24.05.2007

The Windsor boy

Evidently the chief of the general staff feels that prince Harry's life is worth so much more than the life of every other soldier that he cannot be allowed to risk it in the hell-hole that the US and UK forces have made of Iraq. Jim Moody comments

Last week, general Sir Richard Dannatt announced his decision that prince Harry would not be deployed to Iraq after all. Evidently the chief of the general staff feels that this man?s life is worth so much more than the life of every other soldier that he cannot be allowed to risk it in the hell-hole that the US and UK forces have made of Iraq.

Intense media speculation in the weeks and months preceding general Dannatt?s most recent statement had previously led him to assert that there was no question but that prince Harry would be deployed to Iraq with ?his? men in due course. Dannatt?s decision is quite an about-turn, and enormously embarrassing to the army. For, while it is true that there had been threats by Iraqi insurgents to kill or kidnap the prince, until last week the danger had been minimised and the whole issue toughed out.

His Royal Highness Prince Henry of Wales (Henry Charles Albert David Windsor), commonly known as prince Harry, has been a bit of a problem for a while, of course. So, in addition to being prevented from going to Iraq, the royal laddo has now been told to stop getting drunk in public while ?his boys? are seeing active service. Ever more gutter press pictures of the prince who cannot go to war staggering out of clubs like Boujis, Mahiki, Pangaea, and Purple would certainly not go down well among forces families and personnel.

Media spin suggesting army commanders were worried that Henry Windsor?s presence might endanger military personnel in his vicinity were he to be deployed to Iraq has been largely unconvincing. A primary reason for the decision was the effect that his capture or death there would have on the political establishment and public opinion - leave aside on British forces? morale.

In contrast, however, British military personnel continue to die in the US-UK occupation - events mostly given only a passing mention by the media nowadays. Earlier this week the ministry of defence reported simply that ?a British soldier from 4 Rifles has died as a result of wounds sustained in Basra city today, Monday May 21 2007.? His death brings to 149 the number of British troops killed in Iraq since the March 2003 invasion.

Indeed, some parents of soldiers killed while serving in Iraq have rightly expressed outrage at the hypocrisy of the top brass in wanting to keep this special young man out of danger. Reg Keys, whose son Thomas was killed in Basra in 2003, put it plainly to the BBC: ?It would appear that Harry?s life is more valuable than my son or the nearly 150 service personnel who?ve given their lives.? And typical was this contribution to a BBC discussion website: ?Harry should be going. Families across the country have had to share the burden of their loved ones being in harm?s way and the royal family should be no different? (www.bbc.co.uk/radio1/news/newsbeat/070517_prince_harry.shtml).

We can only imagine the repercussions following the capture or death of the third in line to the UK throne - it would certainly not be positive for the British state. There is an almost religious fervour surrounding the monarchy and the arrangements for succession amongst royalist sycophants. For the establishment, nothing shall be allowed to disturb this fairly recent confection of the modern UK monarchy, spun in Victorian rewrites of history. No-one ascends to the throne on merit, but it is a system that has worked well for British capitalism to date.

It is becoming clear that the bastions of the state are less than happy at the fallout from Henry Windsor?s failure to appear on the frontline (or any line) in Iraq: they seem to want to return to a time when speculation about any of the royals in public was considered distasteful and anathematised. Rolling back our freedoms and rights has never been a problem for any bourgeoisie, as long as they can get away with it at minimal economic and social cost.

As ever, the British state?s response is to clamp down in order to resolve its ?problem?. In this case, new laws are not being considered, though tightened regulations that might have almost as much impact are. Long-discredited with civil libertarians and democrats, the ?DA notice? system is being beefed up. It operates through newspapers and the rest of the corporate media agreeing to abide by nominally voluntary requirements not to report anything the ruling class considers too sensitive.

The original ?D notice? system ran from 1912 until it was rebranded as the ?defence advisory (DA) notice? system in 1993. Now, as the DA notice website has it, ?The DA notice system is a voluntary code that provides guidance to the British media on the publication or broadcasting of national security information. The system is overseen by the Defence Press and Broadcasting Advisory Committee, a joint government/media body that approves the standing DA notices and monitors their implementation.?

