The Leading FCO Sock-puppet On The Internet

Craig,

Dear. Oh. Dear.

Are you really insinuating that somehow I have been put up by the FCO to posting about the Torture issue on my blog as part of some deep plan to undermine or distract attention from your HoC evidence session?

My diplomatic career record on working to promote human rights eg in apartheid South Africa and in pursuit of Balkan war criminals is different to yours, and none the worse for that.

If by ‘sock-puppet’ you mean a person who is put up by someone else to mouth that latter’s words as if they were his/her own, you know perfectly well that of all people previously in the FCO I am not in that category, never have been, and never will be. My views differ from yours in key respects. It’s called freedom. You say you are a Liberal. Deal with it.

You write: "More recently he ridiculed me on his blogoir for my contention from that it is not normal to enter No 10 to give secret briefings by the front door, and assured us (falsely) that there was good intelligence behind the recent fake Manchester Bomb Plot scare, whipped up by the government."

The first part is true, since what you wrote was indeed ridiculous. But where do you get the claim that I falsely "assured" anyone that the intelligence behind those bomb suspect arrests was good? Do explain.

As for the argument that "torture works", is not that the point? If it did not work it would be trivial cruelty, to no end whatsoever.

The disturbing ethical issues arise over torture (and have done for centuries) because people think it does work to some extent, some of the time. This is what gives us agonising choices over how best to get information out of dangerous suspects which might save the lives of others. The UN Convention defines torture as inflicting "serious pain…". That definition like all definition forces us to look at where lines are drawn – what type and level of pain up to "serious" can be inflicted in a just cause? Surely a legitimate subject to talk about when we are up against many would-be terrorists who have no compunction about inflicting death and pain on countless people at random?

The problem with diplomacy is that it is complicated. And that we have to deal with the world as it is. Sure it is deeply problematic to receive intelligence information from a regime which probably or even possibly has used torture to get it. But why is that in substance any less problematic than chatting politely with that regime over coffee about trade ties or regional political questions or all the other things which go on? The issues are less directly linked to ‘security’. The villains taking the decisions and smiling blandly at you across the table – and being legitimised by your very presence – are the same.

Where and why did you draw your professional lines? For all the noise and self-congratulation in your book it is not really clear. You bang on tirelessly about the iniquities of the top levels of the Uzbekistan regime, while at the same time in your book warmly patting yourself on the back for the number of them who attended your Queen’s Birthday Party in Tashkent. Did you think they would mend their evil ways by guzzling their way for hours through the "2000 bottles of beer and many hundreds of bottles of wine and soft drinks" which you provided for them, sending the bill to the British taxpayer? Was that a morally honourable way to behave?

Maybe you would like to tell us – haplessly hypocritical , or just out of your depth?

Happy to debate these issues publicly with you at a mutually convenient venue.

Charles

He’s right about one thing. I did not finish reviewing his book Murder in Samarkand. I somehow got distracted. So I’ll get back on the case.

I hereby challenge Craig Murray to a public debate on Diplomacy and Ethics. Does anyone have either a football stadium or an old telephone box to offer as a venue, depending on the level of public interest?