. Powerful and unprecedented first-hand senior intervention at one of these trials in Uzbekistan, reported speedily to London. Not clear why the London/Post operational outcome looks so weak. Signs of excessive and inappropriate confrontation/frustration with the locals, plus an intemperate attitude to colleagues: diplomats who disagree with him are not necessarily ‘complacent’.