You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Afghanistan
Afghan royalists form movement to restore monarchy
2003-08-10
Supporters of former king Mohammad Zahir Shah announced the formation of a movement to press for the restoration of the Afghan monarchy on Saturday, hours after their 88-year-old champion returned from medical treatment abroad.
He's 88 years old. I don't imagine he'd last too terribly long, assuming he's still coherent. On the other hand, I'm sure there will be somebody waiting to take over as soon as he departs this vale of tears...
The “National Unity Movement”, led by one of Shah’s cousins, Sultan Mahmoud Ghazi, invited other royalists to join it. “Apart from forming the movement today, participants also asked for the return of the constitutional monarchy,” Hakim Noorzaye, deputy head of the newly formed group, told reporters. “But we want a democratic system without imposing our wish on people. We call on the government to launch a referendum and to let people decide what sort of government they want.”
Actually, the monarchy would probably be the best course for Afghanistan, no matter how hard Hek and his boyz tried to screw it up.
In announcing the new movement, Noorzaye also resigned from his post as deputy head of intelligence in the government of US-backed President Hamid Karzai. He criticised the administration as “a tool of warlords” and charged that a commission it appointed had already opted for a presidential system in new constitution being secretly drafted. The constitution is supposed to be put to a Loya Jirga, for approval in October to allow for general elections to be held next June.
The fix is in, huh? Wotta surprise.
The nine founding members are either close relatives of Zahir Shah, like his sons Mirwais Zahir and Mustafa Zahir, or those who served the monarch during his 40-year rule. One, Professor Rasoul Amin, said about 1,800 supporters of the ex-king had come to Kabul from all over Afghanistan for the launch of the movement. The restoration call came just hours after the frail former king, twice-rumoured to have died in July, arrived in Kabul from France, where he had been recovering from a broken leg. It is the strongest call yet since he returned to Afghanistan last year after nearly three decades in exile that followed his overthrow by a cousin in a bloodless 1973 coup. Seen as a symbol of unity in a highly fractious country, Zahir Shah was given the title “Father of the Nation” by Karzai last year, but aides have said he would accept a leadership role if chosen in next year’s polls.
Posted by:Fred Pruitt

#11  Thanks Anon1! The feeling's mutual.
Posted by: Bulldog   2003-8-11 11:43:58 AM  

#10  Bulldog, Mark IV great responses!

Let me add, that a lot of Aussies still like having Queen Lizzie still as our nominal head of state.

It rocks, being part of the commonwealth. Bulldog, I'm happy to share the umbrella of a crumbling empire with you!
Posted by: Anon1   2003-8-11 9:26:07 AM  

#9  Chris, from your comments about Queenie ruling over her crumbling empire, you sound like quite a rooyalist to me, albeit possibly a closet one. I, too have no desire to see the monarchy consigned to the dustbin of history partly because I'm of a conservative at heart, a sentimental romantic and also a pragmatist (or so I like to think). Once removed, there will undoubtedly be no return for a royal familty in our country. We may bitch about them and deride them, but most acknowledge at some level that they do provide a unique form of national entertainment. These are not people who arrived at ther positions by merit, purely an accident of birth. Anyone who likes to play the lottery should have no truck with the monarchy, IMO, as they enjoy a fortune flutter. The royal circus is also a lace curtain between us and the career politicians who represent the sharp-clawed cynicism of real politics. Having a benign figure like our current Queen at least notionally holding power over the likes of Blair and the opposition, feels something like a safety net and adds an air of stability to government. Additionally, the royal family do undoubtedly pay for themselves, and some, in terms of attracting visitors to the UK. They are probably our greatest single tourist magnet and therefore it makes good financial sense to keep them in place.

I quite disagree with your assessment of Bush as an 'idiot'. If you want to dismiss those you disagree with as idiots (inc. Blair), that's up to you, but no one should consider that sort of insult an argument worthy of attention. True, his communication skills are below par for the international statesman, but you should pay more attention to the results of his actions rather than what he says and how he says it. Responding as the US did to 9/11 was folly? Then what alternative would you suggest? Was removing the Taliban from power in Afghanistan a mistake? Who would have benefitted from leaving them there? Do you think another 9/11 would have happened by now if they were left alone?

Have you forgotten that more Britons died in the twin towers attacks than have died in any other single terrorist attack, anywhere? It was no ordinary terrorist incident, and justified an uncompromising response.

