Feuding as he already is with his lead FCO department, Craig Murray sits down to write a strong speech on Uzbekistan human rights issues.

He sends a draft to London, to FCO Human Rights Department led by his old pal (and mine) Jon Benjamin – himself something of a post-Sovietologist as he worked with me on the collapse of the Soviet Union back in 1991/92.

Craig’s book does not say how much notice he gave London to look at the text. It causes a stir.

The day before the speech is due to be delivered, Eastern Department consult Sir Michael Jay, the FCO top official, saying that "we are fast developing a problem with Craig Murray" in part over his lax attitude to communications security; the speech is bound to make the Uzbeks very angry.

Sir M Jay replies. The text of his sensible views as they appear on Craig’s website does not (not) show that Michael Jay was ‘horrified’ (as Craig absurdly asserts) that Craig was due to speak on human rights in Taskent.

A rapid negotiation ensues over the text. One of the reasonable London comments is available via Craig’s site, even though his site says that it isn’t(!).

Craig replies in strong terms, bemoaning (Cliche Alert) the classic public school and Oxbridge-influenced FCO house style as ‘ponderous, self-important and ineffective’.

A text approved by London (with which Craig himself is delighted) appears just in time. The speech is duly delivered to a crowd attending the opening of a new American NGO office.

The speech has some immediate dramatic effect, as it goes to contradict or at least heavily qualify what the US Ambassador has just said, as it (according to Craig) challenged the whole carefully constructed US illusion about Uzbekistan. It is picked up by the international media.

Here is the text of the speech. It’s not what I would have done – we all have our own styles – but it is sharp without being hysterical (and so in fact a good example of Post and London working together).

The next day at a banquet for the visiting UN Sec-Gen, the President of Uzbekistan ostentatiously shakes Craig’s hand:

I could only surmise he was demonstrating publicly, or specifically to Kofi Annan, that he could take criticism.

Various other interpretations suggest themselves, of course.

Professional Judgement Rating: 5/10.  Good that Craig’s energy and principles propelled him to make a substantial human rights speech early in his tour, probably pushing London in form and substance further than they might otherwise have gone. But this success is achieved at the expense of his new relationship with the US Ambassador and by bruising colleagues in London.

Has he thought through how best to make progress steadily over a three-year posting? Or is all this little more than manic improvisation?