There he is, Alisher Burkhanovich Usmanov, one of the world’s richest people, worth an estimated $5.5 billion. He made his money in metals, but he’s branched out in recent years, taking over Kommersant, and making a bid to gain a blocking stake in Arsenal. A very powerful man, Usmanov’s name has periodically come up as a potential successor for Islam Karimov as Uzbekistan’s president. Even if one dismisses such rumors, he is said to have played an important role in concluding large business deals between Russian companies and the Uzbek government. He’s a big-time player in both countries.
As Laurence earlier noted, Usmanov is more than a little bit upset at allegations Craig Murray made against him recently on the former ambassador’s blog. In his effort to silence a critic, Usmanov has gotten Murray’s site shut down, but also attracted a heap of attention in the blogosphere:
…and in the media in the UK:
…and in the media further afield.
We have plenty of cases of companies and individuals in the US thinking that legal action is the best way to silence a critic only to discover that with the internet, attempts to stifle speech too easily backfire. We have that writ large here, with a juicy “politically and economically power Russian/Uzbek exports the silence of dissenting voices.”
What did Murray say that so bothered Usmanov?
For those who’ve not read it reproduced elsewhere, here it is.
——————
September 2, 2007
Alisher Usmanov, potential Arsenal chairman, is a Vicious Thug, Criminal, Racketeer, Heroin Trafficker and Accused Rapist
I thought I should make my views on Alisher Usmanov quite plain to you. You are unlikely to see much plain talking on Usmanov elsewhere in the media becuase he has already used his billions and his lawyers in a pre-emptive strike. They have written to all major UK newspapers, including the latter:
“Mr Usmanov was imprisoned for various offences under the old Soviet regime. We wish to make it clear our client did not commit any of the offences with which he was charged. He was fully pardoned after President Mikhail Gorbachev took office. All references to these matters have now been expunged from police records . . . Mr Usmanov does not have any criminal record.”
Let me make it quite clear that Alisher Usmanov is a criminal. He was in no sense a political prisoner, but a gangster and racketeer who rightly did six years in jail. The lawyers cunningly evoke “Gorbachev”, a name respected in the West, to make us think that justice prevailed. That is completely untrue.
Usmanov’s pardon was nothing to do with Gorbachev. It was achieved through the growing autonomy of another thug, President Karimov, at first President of the Uzbek Soviet Socilist Republic and from 1991 President of Uzbekistan. Karimov ordered the “Pardon” because of his alliance with Usmanov’s mentor, Uzbek mafia boss and major international heroin overlord Gafur Rakimov. Far from being on Gorbachev’s side, Karimov was one of the Politburo hardliners who had Gorbachev arrested in the attempted coup that was thwarted by Yeltsin standing on the tanks outside the White House.
Usmanov is just a criminal whose gangster connections with one of the World’s most corrupt regimes got him out of jail. He then plunged into the “privatisation” process at a time when gangster muscle was used to secure physical control of assets, and the alliance between the Russian Mafia and Russian security services was being formed.
Usmanov has two key alliances. he is very close indeed to President Karimov, and especially to his daughter Gulnara. It was Usmanov who engineered the 2005 diplomatic reversal in which the United States was kicked out of its airbase in Uzbekistan and Gazprom took over the country’s natural gas assets. Usmanov, as chairman of Gazprom Investholdings paid a bribe of $88 million to Gulnara Karimova to secure this. This is set out on page 366 of Murder in Samarkand.
Alisher Usmanov had risen to chair of Gazprom Investholdings because of his close personal friendship with Putin, He had accessed Putin through Putin’s long time secretary and now chef de cabinet, Piotr Jastrzebski. Usmanov and Jastrzebski were roommates at college. Gazprominvestholdings is the group that handles Gazproms interests outside Russia, Usmanov’s role is, in effect, to handle Gazprom’s bribery and sleaze on the international arena, and the use of gas supply cuts as a threat to uncooperative satellite states.
