In the Guardian yesterday (sorry, I mean the guardian), Craig Murray, the former British ambassador to Tashkent, accused Hazel Blears of “straightforward falsehood” regarding UK intelligence sources in Uzbekistan and the pending proscription of an Uzbek Islamist organisation, the Islamic Jihad Union.

(A complete transcription of the parliamentary debate, concerning the British Government’s Terrorism Bill, can be found here.) Whilst there is nothing new about Murray’s views on Uzbekistan, what the debate illustrates is the extent to which concerns about the British Government’s relations with the regime in Tashkent is beginning to exercise the minds of Britain’s elected representatives. Indeed, Blears could be said to have been given a grilling on the issue. For example, Adam Price (Carmarthen East & Dinefwr, PC) sets the ball rolling:

“Should we not tread very carefully before proscribing an organisation that has less blood on its hands than a Government with whom we still maintain diplomatic relations?”

David Heath (Somerton & Frome, LD) pursues this line, asking if “the Minister [Blears can] reassure me that her primary channels of information come from British intelligence and not from Uzbek sources?”

In reply to this query, Blears makes the statement that Murray, presumably, diasgrees with:

“The information that we receive is from our own security and intelligence services.”

Wrong, according to Murray; in his opinion, “the UK has no intelligence assets in central Asia.”

Alan Simpson (Nottingham South, Lab) is quite blunt in his assessment of the real concern:

“Concerns about the Uzbek Government would prompt many of us to prefer to see them on the list rather than groups that oppose them, given that they have carried out acts of cruelty and torture against their own citizens.”

Indeed, Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland, Lab) highlights the issue of confessions extracted under torture:

“… after the uprising in Andijan people were massacred by the Government, and others were tortured into saying that they belonged to radical Islamist groups. How will the Minister make a judgment in practice about whether people truly belong to the IJU, which is to be proscribed, or have simply been tortured into claiming that they do?”

Unsurprisingly, Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield, Con) reassures Blears that the official Opposition [The Conservatives] will support the order. However, he remarks that:

“I suggest that a common-sense distinction can easily be made between organisations that seek political change in their country—they might even support freedom fighters—and organisations that support terrorism. The random slaughter of innocent individuals can play no part in the process of trying to bring about political change. The hallmark of the various organisations identified by the Government is that they have engaged in that very activity. I am mindful of hon. Members’ comments about the Islamic Jihad Union. The Government of Uzbekistan undoubtedly leave a great deal to be desired and may properly be described as “a tyrannical regime”. The fact that opposition to that regime may manifest itself outside the law is perhaps understandable, but that it should take the form of random suicide bombings that kill innocent civilians must be unacceptable. If this House does not send out a signal that it considers such behaviour unacceptable, we are on dangerous ground.”

Meanwhile, Craig Murray gets a big shout out from Alistair Carmichael (Orkney & Shetland, LDem):

“When I first approached this matter, I shared the unease that was expressed by the hon. Member for Carmarthen, East and Dinefwr (Adam Price) about the listing of the Islamic Jihad Union. Indeed, I continue to feel uneasy about the inclusion of that group among the list of 15. If it had been the subject of a specific order, there would have been greater opportunity for the House to scrutinise its inclusion.
I hope that nobody outside the House will be in any doubt about the view that we take of the Karimov regime, which is entirely despicable and despotic. The Minister’s PPS, the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Stephen Pound), recently did a brave and laudable thing in going there and bringing to the attention of the regime the revulsion that we all feel. I know that the hon. Gentleman and I share a concern about the practice of the Uzbek Government with regard to the operation of the death penalty. The Government’s signals to the Uzbek regime have not always been helpful. I am thinking especially of their treatment of my old friend, the former ambassador to Uzbekistan, Craig Murray, who has done us all a great service in graphically highlighting the appalling human rights record of the Uzbekistan Government.”

… and at that point the debate shifts away from Uzbekistan and onto other issues regarding the war on terror. It is therefore clear that the right questions are being asked about the validity of intelligence from Uzbekistan, and in particular the quality of British intelligence reports (if indeed there are any, as Murray disputes). Of course, it must be noted that this debate took place within the context of a wider debate on British anti-terrorism laws, and the issue of the Islamic Jihad Union isn’t perhaps as important as some might think from a British perspective.

Moreover, reading the above exchanges, one can’t help but notice that the underlying current of thought appears to be that the woes of the Uzbek Government aren’t entirely undeserved; there are, naturally, condemnations of suicide attacks against innocent civilians, but mostly British MPs by and large do appear to be greatly concerned about the conduct of the Uzbek Government. However, it is unlikely that this discombobulation will derail the proposed anti-terror legislation.