The solution for Afghanistan is not another term for Karzai

Western media reported today that “Hamid Karzai appears likely to win [so-called presidential elections on 20th August 2009], while at the same time being deeply unpopular”.

Mr Karzai's unpopularity and the likelihood of his victory have cast a pall of resignation over the campaign, with many Afghans preparing for another five years of a leader they feel they already know too well.

Only 31 per cent of Afghans said they would vote for Mr Karzai again, down from the 54 per cent of votes he received in the 2004 election. Only 7 per cent favoured Mr Abdullah and just 2 per cent Mr Ghani, and they are considered to be Mr Karzai's most serious rivals.

How odd, everybody knows that Hamid Karzai’s rule has been a disaster, opposition candidates are even more unpopular than the the US-installed Karzai, but opinion polls did not ask for the obvious alternative: Give the Afghan people back the Monarchy! Only the Afghan Monarchy has a chance to unite the country and keep the Taliban at bay.

Another five years of Karzai’s presidency will bring many more deaths among the Western armed forces and among the Afghan people.

It is sad to see that Western politicians have no vision to see the obvious soution.

Aussie republicans in praise of a Monarch

Both politicians have an established reputation of being staunch republicans. However, when it comes to the praise of a Monarch, Kevin Rudd and Malcolm Turnbull can choose words as if they were loyal servants of Her Majesty.

King Juan Carlos I and Queen Sofia of Spain paid a visit to Australia from 24th to 26th June 2009. On their arrival in Canberra the Queen's representative, Governor-General Quentin Bryce, received the royal couple at the airport in Canberra. Later that day the King and Queen were officially welcome by Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and the Leader of the Opposition, Malcolm Turnbull.

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd:

"Australia and Spain share more than history though. Both of our nations also bring together a modern story of democracy and development; and of contribution to international affairs.

"Your Majesties are renowned patrons of democracy, having overseen, for more than three decades, Spain’s enduring transformation into one of the world’s great democracies."

The following sentence was not included in the official transcript that was published on the prime minister's website:

"And I for one, Your Majesty, recall as a young man, your courageous efforts in those difficult time."

The Leader of the Opposition Malcolm Turnbull:

"It is a great honour to welcome Your Majesties this evening to this seat of our national parliament. I join with the prime minister on behalf of the people of Australia in welcoming His Majesty on his first visit since the bicentennial celebration in 1988.

"Her Majesty, of course, joined us as an honoured guest at the Sydney Olympics in 2000. Welcome back, Ma’am.

"Tonight the presence of Their Majesties offers an opportunity to reflect on the deepening and the strengthening of the relations between two vibrant and successful modern democracies and to pay tribute to the role of the Spanish Royal Family in promoting freedom and democracy.

"Very few Kings in history could claim to have been as courageous in their defence of democracy as you have been, Sir."

Malcolm Turnbull could have added the Queen's brother's efforts to restore democracy in her home country Greece. After all, it was King Constantine who tried in a counter coup in December 1967 to oust the colonels' regime and restore democracy. His efforts failed and he paid a heavy price. He went into exile, of which he has officially not returned. And what is more, a smear campaign has blackened his image in Greece and abroad.

"As we know, His Majesty created a new history for an ancient nation in those eventful days between 1975 and 1978. Not only by reclaiming the role of Head of State after the death of General Franco, but by the relinquishing power to a parliamentarian democracy under a new constitution.

"For many of us the end of totalitarianism in Europe was marked by the fall of the Berlin Wall. Yet in many ways, Sir, it was the advent of the Spanish democracy under your expert stewardship that helped inspire the hunger for freedom and liberty among so many peoples’ and nations’ labouring under the suffocating rule of dictatorship: Democratic elections in June 1977, the promulgation of a new constitution by 1978, ratification in a popular referendum and then subsequently signed into law in a powerful symbolic moment by the King in His parliament.

"So it was that the heir of an ancient dynasty became the father of a modern democracy.

