Former Doctor Who actor David Tennant has just finished recording a radio play based on the autobiography of Craig Murray, the controversial former British ambassador to Uzbekistan.
The play, in which Tennant plays the role of Murray, chronicles the former Ambassador’s disgust at what he perceives to be British complicity in tortue in Uzbekistan, his decision to publicly speak out, and his subsequent falling out with the Foreign Office.
Playwright David Hare, who is well known for writing political plays (see ‘Stuff Happens’ and, most recently, ‘The Power of Yes’) adapted the play from Murray’s autobiographical Murder in Samarkan. He apparently didn’t want to just take Murray’s word at face value, and travelled to Uzbekistan to further research the play and to speak to people who knew Murray at the time, in order to get a more balanced view. However, the play is said to be relatively sympathetic to Murray – to quote the Guardian newspaper:
The play reveals different sides of Murray: he is an idealist, who takes an immovable moral stance, but also a drinker and womaniser.
Murder in Samarkand will be broadcast on Radio 4 in England on 20 February, and David Tennant’s participation ensures that Murray’s story will receive a far wider audience that it otherwise would have. Whether this is a good thing or not, I’ll leave for you to discuss in the comments…
{ 2 comments }
There are a few reasons why I don’t have much time for Craig Murray, all related to his behaviour at the time:
1. Far from his being a lone voice on the human rights abuses in Uzbekistan, he was simply adding to those NGOs and charities who had been saying the same stuff all along. Nathan Hamm covered it quite well back in the day.
2. The job of an ambassadors is absolutely not to start spouting personal views criticising the government of whatever country you happen to be posted in. There are dozens of government jobs which allows you to criticise a regime, and thousands of non-government jobs which do the same. An ambassador’s job is to represent the interests of the UK government as per the instructions of his superiors; if he can’t manage to do that, he is not doing his job. Murray was not sacked for speaking out, he was sacked because in speaking out he compromised his ability to be an ambassador.
3. Murray claimed that the stress he was under during the period came solely from his concerns at what was going on in Uzbekistan and his employer’s actions towards him. None of it seemed to be attributed to his decision at some point during his poting to ditch his wife and children and hook up with a 20-something Uzbek floozy. I remember this well because I happened to be hooked up with a 20-something Uzbek floozy at the time myself, and let me tell you it’s a bloody stressful undertaking!
I read Murder in Samarkand and am inclined to agree with Tim. It struck me all the time that Murray wasnt really doing his job, which I would have thought is to represent the UK and its interests in Uzbekistan, but seemed to be on a personal crusade. At the same time however perhaps he felt that because he was ambassador he would be heard and listened to more than NGOs or charities would. I admire the man for what he was trying to do, but I appreciate it wasnt his job at all and all he could expect was to be fired.
The book also makes little or no mention of the wife and kids, but plenty of mention of his infatuation with the Uzbek girl (a conflict of interest, surely?). It would make you wonder if his desire to right wrongs in Uzbekistan was actually heartfelt.
”I remember this well because I happened to be hooked up with a 20-something Uzbek floozy at the time myself, and let me tell you it’s a bloody stressful undertaking!”
There’s a lot of good to be said for floozies:-)
Comments on this entry are closed.