Is Sting the World's Greatest Hypocrite?

[Neil Foxlee]

From former Uzbekistan ambassador Craig Murray's weblog ( http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/weblog.html ):

"November 14, 2009
Is Sting The World's Greatest Hypocrite?

Since his creative juices dried up, Gordon Sumner aka Sting has received most publicity for his very public environmentalism. As in

"The Rainforest Foundation was founded in 1989 by Sting and his wife Trudie Styler, after they saw first-hand the destruction of the Amazon rainforests, and the devastating impact it had on the lives of the indigenous peoples who lived there."

Not, you would think, the kind of chap who would be likely to take the money to propagandise for the most vicious regime in the World. But there was Gordon on October 17 at the Navoi Opera House in Tashkent, performing a "Charity Concert" with Gulnara Karimova for some of the "Charities" which have been set up in the past three years as the regime seeks to burnish her image to take over from her dissident massacring father.

I bet the oligarchs loved it though:

Even the cheapest ticket will cost more than 45 times the average monthly salary in Uzbekistan
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2009/11/hbc-90006016

Karimova herself has had opponents murdered, has through her company Xeromax taken ownership of much of Uzbekistan's pathetically little industry, and runs both the city's nightclubs and the profitable industry sex trafficking Uzbek girls to Dubai.

But the greatest irony of the arch tosser Sumner's involvement is that the Uzbek government not only tortures thousands every year, has ten thousand political prisoners and massacres demonstrators. It is also responsible for one of the world's greatest environmental disasters - the disappearance of the Aral Sea, and the huge toxicity of the remnant and of the blown seabed dust.

The Uzbek government gets most of its money from the State cotton plantations - Uzbekistan is the World's second biggest cotton exporter. The use of all the river water for irrigation of the cotton is the direct cause of the Aral Sea disappearance. The massive amount of pesticide and fertiliser needed to maintain a hundred year single crop monoculture is causing the poisoning and birth defects. The crop is picked by hand by forced labour and especially child slave labour. The arsehole Sumner may not have noticed, but in the last three years even Wal-Mart, Marks and Spencers and Tesco have put a total ban on Uzbek cotton in all the clothing they sell.

Did it not occur to Sting to wonder just where his glamorous hostess gets her billions from? Karimov and his daughter have for decades resisted every attempt to liberalise and diversify Uzbekistan's agriculture. The slaves pick for them. And for Sting, apparently."

[AndyM]

One can only hope that gets forwarded to Mr Stingo himself.

[Des]

May he be pecked to death by a thousand Slender-billed Curlews.

[kevin]

If he is, then his wife Trudie Styler can't be far behind.

[pirkko]

I can understand Craig Murray is a man on a mission, but Uzbekistan can hardly be blamed for the disappearance of the Aral Sea, it was Soviet industrialization/industrialized farming projects which brought it about.

[pirkko]

Also, the Karimovs might be everything Murray says, but they cannot have been in power for "decades". Soviet Union broke up in... 1991 which is 18 years ago. That's not decades.

I wish people were more accurate with their facts.

[Neil Foxlee]

Points taken, but A2W (according to Wikipedia), "Karimov became an official in the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, becoming the party's First Secretary in Uzbekistan in 1989." Which makes two decades, at least.

But it seems trivial to quibble over minor details when there's a whole Wikipedia page on Human Rights in Uzbekistan (or rather the abuse thereof): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Uzbekistan .

[pirkko]

Points taken, but A2W (according to Wikipedia), "Karimov became an official in the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, becoming the party's First Secretary in Uzbekistan in 1989." Which makes two decades, at least.

There were loads of Communist Party officials in the Soviet Union, there's nothing really special about that, if I understand correctly the meaning of the word 'official'. Neither did being the First Secretary (of the Communist Party) of a Soviet Republic mean having absolute power, even in 1989. The centralised Soviet state was still limping on at that time and Karimov was its representative as First Secretary.

But it seems trivial to quibble over minor details when there's a whole Wikipedia page on Human Rights in Uzbekistan (or rather the abuse thereof): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Uzbekistan .

Well, if a person doesn't consider it important to get the basic (and I wouldn't call them 'minor' - Soviet breakup, an upheaval which cost many lives, caused ethnic conflicts and wars, and caused havoc in the lives of all the former Soviet citizens for many years a minor fact??) facts right, how can you trust him to get other, more complex, facts straight?

[Neil Foxlee]

By "minor detail", I was referring to Murray's use of "decades" rather than "for some 20 years".

Obviously, the break-up of the former Soviet Union is of *huge* socio-historical importance, but Murray's concern (obsession?) is Uzbekistan's appalling human rights record, which I presume (?) you wouldn't dispute.

As for the Aral Sea, the surface of the South Aral Sea (the part in Uzbekistan) shrank from 42,100 in 1987-9 to 13,000 in 2006-7 ( http://www.eorc.jaxa.jp/en/imgdata/topi ... 71226.html ). That's under Garimov. The Wikipedia article on the Aral Sea states: "Uzbekistan shows no interest in abandoning the Amu Darya river as an abundant source of cotton irrigation, and instead is moving toward oil exploration in the drying South Aral seabed."

If you feel so strongly about Murray's omissions/errors, Pirkko, why not email him at craigmurray AT mail DOT ru ?

[pirkko]

By "minor detail", I was referring to Murray's use of "decades" rather than "for some 20 years".

I guess I misunderstood you, then, for which I am sorry.

Murray's concern (obsession?) is Uzbekistan's appalling human rights record, which I presume (?) you wouldn't dispute.

I just find the author's flashy style and inaccuracies counterproductive for real discussion of such serious problems.

The Wikipedia article on the Aral Sea states: "Uzbekistan shows no interest in abandoning the Amu Darya river as an abundant source of cotton irrigation, and instead is moving toward oil exploration in the drying South Aral seabed."

I think this is obvious, and while deplorable (if that is the right word), this is hardly something very much out of the ordinary in the post-Soviet territory.

I think it is very rare for any kind of leader around here to be concerned about ecology and environment. In Russia, many people actually think that climate change will benefit the country, and some while ago Moscow's untiring mayor (whose wife just happens to be a billionaire business lady, cf. Karimov's daughter) discussed the possibility of 'bombing' the snow clouds in the winter, to create an eternally snowless Moscow. He's also staunch supporter of this old Soviet idea:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_river_reversal

If you feel so strongly about Murray's omissions/errors, Pirkko, why not email him at craigmurray AT mail DOT ru ?

I don't think I feel particularly strongly about Murray's omissions in particular... He's certainly not the only one being so passionate about his cause and enemy that he neglects the larger context.