And you complain about the Iraq war. I'd like to hear your alternative way of dealing with Saddam. Do you have one? One that doesn't involve allowing to continue his reign of terror on his own subjects? Did you approve of the UN-imposed sanctions stalemate, which made the lives of ordinary Iraqis harsher than before and allowed Saddam and his cronies to continue their business of oppression, rape and murder unabated? You wanted the inspections to continue, right? For how long? Are you sorry that Saddam's gone?

"...dangerous in the way a small child is dangerous with a knife." That's a pretty perfect way to describe any one of the murderers of 9/11, IMO.
Posted by: Bulldog   2003-8-11 5:24:24 AM  

#8  Chris - "idiot"? "criminal"? You're going to scream? Sigh. Talk about living in a bubble... One more mention of 9/11, eh? It takes a special kind of stupid to fail to see that America knows that any kind of terrorism is reprehensible - and that the Izzoid version is much more serious because it is global, well-funded, implacable, deadly, and directed at the entire civilized world - not just a band of provincial renegades. Geez - where to begin? It's all a typical IndyMedia Muddle™ of invective sans logic... Re: N. Ireland - last time I checked, that was your purview and we would not have been welcomed if we'd shown up with the 3rd Infantry. Your implication that we should've done something, but didn't, is egregiously stupid when examined in reality, but you obviously live in phantasy, else you wouldn't have used it for an example. You know the US cooperated on precisely the level the British wanted - probably FBI surveillance and allowing British watchers into America for similar purposes. I won't take pleasure, but there will come a British 9/11 for you to scream about... when Buckingham or Parliament or Westminster is blown sky high - full of Brits and (Phrench, I hope) tourists by your own local Izzoids. You are willfully blind and beneath contempt for it. Take a hike - go play with your royals. Get drunk. Dream of lost empires. Phuck off.
Posted by: ·com   2003-8-11 12:21:36 AM  

#7  Yo, chris, you have the advantage of posting late, and thus risking little of the wrath of Rantburg.

You'll hear no royal- nor brit-bashing from me, nor will I take the cheap shot about Hitler (would you had done the same).

It would be nicest to assume that you're smarting from the offense to the queen, but then you're not a royalist.

That leaves some room for plain old Chris-bashing. For you to baldly state that GWB is an idiot is simply... well, let's say, a "misunderstanding".

We are well aware of terror around the world over the years. It is not allowed here. 3000 people and two buildings plus the Pentagon in a day is definitely too much, and nothing you have seen in Belfast or London or Palestine or Israel in the last 60 years comes close.

We have had enough shit from that part of the world and so we have nakedly aggressed the most deserving country of all their deserving asses and established a presence on their goddam front porch and we are now leering menacingly around in all directions. And we are armed and fucking dangerous and very angry that some people take all the advantages of the last 500 years of progress and instead of putting it to work for their own good, use it to make others' lives as miserable as their own.

And it's not about oil.

So.

To be fair you state that Tony Blair is an idiot, too, so obviously your own genius knows no national prejudice. I'm sure you have a solution to all the world's ills, something very clever and sophisticated that involves waiting a lot, explaining why we must understand that innocent people die in our cities, and hoping that the world's MOST dangerous children will grow up before they get to your block.

Bummer, man, nobody voted for you. Reckon they didn't recognize your name. World leaders are idiots. Chris for Emperor. No doubt your detailed peace plan will follow. I'll put it right here with all the others.

Have a nice night, and may there always be an England. With a Queen.
Posted by: Mark IV   2003-8-10 11:56:40 PM  

#6  "The English system works fairly well. The "head of state" does all the silly stuff (ribbon cuttings on bridges, showing up at social functions...) while the government does the real work."

I hope that you are an American with a comment like that. I'm not in any way a royalist but I do understand that the Queen and her family are involved a lot more than "the silly stuff" - Often this isn't seen by people but she (Queenie) has given up her life, her family (to an extent) and all her personal dreams to lead Britain forward. When she took over fifty or so years ago, she took over an empire and has continued to rule as fairly and justly as the empire crumbled around her. Her devotion is worthy of note and should in no way be interpreted as"doing teh silly stuff" ---- America has a warped understanding of this. You can see by the Californian Governor elections that they are more likely to vote for a name they've heard of than anyone with decent policies - eg Schwarzenegger, Flynt or George Bush !!! I liked Clinton, I respected George Bush 1 but the new president is an idiot who has scraped by on having the same name as his father. His idiocy is obvious to most of the rest of the world and yet through clever media representation, a lot of America still respects him. His logic in explaining the Iraq war is flawed at best and at the worst, downright criminal.

