There were increasing claims yesterday that media coverage of Prince Harry's 10-week tour in Afghanistan had been "propaganda" and overlooked a failed military strategy there.
Meanwhile, British newspapers reported that the 23-year-old was set to get a promotion following his time fighting the Taliban in the restive Helmand Province in southern Afghanistan, cut short when a US Web site blew his cover last Thursday, forcing the military to withdraw him.
According to the Times and the Sun tabloid yesterday, Harry is guaranteed a promotion next month, having completed two years in the army, along with a ?5,000 (US$9,900) annual pay increase.
The Daily Telegraph also reported, quoting an unnamed senior source, that he will be assigned to train young soldiers in his role of Forward Air Controller, which involves calling in air strikes and and carrying out surveillance.
The prince returned to Britain on Saturday to a hero's welcome, and vowed to return to the frontline as soon as possible, though British military chiefs have said that prospect is unlikely for 18 months or so.
But dissenting voices are now beginning to be heard above the widespread praise for the young prince, not least because of the British media's agreement with the defense ministry to a news blackout until he returned.
The royal and his superiors say the coverage could help the public appreciate more their role in Afghanistan while the former head of the British Army, General Sir Mike Jackson, said it was "not unhelpful" for recruitment.
A high-profile parliamentary committee warned in January that pressure on Britain's military to meet its commitments in Afghanistan and Iraq, where about 12,000 soldiers are stationed in total, has battered morale and spurred experienced officers to leave.
Some, though, question whether the news blackout deal had eroded trust between media organizations and their audiences. Center-left publications the Independent on Sunday and the Observer both highlighted the lack of analysis about Britain's wider role in Afghanistan in the coverage of Prince Harry.
Former British soldier Leo Docherty, an Iraq war and Afghanistan veteran, said air strikes of the kind Harry called were not succeeding in winning the hearts and minds of local Afghans.
"This [the coverage] is war reduced to entertainment, willingly ignorant of the truth that young men like Harry, both British and Afghan, are dying violent pointless deaths in Helmand Province," he wrote in the Independent on Sunday.
The Observer said scant attention had been paid in the media clamor to the complexities of the NATO-led mission and tensions between allies, particularly over troop numbers and rules of engagement.
Little if any space had been given to recent claims about the Afghan government's fragile grip on power in the face of the obdurate Taliban, the difficulties of reconstruction or NATO's anti-narcotics strategy, it wrote.
The renowned publicist Max Clifford told the Guardian on Saturday he believed the deployment was a "total, superficial, PR exercise" aimed at "rebranding" Harry -- who has a reputation as a wayward party animal -- in a more positive light.
And one columnist at the Mail on Sunday said the focus on Harry and criticism of foreign media for breaking a gentleman's agreement was "sheer propaganda" that "may make us feel `our boys are winning' in Afghanistan."
"But this is not the truth at all," wrote Suzanne Moore in the right-of-center weekly.
Taiwan might just give up. That’s the argument Simon Shuster made in The Atlantic’s October issue. The US is unreliable, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) leadership is aligned with the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and Taiwan does not have the military capability to defend itself in a prolonged war without help. What hope does Taiwan have? Quite a bit more, in fact, than Shuster lets on. Shuster points to genuine problems. The first Donald Trump administration had a mostly positive record on Taiwan policy. It regularized the arms sales process, enhanced the military-to-military relationship, and treated Taiwan more like a normal
A Facebook post by Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an (蔣萬安) earlier this month achieved record levels of engagement — although perhaps inadvertently. In it, he attacked Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator and Taipei mayoral candidate Puma Shen (沈伯洋) for an op-ed published in 2014 discussing drug harm reduction policies. In attempting to stir up fear with talk of community centers, drugs and needles, Chiang’s comment section exploded. More than 100,000 comments poured in within the first two hours; more than 330,000 after the first 12; and more than 400,000 by noon the following day. Rather embarrassingly, many commenters made a point
Last year, Legislative Speaker Han Kuo-yu (韓國瑜) turned the Double Ten National Day ceremony into a platform for grievances against the government. Yesterday, standing before the president and foreign dignitaries, he warned against Taiwan becoming a “false democracy, in reality a dictatorship.” Then he called for unity. Democratic leaders must tolerate criticism, even on ceremonial occasions, but Han misused his position and a national celebration to insinuate that Taiwan’s elected president was steering the country toward dictatorship and cast himself as a statesman offering reconciliation. Han asked how Taiwan’s security should be examined, using a medical analogy. If he insists on playing
Southeast Asian food delivery platform Grab Holdings Ltd in March applied to acquire Delivery Hero SE’s Foodpanda operations in Taiwan, with the Fair Trade Commission (FTC) scheduled to announce its decision on Oct. 27. On the surface, the deal is a business merger — but in substance, it involves personal data, national geospatial information and digital sovereignty. It cannot be assessed solely in terms of market share and price competition. Grab has extensive and long-standing connections to Chinese capital. In 2015, Chinese ride-hailing firm Didi Chuxing and China Investment Corp, a sovereign wealth fund, invested in Grab. Grab invested in Chinese autonomous-driving
RSS