Prince Harry (or Cornet-2/Lt Wales or possibly Widow-Six-Seven, depending on who you ask) has fulfilled his wish to fight for his grandmother and country. It would seem that this was a sop to him for not resign his commission because he hadn’t been allowed to fight in the manner he had been trained - commander of a detachment of light tanks - in Iraq. This is not totally irrelevant; as we all know, pressure on MoD’s budgets is very tight and making allowances like this is not necessarily the best use of resources. I’m not saying either way, but with a media blackout, it’s hard to know.

It is possible that the Defence Advisory Notice system was used; if so, it is an abuse. I don’t see how it comes under one of the standing notices (Military Operations, Plans & Capabilities; Nuclear and Non-Nuclear Weapons and Equipment; Ciphers and Secure Communications; Sensitive Installations and Home Addresses; United Kingdom Security & Intelligence Special Services). Equally,

It is remarkable that the secret was contained for as long as it was and indicates that the royal machine is still pretty effective; I find it somewhat worrying. It is, without a doubt, a publicity coup for the royals - brave Prince Harry wanting to go and fight alongside his men and not wanting any special treatment. I am not denigrating is desires or his efforts (Mr Eugenides points out that it’s very easy to comment from behind a keyboard), but the fact that members of the press were there with cameras shows that this was always being used as a PR opportunity; indeed, it would appear that an awful lot of work was done to make this a PR victory. It would be, as it would be in anyone’s case, a tragedy for Harry to be killed in the course of action; the implications of his death, injury or capture are fairly obvious in domestic, PR terms. I wonder, though, how the fact that a member of the ruling house is part of the British contingent in Afghanistan plays with the people of that beknighted country. It may be, of course, that people are delighted that Britain shows that level of commitment. I suspect the most common reactions would be ‘who’ and ’so what’; however, a mistake could easily become a useful recruiting tool for the Taliban. Kulvinder talks about this at Pickled Politics.

While this has been going on the front pages of the newspapers, some other stories have come out that are of, I contend, greater importance. Amongst these is Ben Bernanke’s assertion, reported in the FT, that “some small US banks could collapse”. Some parts of America only have access to smaller, local banks and these banks often provide for ‘underbanked’, niche sectors. If nothing else, it recasts the debate on Northern Rock.

As with the bugging of Sadiq Khan, the story here is encapsulated in the words ‘what else?’. What else is covered up for what is, ultimately, raison d’État? What else don’t we know and how would we find out about it? The questions that are raised by ad hoc media blackouts are rather different to those raised by the DA system I mentioned above. It would seem that the benefits for the one soldier in question - Harry Wales - are less than the risks to freedom of speech that this blackout raises. As Michael White said in his Newsnight interview about blogging, the closeness of relations between journalists and people in power is an ‘alright question’. In this case, the newspapers have given up their birthright - the ability to ask questions such as I’ve mentioned above - for some photos; a mess of pottage.

‘E pur si muove‘ - ‘and yet it moves’; Galileo Galilei at his trial for heresy; apocryphal.

xD.

Posted on Friday, February 29th, 2008 at 6:05 pm
Categories: Blogging, International Relations, Journalism, Justice, Media, Philosophy, Politics.
RSS 2.0 feed for this post
Leave a comment
Trackback