King Charles and Pope Leo defend US Constitution from Trump
When King Charles – in his capacity as King of Canada – opened the new parliament in Ottawa last Tuesday, the symbolism could not have been more powerful, or the King's purpose more clear. While it is not unprecedented for the sovereign to open a new parliament in one of the Commonwealth nations of which they are head of state, it is seldom done. (It last took place in Australia in 1977.)
It had not happened in Canada since 1957. When the Queen opened parliament then, it was an occasion of ceremonial significance only. Then-US president Dwight Eisenhower was not threatening to 'annex' Canada as the 51st state of the US, nor had he launched a trade war with the deliberate intention of severely damaging the economy of America's closest ally.
Last week's proceedings, though attended by the customary pomp and circumstance, were not about ceremony. Although the King's words might not have been provocative in ordinary times, because of the events of recent months, they were crafted with unmistakable meaning and deliberate intent. Recalling the shared sacrifices of two world wars, the existential struggle of the Cold War and the war on terror, he said: 'Today, Canada faces another critical moment. Democracy, pluralism, the rule of law, self-determination and freedom are values which Canadians hold dear, and ones which the government is determined to protect … As the anthem reminds us: 'the True North is strong and free!''
It was the most politically pointed speech given by a British monarch in the modern age – a reprimand to the president who did not mince words: keep your hands off my realm! No prime minister could have delivered that message so effectively. It did not come just from a politician; it came from a king. A real king, not a vainglorious tabloid celebrity with delusions of grandeur, like the person to whom it was directed.
King Charles' speech came just two weeks after another historic event: the inauguration of Pope Leo XIV.
Unlike the modern monarchy, the Vatican has not avoided engaging actively, if circumspectly, in high politics. There is no better recent example than the pontificate of John Paul II, the importance of whose discreet but purposeful support for the democratic revolution of the 1980s in his native Poland is increasingly being appreciated by historians. It may have been Reagan and Thatcher who brought communism down, but John Paul II played an important role as well.
Loading
I remember, as a student, travelling through Poland in the summer of 1982. As the regime began to totter, the despised dictator General Wojciech Jaruzelski imposed martial law. Fearful people converged upon parish churches, which became centres of resistance and mobilisation. (Poland was still the most Catholic country in Europe.) The co-operation of the Polish church with the revolutionary Solidarity movement had the firm support of the former archbishop of Krakow.
It is too soon to know how politically engaged the new Pope will be. His choice of papal name – in homage to Leo XIII, who, in the encyclical Rerum Novarum, famously defended the rights of workers and organised labour – has been widely interpreted as a revealing gesture. When he was still Cardinal Prevost, he did not hesitate to use social media to criticise US President Donald Trump's mass deportation of migrants – most of them from South America. As the first North American pope, his potential influence in his homeland could be immense, should he choose to use it.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sydney Morning Herald
3 hours ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
Americans have seen this movie before. Trump playing the hero doesn't fool anyone
I was six years old when 9/11 happened. From my classroom in South Carolina, I watched Flight 175 hit the South Tower of the World Trade Centre at 9.03am. For those of us who came of age during this era, it destroyed our image of America as an untouchable fortress. It's a kind of anxiety that we will always live with, that an attack can come out of nowhere at any time. Growing up under the shadow of the Iraq War, the anger felt justified at the time. Our leaders told us that we had to march into battle, and we believed them because we knew nothing else. When we found out we had been lied to and that our friends, our siblings, our neighbours had been sent to fight in a conflict that did nothing to advance our own interests – and made the world a less safe place – it set the stage for the defensive and aggrieved America we have today. Now the world sits under the nuclear sword of Damocles, with Donald Trump, a president who is nursing a bruised ego looking to make his mark on the world. In some ways, the past few days have felt like a kind of horrendous time warp back to 2003. We're heading closer towards what feels like the United States walking into another war in the Middle East. Trump's White House address to the nation after the bombing had taken place felt eerily similar to the night George W. Bush spoke from the Oval Office to announce the invasion of Iraq. Then, as now, our cause was not defending the rights of innocent people, but rather exerting a kind of needless power. But while Bush at least spoke about the illusive goal of creating a better country for Iraqis, Trump talked only of going after the 'many targets left' in Iran. Loading Things also feel different, too. The rest of the world does not appear to be lining up to follow the US into conflict. Leaders among US-ally nations have been elected on mandates that, at some level, include an expectation to establish distance from the chaos that Trump's centrifuge is spinning out. Of course, when necessary, the use of force is beneficial – especially if it is being used to defend a nation's right to self-determination. But let us not forget that the US helped resolve the Troubles in Ireland through diplomatic negotiation and played a significant role in the signing of the Oslo Accords. Then, our power was derived from our ability to bring people together and advance the common cause of global interests, leaving our military as a last resort. But no one in their right mind trusts Trump to negotiate in good faith, and now it appears that the kinetic power of the world's most powerful military is becoming a toy for a dangerous man at the helm.
