SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Craig Murray has some thoughts on Uzbekistan's anti-terrorism policies in the wake of Islam Karmimov's death.
Hillary Clinton and John Kerry courted Islam Karimov, Uzbekistan's brutal dictator, every bit as assiduously as George Bush and Donald Rumsfeld.
The west is interested in gas, gold and uranium, but is still more entranced by the allure of the false gold of Uzbekistan's "successful" anti-terrorism strategy. Karimov was courted as the strong man who held Central Asia against Islamic fundamentalism. His methods – imprisoning, torturing and killing anybody who appeared religious – were viewed as admirable. That all reputable sources acknowledge that 10,000 people are imprisoned solely for their political and religious beliefs did not matter. That young men can be imprisoned or "disappeared" solely for growing a beard, or for praying five times a day, was viewed as "effective".
The truth is that western governments wished they could do the same thing. The very first words Karimov ever spoke to me were to congratulate me on the fact that Blair had just instituted detention without charge for terrorism suspects – a prime example of the effect abroad of western abandonment of civil liberties.
But of course banning legitimate religious expression does not halt extremism, it creates extremism through frustration. That is why there are so many Uzbeks fighting with ISIS or the IMU in Afghanistan, why it was Uzbeks who blew up Istanbul airport. Unreasonable repression creates terrorism, which is just the effect of the Prevent programme in the UK – or banning the burkini in France.
Western politicians' idealisation of Karimov shows the attraction to politicians of the idea of absolute power, and the simplicity of their approach to the complex issues being faced across the globe. The destruction of liberty is not the answer.
Craig Murray is an author, broadcaster and human rights activist. He was British Ambassador to Uzbekistan from August 2002 to October 2004 and Rector of the University of Dundee from 2007 to 2010.
(Score: 4, Informative) by pTamok on Monday September 05 2016, @08:59PM
Reading the comments on the blog entry Craig Murray's website, it looks like it is a possibility that if he has visited any of Libya, Somalia, and Yemen, he no longer qualifies for Visa Waiver, so it is not an issue of him saying less than complimentary things about the USA.
there is a link through to here: https://www.dhs.gov/news/2016/02/18/dhs-announces-further-travel-restrictions-visa-waiver-program [dhs.gov]
Which states:
February 18, 2016
The Department of Homeland Security today announced that it is continuing its implementation of the Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015 with the addition of Libya, Somalia, and Yemen as three countries of concern, limiting Visa Waiver Program travel for certain individuals who have traveled to these countries.
As far as I can make out, if you have visited Iran, Iraq, Sudan or Syria since 2011-03-01 ( see https://www.dhs.gov/news/2016/01/21/united-states-begins-implementation-changes-visa-waiver-program [dhs.gov] ) or Libya, Somalia, or Yemen (possibly from the same date), then you no longer qualify for the Visa Waiver. There are exceptions for "individuals who traveled to these countries on behalf of international organizations, regional organizations, and sub-national governments on official duty; on behalf of a humanitarian NGO on official duty; or as a journalist for reporting purposes."
I don't know Craig Murray's travel history, but he may simply have fallen foul of this rule.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by n1 on Monday September 05 2016, @10:47PM
It's been a while since i've applied for the VWP, and I probably never will again. I've never been treated like an assumed criminal/immigration threat/(communist?) just for the sheer audacity of going on vacation.
I did do a quick check, and you do have to go through eligibility questions for the VWP, which i'd assume Craig Murray would realize if he ticked the box about being in a war zone in the last couple of years and that could have something to do with the rejection. As someone who's filled out a lot of immigration forms, you read them carefully.
I'd also assume it would stop you progressing if you didn't say "yes/no" to the appropriate eligibility criteria rather than accept your application for an automatic rejection later.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 06 2016, @12:12AM
> I'd also assume it would stop you progressing if you didn't say "yes/no" to the appropriate eligibility criteria rather than accept your application for an automatic rejection later.
I would not. That would be embedding policy in code, which means if their policy changes to be more permissive they would have to update the code on the website in addition to were ever the forms are processed because the website is not the only way to apply. A message saying you might have a problem, that would be reasonable (although it would also encourage people to lie on the spur of the moment). But outright rejecting you before the application was fully completed would be way too brittle.
(Score: 1) by pTamok on Tuesday September 06 2016, @07:38AM
Thanks for the info. I've not gone through the current process. I was looking for cock-up rather than conspiracy regarding Craig's situation.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 06 2016, @12:14AM
Lol. And this is a taste of what Trump wants. Unintended consequences...