Gazprom has also been the tool which Putin has used to attack internal democracy and close down the independent media in Russia. Gazprom has bought out – with the owners having no choice – the only independent national TV station and numerous rgional TV stations, several radio stations and two formerly independent national newspapers. These have been changed into slavish adulation of Putin. Usmanov helped accomplish this through Gazprom. The major financial newspaper, Kommersant, he bought personally. He immediately replaced the editor-in-chief with a pro-Putin hack, and three months later the long-serving campaigning defence correspondent, Ivan Safronov, mysteriously fell to his death from a window.
All this, both on Gazprom and the journalist’s death, is set out in great detail here:
http://www.craigmurray.co.uk/archives/2007/06/russian_journal.html
Usmanov is also dogged by the widespread belief in Uzbekistan that he was guilty of a particularly atrocious rape, which was covered up and the victim and others in the know disappeared. The sad thing is that this is not particularly remarkable. Rape by the powerful is an everyday hazard in Uzbekistan, again as outlined in Murder in Samarkand page 120. If anyone has more detail on the specific case involving Usmanov please add a comment.
I reported back in 2002 or 2003 in an Ambassadorial top secret telegram to the Foreign Office that Usmanov was the most likely favoured successor of President Karimov as totalitarian leader of Uzbekistan. I also outlined the Gazprom deal (before it happened) and the present by Usmanov to Putin (though in Jastrzebski’s name) of half of Mapobank, a Russian commercial bank owned by Usmanov. I will never forget the priceless reply from our Embassy in Moscow. They said that they had never even heard of Alisher Usmanov, and that Jastrzebski was a jolly nice friend of the Ambassador who would never do anything crooked.
Sadly, I expect the football authorities will be as purblind. Football now is about nothing but money, and even Arsenal supporters – as tight-knit and homespun a football community as any – can be heard saying they don’t care where the money comes from as long as they can compete with Chelsea.
I fear that is very wrong. Letting as diseased a figure as Alisher Usmanov into your club can only do harm in the long term.
{ 27 comments }
I don’t know Usmanov that well but there have been few articles in the russian media that has him connected to Karimov and his daughter. Just looking at the picture, he fits the role described by Murray.
Nathan, I think you want to be careful about taking sides in this matter without having complete information. If Murray has in fact libelled Usmanov under British law (which is stricter than US law), then the “notice and takedown” would not have been unjustified. I don’t know what is true in Murray’s post, and what is not. I don’t believe you do, either. And if there are libels, Murray would be the perpetrator here, not the victim. Just because one doesn’t like Usmanov, does not mean that he is legally in the wrong…perhaps why Murray’s webhost took down his site after hearing from Usmanov’s lawyers.
In the country where we just gave a free platform at a prestigious university a holocaust denier and a rabid anti-Semite radical, personally I have a hard time having much sympathy with Lawrence’s admonitions to participate in the silencing of Craig Murray.
Murray may have had his personal problems, but he’s also had access to far more information on what goes on inside the Uzbek government than any of us, and he’s had the courage to use that information. Even if some of his assertions are not correct, the fact is that it’s almost impossible to exaggerate the level of violence and corruption at the top of the Uzbek regime and in Russian multi-nationals, especially when they operate in the former USSR.
So for my part, anyway, I want to thank Nathan for making this article available–I had not seen it yet, and if you had not reprinted it, I never would have.
Anyone who knows anything about British libel law knows it has nothing to do with ‘truth’ and everything to do with ‘reputation’. In the UK, libel is one of two branches of defamation, the other being slander. Libel refers to written defamation, and slander to spoken defamation. Since everyone is assumed to have a ‘good’ reputation, anything that is presumed to have cast aspersion on a person’s reputation is presumed to be defamatory – unless the person who is accused of making the allegedly defamatory statements can prove otherwise. Hence in British courts the onus is on the defendant to prove the truth of his or her statements.
However, someone accused of defamation may have recourse to a ‘fair comment’ or ‘public interest’ defence. In this case, I believe Craig could claim ‘fair comment’ as he is merely repeating what many people in Uzbekistan already gossip about – and what he tried to alert his FCO masters to in his official telegrams. Furthermore, I would suggest that Usmanov’s interest in Arsenal FC means he is now fair game for public interest in his past.
