October 11, 2004

CZECH MATES

A non-Spanish mood seems to be catching on:

The Czech government wants to extend the mandate of its 100-strong contingent of military police in Iraq, an official said Sunday.

Defense Minister Karel Khuenl said in a live television debate his government wants the contingent's mandate, which expires Dec. 31, extended by two months.

Speaking of mandates, here’s an editorial from the New York Sun:

Worthy of reflection is the decisiveness of the victory Saturday by Prime Minister Howard and his center-right Liberal Party in Australia. He defeated an appeasement-oriented campaign by the Labor Party, led by Mark Latham. Mr. Howard's fourth term will make him the second longest serving prime minister in Australia's history. This victory endorses Mr. Howard's military support of the American-led coalition's efforts to install democracy in Iraq. Although no Australian troops have been killed in Iraq, Australia has faced causalities - 88 dead civilians, killed by a terrorist bomb in a Bali nightclub. The decision of Australians to return Mr. Howard to office is a strong statement that Australian voters cannot be intimidated by terrorist acts.

Posted by Tim Blair at October 11, 2004 11:28 PM
Comments

The decision of Australians to return Mr. Howard to office is a strong statement that Australian voters cannot be intimidated by terrorist acts.

Sweet, sweet music. And there I was, predicting a Latham win with you, Tim. Never been so happy to be wrong.

Posted by: Mike Jericho at October 12, 2004 at 12:17 AM

Except that Bali was before the iraq war

Posted by: tim a at October 12, 2004 at 12:33 AM

I have heard something like, a butterfly can flap its wings and cause a cyclone on the other side of the world.

Well, the Australian butterfly just flapped.

Posted by: wpc at October 12, 2004 at 12:35 AM

Good to hear that an American newspaper is (a) acknowledging Australia's support of the war on terrorism; (b) commenting favorably on Howard's win; and (c) pointing the good things happening in Afghanistan, rather than focusing exclusively on the negative.

A good read!

Oh, and thanks for re-electing Howard, Australia! If that's not getting too old.

Posted by: The Real JeffS at October 12, 2004 at 12:48 AM

Dear Tim,
I had just posted a note of congratulations when I thought of you. I came over to see the mood of our friends, and I am well satisfied. I would like to sincerely thank all of you for your service, be it boots on the ground, wives-moms & dads-children of our servicemen, or bloggers. You have all kept me sane and alive, and I thank you. May God bless you.

Posted by: Rosemary at October 12, 2004 at 01:04 AM

The NY Sun is a relatively new newspaper in NY, very conservative, I would expect them to be favorable and public about it. ANyone know what the NYT and Wash Post said?

Posted by: JEM at October 12, 2004 at 01:32 AM

A belated thank you, Australia, from the states.

Posted by: Chrees at October 12, 2004 at 02:06 AM

Chrees: No wuckers mate. You do your bit come November 2nd, and she'll be apples.

Oh, you want it in English? OK, Please Vote Bush. Ta.

Posted by: Alan E Brain at October 12, 2004 at 02:11 AM

I do not know how many Australian service members are here in Afghanistan - I have some small dealings with an Aussie Major who works in the mine Action Center here. He's a nice enough fellow and pretty good at his job too (I try to stay away from mines - he has to deal with them rather alot). So don't forget, Oz is helping in Afghanistan too!

Posted by: Major John at October 12, 2004 at 02:24 AM

Tim -- could you comment to your cousins Up Above on why Australia calls its right-wing party "Liberal," exactly the opposite of what we do? Something to do with Coriolis effect that makes our drains spin in opposite directions? Metric system versus American? Pure Austrailian cussedness?

Posted by: OH Boy at October 12, 2004 at 03:09 AM

I guess when you spend more than forty years under the thumb of a totalitarian regime the way the Czechs (and our other allies, the Poles) did, you grow some balls.

Posted by: Silicon Valley Jim at October 12, 2004 at 03:29 AM

OH Boy,

The Liberal Party of Australia (LPA) was formed in 1944 by Robert Menzies (later, Sir Robert Menzies). Sir Robert took his inspiration from the British Liberal Party, which in turn took its inspiration from the American political system. At the time, the British Liberal Party offered an alternative to the British Labor Party (socialists) and the Tories (ultra conservatives).

From the web site of the LPA:
The name Liberal was chosen deliberately for its associations with progressive nineteenth century free enterprise and social equality.

Sir Robert Menzies:
"......what we must look for, and it is a matter of desperate importance to our society, is a true revival of liberal thought which will work for social justice and security, for national power and national progress, and for the full development of the individual citizen, though not through the dull and deadening process of socialism."

The LPA’s detailed beliefs are set out in the Party’s Federal Platform:
http://www.liberal.org.au/documents/federalplatform.pdf

Regards,

Mike

Posted by: Mike at October 12, 2004 at 05:09 AM

The NY Sun is an interesting paper. It was founded by Seth Lipsky, who had a blog devoted to hounding the NY Times. He also edited the Forward. The Sun is a great read: much thinner and more succinct than the bloated and crapulent Times. Think Condoleeza Rice vs. Teddy Kennedy. It is also MUCH cheaper at $.25.
The Sun may or may not survive. It is aimed at local intelligent former liberals (i.e. former Times readers.) Frankly, I doubt if there are enough of them here in NYC.

Posted by: chuck at October 12, 2004 at 05:59 AM

Mike - mostly right but I think associating our Libs in Aust with the old Liberal Party in the UK is a bit off the mark. I suspect it was more to do with the need to re-brand the discredited United Australia Party (UAP) plus the other bits and pieces that were stuck on to it.

Besides, the old Liberal 'Fusion' parties and governments were an opportunity to associate the new party with an older successful period of non-Labor governments in Australia.

Whether those older 'Fusion' Liberals got their name from the US is something I don't know - maybe they did - but the modern Liberal Party of Australia didn't, I don't think.

Many current Tories in the UK would quite to like to base their party on us Libs in Australia (and our electoral successes too).

Posted by: Alex at October 12, 2004 at 08:57 PM

The name comes from the earlier Deakinite Liberal Party, which was a "fusion" of the two main Federation anti-Labor parties: The Free trade Party and the Protectionist Party.

The names seems a little at odds to the rest of the world (especially the US) at the moment because "Liberal" meant something quite different in 1905 than it does now.

Posted by: Quentin George at October 12, 2004 at 09:33 PM

Here it is:

On October 16, 1944, the name The Liberal Party of Australia was adopted, uniting the many different political organisations. Two months later, at the Albury Conference, the Party’s organisational and constitutional framework was drawn up. The name Liberal was chosen deliberately for its associations with progressive nineteenth century free enterprise and social equality.

Posted by: Quentin George at October 12, 2004 at 09:42 PM

a "fusion" of the two main Federation anti-Labor parties: The Free trade Party and the Protectionist Party.

What the...? Talk about 'opposites attract'.

Posted by: PW at October 13, 2004 at 01:45 PM