"Only 30 years on no one thinks of Spain as other than a respected member of the community of advanced democracies, a robust and well regulated modern economy, the 9th largest in the world."

King Juan Carlos proposed the following toast:

Ladies and gentlemen,
will you please join me in a toast to Her Majesty the Queen and the people of Australia.

No republican present refused to drink to the Queen of Australia.

And one could ask, why a form of state should be abolished (in Australia) that has produced such a fabulous Monarch.

'A king cannot kill his own people.'
-
Dictators can

Iranian journalist Amir Taheri reflected the question Is Iran replaying its revolution of 30 years ago? and has some surprising answers:

"In 1979, the Shah was criticized for having violated the 1906 Constitution, notably by preventing political pluralism and imposing a one-party system. Today's movement started as a protest of the alleged rigging of the June 12 presidential election, in violation of the 1979 Constitution.

"The 1979 uprising represented an unusually broad coalition, with at least a dozen leftist groups and almost as many Islamist factions along with nationalist, social-democratic and liberal outfits.

"The same is true today. Dozens of different opposition groups -- ranging all the way from moderate Khomeinist to Monarchist -- have come together to challenge the regime under a single umbrella.

"The ruling establishment back then remained reasonably united until the very end. Even after the Shah had left the country, no key regime figure switched sides. Today, however, the ruling elite is split down the middle.

"In 1979, a majority of Iranians would probably have voted for the shah, had there been elections. Few, however, were prepared to fight for him in the streets. This time, the regime may well lose a free and fair election but still is capable of fielding large numbers of supporters who are ready to die and kill for it.

"The Shah had no stomach for bloody repression. His constant, and rather charmingly naive, motto was: 'A king cannot kill his own people.'"

His Imperial Majesty Shah Mohammad Rezā Pahlavi, Shah of Iran,
(in Farsi: محمدرضا شاه پهلوی)
(26 October 1919 in Tehran – 27 July 1980 in Cairo),
Emperor (Shahanshah = King of Kings) of Iran from 16 September 1941.

"In contrast, Khamenei has built his career as a tough street fighter. In his Friday sermon in Tehran declaring war on the opposition, he made it clear that he wouldn't shy away from a bloodbath in order to prevent regime change.

"The perception that the Shah was weak and unwilling to hit back played a crucial role in disheartening his supporters and encouraging his opponents. That perception was one reason so many of his closest aides simply fled the country at the first opportunity."

Strange behaviour

Roy Hattersley in The Guardian on 16th June 2009: “As a privy councillor I am entitled to give advice to the Queen. If she wants the monarchy to continue on its untroubled way, she should tell her son to respect the restraints of his position. … She might also point out that his reverence for all things ancient does not seem to include respect for the constitution and that republicans like me rejoice at the damage he does to the idea of monarchy."

The Guardian: “Roy Hattersley is a Guardian columnist. He served in Jim Callaghan's cabinet and later became deputy leader of the Labour party.” But he became a privy councillor in 1975 and was created a life peer in 1993 as Baron Hattersley of Sparkbrook. Is this a case of one Labour peer looking after the interests of another (Lord Richard Rogers)?

Why did Roy Hattersley accept to be appointed a privy councillor if “republicans like me rejoice at the damage … to the idea of monarchy"? Wasn’t it against his republican conscience to take the Oath of Allegiance to Her Majesty and Her heirs and successors?

I have reached the point where I don’t believe any oath any republican swears to anything. Just take a look at our republican lot. I could swear they are betraying us.

Prince Charles accused of abuse of power

Lord Richard Rogers (75), who was sacked last week from a multibillion-dollar development in London, has accused the Prince of Wales of “an abuse of power” and “unconstitutional behaviour”. The Age re-printed an article on 17th June that was published by The Guardian last week. The dispute however, is older and involves “the modernist design” for the Chelsea Barracks site in London. The 12.8-acre site is opposite the historic Royal Hospital and the proposed scheme would have built 552 flats in towers of copper, glass and concrete. Naturally Prince Charles, who takes a special interest in architecture, objected and hundreds of thousands of people did as well.