I have lived in and love America but believe (as many other US citizens have told me) that Americans are often trapped in a bubble of security unaware of the horrific events being caused by their own government - The spin on the Iraq war being the worst - Yes, something had to be done about Saddam but the way Bush did it was criminally wrong. The fact that some idiots like Tony Blair etc jumped on his bandwagon doesn't make it right (especially as some things have come to light recently proving that the British government were lied to about the reasons for waging war.) Thousands of people have died as a result of Bush's stupidity and he doesn't care because they are not American.

Oh, and if I hear him quote 9/11 one more time I'm going to scream - terrorist attacks have happened all over the world for many years not least in Northern Ireland and yet Bush has done and said nothing - one attack on the US and he invades a country - terrorism is not the same as war and yet his warped logic has convinced himself it is.

He is IMHO the most dangerous man in the world and not dangerous in the way that clever people like Napoleon or Hitler is dangerous - dangerous in the way a small child is dangerous with a knife.
Posted by: Chris   2003-8-10 11:27:11 PM  

#5  Yeah but look what happens when some of these countries post colonial non-entities vote--Algeria elected a bunch of Islamonutz--in Turkey we have Islamo lite and we saw how supportive of the US they were.
Posted by: Not Mike Moore   2003-8-10 11:12:32 PM  

#4  A constitutional monarchy (with the king/queen's power severely limited) could be a good compromise for countries that are accustomed to, or hoping for, someone to look up to. The English system works fairly well. The "head of state" does all the silly stuff (ribbon cuttings on bridges, showing up at social functions...) while the government does the real work.
Posted by: Kathy K   2003-8-10 8:12:16 PM  

#3  I think that monarchy is the natural state of a society before it reaches a certain point of complexity. Trying to stop those societies from being monarchies simply doesn't work -- witness the number and variety of hereditary "presidencies" in the world, from Kim Jong Il to Azerbaijan to Saddam. Mubarak's grooming Junior to take over in Egypt, and the Ghandi/Nehru clan's still working toward a comeback in India. When Fidel kicks it, I think Raul's supposed to step in. and I think Turkmenbashi's kid is supposed to assume the reigns when he achieves the Great Beyond. Muammar's trying to set up a dynastic marriage for his little boy. And then we had the president of Equatorial Guinea, who's announced he's God. The more I think about it, the less difference I can see between Charles Taylor and, for instance, Merwig. It's not until societies actually grow up that monarchy ossifies and dies a natural death, occasionally even in its sleep.

Monarchy's greatest advantage is that the next head of state is known, in a world ruled by flood, fires, mudslides, volcanos, drought, and the pleasure of God or the gods. Sonny (in very few cases Little Missy) is trained to assume the job from birth, which provides stability. In societies where wealth is based on land ownership, dynastic marriages provide alliances with other, similar states.

I think the trick here would be to recognize the facts of life. Put crowns or jewelled turbans or other funny hats on the heads of the Presidents for Life, and try and influence the structure of the states internally. Not everybody's going to get to be Louis XIV; some are going to be Nicholas II. Some are going to be King Abdullahs or Hassans, and Morocco and Jordan and most of the Gulf States should probably be the model to adopt. While we support them, we should also push them toward parliamentary control of the purse strings -- rather than a deep involvement with policy. For quite a few years, the English, French and Dutch kings made policy and their respective parliaments concerned themselves with raising the money to support it.
Posted by: Fred   2003-8-10 4:03:54 PM  

#2  "It's good to be King." - or something similar according to Mel Brooks. But King of What?

Okay, a show of hands: Who wants to be King?
Of Afghanistan?
Of Iraq?
Of Iran?
...insert roll call of all Arab & Islamic "nations" here
...
Of Egypt?
Of Malasia?
Of The Izzoid World?

I dunno if what you suggest is true or would / could / should work, but it certainly sticks in my American craw. Sorry! ;-)
Posted by: ·com   2003-8-10 1:17:40 PM  

#1  We in the West have in my opinion the fault of seeing a country on a map and thinking that there is a nation of the same name. Sometimes there is. Most times there isn't. How well did the monoarchy work in pre 1973 Afghanistan? If it came to work now maybe it would be a good model for Irag and a few other places. It least monarchies hae a tendency to think about the future.
Posted by: Someone who did NOT vote for William Proxmire   2003-8-10 10:05:42 AM  

00:00