News of this extension of censorship broke in last Sunday?s Observer, where it was revealed that, ?Ministry of defence officials are preparing a briefing paper for Bill Jeffrey, the department?s permanent secretary, who chairs the Defence Press and Broadcasting Advisory Committee, that would recommend to other members that Harry?s movements be censored? (May 20). This committee is made up of representatives of the home office, foreign office, cabinet office and the media. Needless to say, no-one apart from press or broadcasting barons is ever going to be invited to represent the media on the committee.

The committee has the power to recommend that the media does not publish information that ?involves grave danger to the state and or individuals?. According to The Observer, the MOD is considering a proposal to extend this power so that it would ?include members of the royal family? - whether in ?grave danger? or not. All quite reasonable from the state?s point of view, given what happened in the mass media in the weeks leading up to Dannatt?s decision. And on much past experience, much of the media is likely to fall into line and follow faithfully the diktat of the DPBA?s DA notices.

While most British army bloggers seem to have regarded Henry Windsor as a fellow soldier and not commented on his being prevented from going to Iraq, their open enmity toward war criminal Blair on the other hand is without remit. When Iraqi insurgents mortared the neighbourhood that Blair visited last Saturday, three blasts were heard just before he arrived. On the Army Rumour Service website (www.arsse.co.uk) this week, under the heading ?Mortars miss Bliar? were numerous ripe comments on this aspect of our still-just-PM?s surprise visit to Iraq: ?Bloody typical - the Iraqis get their timings and locations spotty dog for once and Bliar is late. In a way a good thing, ?cause his pilot was saved, but still could have got rid of the wanker. Anyone agree?? Indeed, no subsequent squaddie contributor demurred.

In the marines section of the Rum Ration naval website (www.rum ration.co.uk), one writer commented: ?The best way to lose an insurgency is to have created the circumstances that fostered it!? This drew a response from another marine: ?There wasn?t an islamo-fascist problem until the USA decided to get some licks in against the Soviets in Afghanistan by supporting the wily Muj and financing and arming people like Osama bin Laden [remember him?]. It?s called blow-back ... and like most things in life payback is definitely a bitch.?

Members of the armed forces are obviously no fools and many share opposition to the war in Iraq with millions of people in the UK. More importantly, they should certainly have every right to express their views freely and fully. Yet queen?s regulations force soldiers, marines, ratings and air force personnel to forego a chunk of the hard-won rights that civilians are able to utilise in this regard - the bloggers mentioned are all at pains not to reveal details which could lead to their identification.

Every right under ?bourgeois democracy? (more properly, democracy under the bourgeoisie) has been gained in the teeth of capitalist opposition and has certainly never been granted because the bourgeoisie somehow favours democracy, as many on the left seem to believe. The only inherently democratic class is the proletariat.

Communists advocate the fullest freedoms for those in uniform, totally commensurate with what the rest of us have. Military personnel should be able to freely discuss and debate, for example, the war in Iraq and the withdrawal of US and UK forces, as well as be able to demonstrate with others to get their views across.

Applying a similar logic, the royals too should have the same rights as everyone else - and, of course, none of their current privileges. Obviously, none of the questions like the recent special treatment for Henry Windsor would then arise.

Of course, whether the head of state is a hereditary monarch or an elected (king-) president, he or she acts to tie together the rule of the bourgeoisie. Far from being the ceremonial figurehead that some on the left perceive, the UK monarch has extensive powers that can, in adversity (for the bourgeoisie), be brought into play with great effect. And in such circumstances, as things stand, there would not be a damned thing that elected representatives or the House of Commons could do about it constitutionally.

Not only do communists call for the abolition of the monarchy, and the dismantling of the whole UK constitutional monarchy system. We also stand against any attempt to substitute an elected ?monarch? or president. In revolutionary democratic terms we refute the idea of having either a purely titular or more powerful head of state, whatever s/he might be called. Of a piece with our denial of the ?need? for a second, obstructive parliamentary chamber beyond the House of Commons is our demand for elimination of the post of head of state.

The communist call for a federal republic of England, Scotland, and Wales stands as a powerful programmatic challenge to the present iniquitous, monarchical United Kingdom state.