Since the Prince saw off Lord Rogers and his “monstrous carbuncle” extension to the National Gallery 25 years ago, there is no love lost between these two men. The little detail of a long standing dispute is, of course, not mentioned in The Age, because it would explain Lord Rogers’ fury.

And perhaps the audience would like to know, how much “the leading British architect” (The Age) would have earned had this project gone through. How much money out of the £3-billion-project would have found the way to Lord Rogers? His scathing attack on Prince Charles, could it be fueled by pure self-interest? How about a little bit of investigative journalism, dear Age?

Even Rupert Murdoch’s daily The Times conceded: "Lord Rogers is magnificent in his fury - but wrong. There are plenty of issues that the Prince of Wales can't touch: Gordon Brown, the constitution, Europe, the Middle East and whether the country goes to war. Architecture is not one of them.”

The problem lies deeper, as an editorial in The Sunday Herald explained:
"Massive housing and commercial developments, new superstores and roads ... such projects come before the public for scrutiny only when developers have already had cosy exploratory chats with local planners and carved up the whole deal behind the scenes. Even then, they are pushed through the so-called planning process with unseemly, and sometimes mischievous, haste. Ever noticed how public consultation plans for municipal mega-projects, with tight schedules for objecting attached, suddenly get launched on a Friday afternoon before a holiday period when no-one can be bothered to scour the council notice section of the local newspaper?

"It's no good architects coming over all democratic and squeaky clean here. With the exception of a few less ruthlessly commercial practitioners committed to working with communities, architects are in on these deals from the beginning, drawing up plans for their developer paymasters and generally schmoozing with the municipal mafia. They have a direct financial interest in seeing such projects go ahead; at least HRH doesn't."

Prince Charles told Royal Institute of British Architects as recently as on 12th May 2009: "Few people dare to speak out ... for the very good reason that if they do they find themselves abused and insulted, accused of being old-fashioned, out of touch, reactionary, anti-progress, even anti-science - as if it was some kind of unholy blasphemy to question the state of our surroundings, of our natural environment, our food security, our climate and our own human identity and meaning. Little wonder, then, that most people shy away from pointing out that the Emperor isn't actually wearing very many clothes any more." The whole speech can be read here.

So, why did The Age re-print the article? After all, if they want examples of architectural monsters and overriding democratic planning procedures, the journalists don’t have to look to London. Melbourne itself delivers lots of examples. Take a stroll through the streets and your eyes will spot one catastrophe next to the other. And unfortunately the heir to the throne does not come to our rescue.

“Unconstitutional behaviour” in Victoria
Actually, The Age ran a story on planning in Victoria. True, it was more about Victorian Planning Minister Justin "Harry" Madden, but there were discoveries, that really should let Lord Rogers see “unconstitutional behaviour”:

“ … Since the mid-2000s, and especially under Premier John Brumby, Labor has started to wind back objector and appeal rights, over-riding councils in a way that would have seemed unbelievable a decade ago.

"Last year, Madden announced that planning decisions for 27 key commercial centres — including Coburg, Frankston and Footscray — would be taken from councils and given to specially appointed development assessment committees. The program was to begin with five centres. So far this year, he has also seized planning control for 11 major housing and commercial developments, mainly in inner and middle suburbs. Among them is the large riverside industrial plot in Fairfield known as the Amcor site, the future of which was under consideration by the left and green-leaning City of Yarra.

"Other projects include the contentious proposed conversion of the Northcote Bowl into apartments, and the troubled redevelopment of Pentridge in Coburg, currently in the hands of the Labor and Greens-dominated Moreland City Council. Such actions are viewed with real suspicion in the gentrified streets of this former Labor heartland.
Last month, the Government also announced it would fast-track $3 billion in housing and education projects as part of the federal stimulus package, denying councils and residents the right to object or appeal. Under the Government's guidelines for the program, hundreds of largely private housing developments could be rubber-stamped if they contain a component of social housing. No stated minimum of social housing has been stipulated, sparking concern that it will be used as a smokescreen for poorly planned public-private development.