Unfortunately, only the rich launch libel cases in the UK since they are hideously expensive and absurdly weighted in favor of the plaintiff. Ian Hislop, editor of the satirical magazine Private Eye, which has been subject of numerous and legendary libel writs from Britain’s supposedly great and good, quipped after one court case, which he had lost:
‘If this is justice – then I’m a banana!’
As far as I am aware, Usmanov’s solicitors have not yet issued a libel writ – and I would suggest that until they do it is not unreasonable to speculate upon the veracity of Murray’s accusations against Usmanov. Which means knowing what they are in the first place …
I wouldn’t say I’ve taken much of a side, but why should I be careful?
The UK’s libel laws are ridiculous. Agree or disagree with Murray, he should have a chance to be heard.
Nick brought up a good point “As far as I am aware, Usmanov’s solicitors have not yet issued a libel writ”
So Usmanov threatens Murray’s website host, gets them to shut him down but hasn’t yet filed a lawsuit? If that’s true it sure sounds like bullying to me. After all, a trial could bring out embarrassing details.
Nathan, It is reasonable to be careful when we don’t know the whole story, in the interest of providing correct information.
UK libel laws may seem ridiculous to Americans, but since Britain is a parliamentary democracy based on individual rights, it might be a good idea to respect their legal system. Not everyone who sues for libel wins. For example, David Irving lost against Deborah Lipstadt, as reported in The Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/irving/.
I might buy it if you explained what “be careful” means. I discussed why Usmanov is a big deal, the reaction to the shut-down of websites, and reprinted Murray’s letter. I’m putting the story out there. And it most certainly is the whole story to date as the factuality of Murray’s claims, but instead only that he made them and prompted a response, is beside the point.
I stand by UK libel laws being ridiculous. In fact, I think they are prima facie so, and I am willing to wager many UK citizens agree. The laws make it far too easy to chill speech and translate to too simple an avenue for wealthy public figures to silence critics.
Nathan, I thought it was self evident by what I meant was don’t assume Murray is right and Usmanov is wrong. Maybe that’s the case, maybe not. If it goes to court, the legal system will decide. If not, then all we have to go by is the decision to take down the post. I wouldn’t want to second-guess the web host, who made the decision presumably upon legal advice.
As far as “ridiculous” laws, I’d defer to the British parliament when it comes to what the British public agress upon. For starters, the British press is not like the American press–they appear to me to be far more vicious, unfair, and belligerent than American media. Maybe they need tougher libel laws in the UK to protect the reputations of individuals from defamation by the press barons?
Libel isn’t free speech. And there is plenty of free speech in Britain–in the press, and on the web, IMHO.
Laurence: Your suggestions sound almost like fear mongering. Even if they sue and win the case, are they going to go after each and every blogger who has republished those writings? How many blogs have done that? Hundreds and counting. What’s the worst case for Nathan? The answer is: nothing can happen to him. Under the US law, Nathan is completely within his rights. I’m not a lawyer and don’t know any details, so if there are some fine points, e.g., some bilateral agreement under which Nathan would be extradited to the UK for exercising his First Amendment right – let us know. I highly doubt there could be any such thing.
There is a Russian website that at one point published similar stuff. They, too, were threatened with legal action. That was back in 2004. The site is still up and running. In fact, the Russian version of Wikipedia seems to have copied some of their stuff. By the way, those are the first three sites that Google throws up if you plug in our “hero’s’ name in Russian. You can see all them here:
http://compromat.ru/main/mig/a.htm
http://compromat.ru/main/mig/uzbekotv.htm
http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A3%D1%81%D0%BC%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B2,_%D0%90%D0%BB%D0%B8%D1%88%D0%B5%D1%80_%D0%91%D1%83%D1%80%D1%85%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87
Nathan: Keep up the good work.
You wouldn’t want to second-guess? Probably 90% of all blog writing is second, third and fourth guessing things.
Laurence: … but since Britain is a parliamentary democracy based on individual rights, it might be a good idea to respect their legal system. Not everyone who sues for libel wins. For example, David Irving lost against Deborah Lipstadt, as reported in The Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/irving/.‘
Samuel Johnson famously remarked, ‘the law is an ass’. Only a Brit could have said that, especially when it comes to libel law. David Irving is a happy example of somebody who deservedly lost. The judge, in his summing-up, effectively described Irving as an Holocaust denier – which, if you read my comment above, means that Irving’s reputation as an historian, means squat in the UK – fair or unfair? you decide.