"Notable too is the recent ascendancy of Madden's Development Facilitation Unit. Just a few years ago, the unit was a minor office in planning, a one-man operation focused on trouble-shooting projects with problems, such as the Pentridge revamp. Now it has grown into a major part of Madden's department.

"While the minister insists he is a 'reluctant interventionist', when The Age suggests that "planning" has largely given way to ' facilitation', he says he does not apologise for that. 'The great challenges at the moment are in housing and, because of the economic circumstances at the moment, jobs,' he says. 'We're committed to delivering housing and jobs in this state. The Opposition and the Greens are anti-growth, anti-housing, and anti-jobs.'…

"An often overlooked influence on his attitude is that he is, by training, an architect. Like developers and builders, the architect's instincts are hostile to consultation with those who do not understand 'the profession' [here you have an explanation for the hatred architects show against Prince Charles]. Objections and appeals only frustrate creativity, and money-making.

"The Victorian president of the Australian Institute of Architects, Karl Fender, is a fan. 'The first thing about Justin is, he's an architect, and therefore he brings an intelligence based on his education to the portfolio ...'

"The scaling back of planning democracy is not unique to Victoria, or even Australia. Nor is it simply a response to the global financial crisis. It has been a trend across the Western world as deregulation has permeated all spheres of public policy since the 1980s. Other states are moving in the same direction, South Australia in particular. But under Brumby and Madden, Victoria is now among the national leaders in sweeping aside obstacles to development.

"But privately, some Labor insiders worry about the sidelining of councils and residents, and fear that in the drive to get billions of dollars 'out the door', projects are being called in and signed off at a dizzying pace without the usual checks and balances. Corruption flourishes in such conditions.

"Labor councillors are among a group of concerned local government figures who this week published an open letter in The Age accusing Madden of demolishing a cornerstone of Victorian planning — 'the rights of residents to have a say about their neighbourhood … The use of the economic downturn to justify the denial of these fundamental rights is short-term thinking with disastrous long-term consequences.'"

The last word should go to a letter writer of The Times:
"Who do you trust -- the builders, the MPs or Prince Charles?
The one who will not financially profit from more ugly buildings. Thank you for speaking out. Prince Charles is the voice of the people.
Mama S, Atlanta, USA

One republican
- unfortunately only one -
quits politics

Peter Costello, federal Member of Parliament for the Victorian seat of Higgins and also Her Majesty's Australian treasurer and deputy prime minister from 1996 to 2007, decided not to seek re-election at the next federal election. The republican Liberal was an outspoken supporter of the 1999 republican model of a president chosen by politicians that was rejected in a referendum by the Australian people.

That did not stop him advocating “a” republic for Australia.

His departure from politics could be good news if he were to be replaced by a new MP who supports the Australian Monarchy as it is layed out by the Constitution. However, claimants to the soon to be vacated seat include ambitious ultra-right youngsters who seek all for themselves and nothing for the people. Their republicanism can easily match that of Peter Costello.

Why is it that young politicians hardly have any loyalty except perhaps for their supporting party factions and donators/sponsors?

Dom Pedro Luiz is to be seen on the left.

Communiqué from Prince Dom Luiz on the death of Prince Pedro Luiz

Prince Dom Luiz, head of the Imperial Family of Brazil

Pierced with sorrow, I fulfill my duty as Head of the Imperial House of Brazil to communicate the disappearance of my beloved nephew and much-regretted D. Pedro Luiz de Orleans e Bragança, in the fateful May 31 ocean crash of the Air France Rio-Paris flight.

Given the harrowing pain of his parents, D. Antonio and D. Christine, his brother and sisters, D. Amélia, D. Rafael and D. Maria Gabriela, and my dear Mother, D. Maria, I turn to them with special solicitude and affection.

And with the whole Imperial Family, I turn with the same solicitude and affection to all those who have lost their loved ones in the crash. To all these families - so very special to Brazil - the Imperial Family extends its condolences and asks God for the eternal repose of each and every victim.

Over the last few days, D. Pedro Luiz's parents and I have received so many manifestations of genuine mourning for the tragic event that I can only see these events as a living and authentic expression of the sense of family and ties of affection that unites the Imperial Family and all Brazilians, whether monarchist or not.

D. Pedro Luiz – the fourth in the line of dynastic succession - was a young Prince who rose in his generation as a promise, having attracted the interest and attention of many for his pleasant ways, undeniable qualities and for the traditions he represented.

As a result of his excellent upbringing and fine sense of duty, instilled by his parents, after having graduated in Business Administration at IBMEC in Rio de Janeiro, and his post-graduation at FGV, he took the initial steps of a promising career at BNP Paribas in Luxembourg, and showed great concern and commitment to show foreigners the great potential of our country.

But his presence was especially dear among those who believe the monarchy is the solution for today's Brazil .

D. Pedro Luiz was president of honor of Monarchic Youth and participated in noteworthy activities and events to the benefit of the monarchic ideal, often in the company of his parents. He represented the Imperial House on occasion, and I am especially pleased to recall his presence in Portugal for the celebration of the 500th anniversary of the discovery of Brazil .

While this is a moment of apprehension and sadness, it can not be devoid of hope. Our hopes turn particularly to D. Pedro Luiz's brother, D. Rafael – to whom I wish courage and determination in the face of misfortune, and whom I urge to be a true example of Prince to his generation, turned to the good of Brazil and to setting an example of Christian virtues.

To close this painful communiqué, I turn my eyes to Our Lady Aparecida, Queen and Patroness of Brazil, Whom beseech with confidence to receive D. Pedro Luiz in eternity. And I ask for special prayers for him, as well as for his parents, brothers and my dear Mother, from all those who, in a spirit of faith, have supported the Imperial Family at this time of mourning.

São Paulo , June 5, 2009
Dom Luiz de Orleans e Bragança
Head of the Imperial House of Brazil

Queen's Birthday Poll

Channel Ten's question of ther week:

Is it time Australia became a republic?

Yes 20.8%

No 79.2%

I wonder how the republicans will deal with this result.

Where are all those republican writers on Queen's Birthday Holiday?

I have to admit: I was wrong. I expected the united republican media hunt to have a field day on Queen’s Birthday Holiday. I was prepared to read the re-heated phrases from previous years, but the usual suspects, the famous “Melbourne commentators and republicans” must have been occupied elsewhere.

However, The Age fulfilled my expectations and printed an editorial in connection with the Queen’s Birthday’s honours list. “The one truly incongruous note about today's holiday is that officially it marks the Queen's birthday even though the monarch — whose real birth date is April 21 — has precious little to do these days with either the Australian awards system or Australia. The empire is long gone, and widely shared loyalties to the Queen with it; most Australians' allegiance is to the country they live in. Imperial honours were discarded in 1975, yet today's honours are still awarded on a day supposedly devoted to our head of state.”

The Imperial honours were dropped by politicians, not by popular demand of the people. France kept the "Légion d'honneur", which was established by the first consul, Napoléon Bonaparte, in 1802. The country went through many changes, but the honours list remained.

And why does The Age claim, Queen's Birthday were “a day supposedly devoted to our head of state”? It is republicans who have to accept a fact they dislike. This day IS devoted to our Queen.

“By all means retain a long holiday weekend, but … [t]his holiday requires an identity to match its place and purpose in a country that is already republican at heart.” Wishful thinking: This country’s media are republican oriented, but the country itself is still “Monarchist at heart.” The circles journalists and their employers mingle in are the ones who dream of a republic, but they cannot specify their dreams and tell us, what kind of republic they want.

This year The Age did not run a campaign like the one in 2008, when a “Kids Day” was high on their agenda. “Resurrection Day” might be an option, after a couple of republicans groups decided to resurrect in a newly formed Coalition of Australian Republicans (CAR) the day before Queen’s Birthday Holiday. Or could “CAR Day” be acceptable to our republican media?