‘As far as “ridiculous” laws, I’d defer to the British parliament when it comes to what the British public agress upon. For starters, the British press is not like the American press–they appear to me to be far more vicious, unfair, and belligerent than American media. Maybe they need tougher libel laws in the UK to protect the reputations of individuals from defamation by the press barons?”
My impression is that the US press is far freer, and hence more vicious, unfair and belligerent, because ultimately freedom of speech is a constitutionally protected right. Otherwise, how else do you defend the bollocks published by the National Enquirer, Globe and Star, on a regular basis?
I was kind of hoping for an independent post about Iran’s President and ex-mayor of Tehran speaking at Columbia, though considering Iran to be Central Asian is out of bounds. Anyway, I’d like to hear what everyone thought of it.
My first reaction was, “Good on Columbia,” until I heard the awful excuse of an ‘introduction’ from Bollinger. That guy is not thought too highly of in Ann Arbor, home of the University of Michigan. He has a reputation of one who thinks he can say whatever he wants to with impunity. He got into trouble back in the day at U of M for his stand against Affirmative Action, and hurt a lot of feelings when he moved onto Columbia for little more than a pay-raise after promises of building UofM’s legacy. The University of Michigan, I probably don’t have to say, is a yearly member of the “Top 10 Universities in the World,” so it’s not like he was taking a huge step up.
In any event, I think inviting someone to speak should preclude introducing him as a vile dictator and bully. If you really think that, why introduce him at all? Why not just paint a target on his chest? The fact that Ahmadinejad has intolerant views, to me, is not the main point here.
And Stomotolog-bashi [Berdimuhhamedow, President of Turkmenistan] is on the docket to appear as part of the same series. Wonder if he’ll be introduced as a vile dictator who mocks democracy. Because that’s just as true, I imagine. Whether or not he has yet to build his own rotating golden statue.
So is it libelous to discuss a libel case? Hmmm… deep.
In any case, has Usmanov ACTUALLY brought a libel case? If he hasn’t it’s all just bullshit scare talk at this point.
My first thought when I heard Bollinger’s intro: he’s covering his ass for all the negative press that Colombia got. I think he crossed the line between voicing his opinion and being a bad host. He should have saved those words for the Q&A session afterward, not an intro.
Anyway, the drums of war are starting to beat again. Starting to feel like 2002 more and more every day.
Re: Columbia, Bollinger and Ahmadinejad – nice curveball!
As re: Usmanov, a story in today’s Guardian (UK) suggests the tide of opinion is turning against Usmanov amongst Arsenal’s leading figures, most notably the club’s suave, Old Etonion Chairman, Peter Hill-Wood, who has expressed concern about the lack of transparency in the origins of Usmanov’s fortunes. Once again, the issue of ‘reputation’ has come into play, as Usmanov’s solicitors have suggested that such was the confusion in Russia and Uzbekistan in the 1990s, any businessman’s dealings in that period would appear oblique and obscure:
“He [Usmanov]’s certainly not an open book,” the Arsenal chairman said. “Business is murky in Uzbekistan, and that in itself is an argument against him being involved in Arsenal. I wouldn’t want him to be the owner of the club.”
Furthermore, Schillings ave reportedly not issued a libel writ against Craig Murray, ‘because they did not want to give him a platform to express his views.’
Bit late for that!
Ha, Ha. Lawrence will come out strongly in support of the devil incarnate if Murray suggests that he may have a bad side. The point surely is that Usmanov will not sue murray, because he would have a good chance of losing, either on the basis of fair comment, or on the basis that Usmanov has no reputation to protect. But because it is so expensive to defend a libel action in the UK, ISPs will always take the path of least resistance. Whatever you think of Murray’s politics, any decent blogger should back him on this.
I just thought that…if Usmanov heads a branch of Gazprom owned by the Russian government, then would not Murray’s allegations be also directed towards Putin and his cabinet?
It is also a company that wants to buy and build pipeline systems in continental Europa and the UK…
Anyone know if ComingAnarchy.com going offline is related to the Usmanov/libel action? Or a server issue? Just wondering. I haven’t checked it in a few days, so I’m not sure if they even covered the Usmanov/Murray fiasco.
I don’t think they’ve covered it. Their site goes down all the time. I don’t know who their host is, but it doesn’t seem super reliable. (Or maybe it’s just being zealous, kind of like when my host blocked accessed to broad swaths of the eastern hemisphere because of spammers.)
Thanks for covering this, Nathan. I might not have seen it otherwise, and I had just been reading the other day about Usmanov’s holdings in “gangster’s paradise” Transdniester/Transnistria/Pridnestrovie, so this story provided a great hook for a post exploring those holdings (apologies for the self-promo…).
Thanks Lyndon for your post. I looked at you link to Murray’s new Blogspot site dedicated to Usmanov, http://www.alisherusmanov.blogspot.com/. If Usmanov does not take Murray to court after his invitation to sue, then Murray would seem to have won the round. I can’t tell what is true and what is not true in Murray’s post, although I’m skeptical that his account of what the British Embassy in Moscow told him is verbatim:
. According to their website, http://www.schillings.co.uk/, Schillings specializes in defamation law and media law, so time will tell whether theirs was an empty threat to Murray–or not
Here’s Murray’s stating that he wants Usmanov to sue him, from Google cache, http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:01VIiVyGk08J:www.craigmurray.co.uk/+craig+murray&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&client=safari:
“Don’t know who will play Usmanov – sadly Fatty Arbuckle is dead.”
I’m still waiting to see how the movie is going to be marketed. Comedy? Horror? Suspense? One drunken and lecherous diplomat’s misadventures in a country no one’s heard of before, and the outcome of his shenanigans?
Did somebody say Shenanigans!?
Just another thought.
It would be so cool, if Mr. Murray would sue Schillings for libel and defamation in regard of his book “Murder in Samarkand”. Because their allegations decrease the sale of his books in particular and discredit Murray in general.
Well, I’m British and I think our libel laws are ridiculous as well. The main problem, as someone pointed out, is that it is so expensive to mount a defence of publication in court that the mere threat of legal action is normally enough to give an ISP cold feet. Laurence’s bleating is less than convincing on this point. As someone else pointed out, Private Eye has been running a story for the last couple of months about a prominent Saudi businessman who has been using British libel law to prevent the US publication of books which link him to terrorist financing – on the grounds that four or five copies have been shipped to the UK after being bought on the internet. I don’t know about the truth of those particular accusations, but I do think it suggests that the international rich see the British legal system as a soft touch when it comes to shutting up their critics. In this case Murray has plenty of facts and evidence to support his accusations, and it’s up to Usmanov to refute them in detail. Bullying of this kind suggests that he can’t.
Interesting stuff – a couple of belated thoughts from Siberian Light’s resident armchair lawyer
Usmanov could sue Nathan / Registan for libel in an English court – that Nathan is based in the US, and the site is hosted in the US is irrelevant. It is read in England, and the article could conceivably affect Usmanov’s reputation in England.
I don’t think anyone can be extradited from the US to UK to answer a libel case (although I could be wrong) but it could certainly cause problems if Nathan wants to come to the UK in future, or has assets here.
The amount of damages awarded are largely related to the ‘damage’ suffered by the person who was libelled. The more widespread the story comes then (assuming it really is libellous) the greater the damage to Usmanov’s reputation. From Craig Murray’s perspective, I wonder if having the story repeated on many websites increases his exposure – would the amount of any eventual award against him be increased if bloggers republished his allegations.
And, finally, having looked at the allegations – they’re pretty strong stuff. I’d imagine Craig could get away with saying Usmanov ‘was’ a criminal – he did jail time, even though pardoned – but Murray goes way further than this, and repeatedly asserts that Usmanov is currently a criminal, which I would think – if true – would be immensely damaging.
Having said all that – like pretty much everyone else here, I’m appalled that Craig’s ISP took the site down based purely on someone’s complaint, rather than any actual legal action.
Comments on this entry are closed.