The Age
3 hours ago
- The Age
Americans have seen this movie before. Trump playing the hero doesn't fool anyone
I was six years old when 9/11 happened. From my classroom in South Carolina, I watched Flight 175 hit the South Tower of the World Trade Centre at 9.03am. For those of us who came of age during this era, it destroyed our image of America as an untouchable fortress. It's a kind of anxiety that we will always live with, that an attack can come out of nowhere at any time. Growing up under the shadow of the Iraq War, the anger felt justified at the time. Our leaders told us that we had to march into battle, and we believed them because we knew nothing else. When we found out we had been lied to and that our friends, our siblings, our neighbours had been sent to fight in a conflict that did nothing to advance our own interests – and made the world a less safe place – it set the stage for the defensive and aggrieved America we have today. Now the world sits under the nuclear sword of Damocles, with Donald Trump, a president who is nursing a bruised ego looking to make his mark on the world. In some ways, the past few days have felt like a kind of horrendous time warp back to 2003. We're heading closer towards what feels like the United States walking into another war in the Middle East. Trump's White House address to the nation after the bombing had taken place felt eerily similar to the night George W. Bush spoke from the Oval Office to announce the invasion of Iraq. Then, as now, our cause was not defending the rights of innocent people, but rather exerting a kind of needless power. But while Bush at least spoke about the illusive goal of creating a better country for Iraqis, Trump talked only of going after the 'many targets left' in Iran. Loading Things also feel different, too. The rest of the world does not appear to be lining up to follow the US into conflict. Leaders among US-ally nations have been elected on mandates that, at some level, include an expectation to establish distance from the chaos that Trump's centrifuge is spinning out. Of course, when necessary, the use of force is beneficial – especially if it is being used to defend a nation's right to self-determination. But let us not forget that the US helped resolve the Troubles in Ireland through diplomatic negotiation and played a significant role in the signing of the Oslo Accords. Then, our power was derived from our ability to bring people together and advance the common cause of global interests, leaving our military as a last resort. But no one in their right mind trusts Trump to negotiate in good faith, and now it appears that the kinetic power of the world's most powerful military is becoming a toy for a dangerous man at the helm.
West Australian
3 hours ago
- West Australian
Scott Morrison: Donald Trump's strikes on Iran a necessary measure to achieve peace, not war in Middle East
The recent strike by the United States on Iran's nuclear facilities marks a critical turning point in global security. It is not just a matter for the Middle East or for U.S. foreign policy. It is a test for all nations that rely on the strength and credibility of the international rules-based order and the western alliance for their security, Australia included. Let me be clear, this strike was not an act of provocation. It was a necessary measure, undertaken as a last resort by a President who wants peace, not war. The purpose was clear, to disrupt the capabilities of a brutal authoritarian regime that has openly defied international norms, supported terrorist proxies, and pursued nuclear weapons with increasing brazenness. In times of geopolitical crisis, clarity of purpose and principle is essential. That is why I was compelled to speak out following the U.S. operation. What we have seen instead from the Australian government is a concerning lack of clarity and a reluctance to define where Australia stands when it matters most. It is in times like this when allies look around to see who is with them. For a country like ours, deeply integrated into global economic and security networks, reliant on open trade routes and US led allied deterrence, strategic ambiguity is not a strength. It is a vulnerability. Throughout my time as Prime Minister, I took the view that Australia's interests are best served when we speak plainly and act decisively in defence of our values. That is why we stood firmly with our allies against China's economic coercion. It is why we invested in AUKUS, strengthening our sovereign defence capabilities and deepening our technological integration with the U.S. and UK. it is why we worked so closely with our Indo-Pacific partners through the Quad to uphold regional stability. It is why we stood with Israel against those who sought their annihilation. In this context, the U.S. strike on Iran's nuclear facilities must be understood for what it is: an act of strategic deterrence, grounded in the reality that Iran has long been operating outside the bounds of good faith diplomacy. It is what President Trump meant when he spoke of peace through strength. For years, Iran has methodically violated its obligations under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), enriching uranium well beyond civilian thresholds, restricting IAEA inspections, and hardening its facilities in preparation for exactly this kind of confrontation. Attempts to revive the nuclear deal have failed, not because the West abandoned diplomacy, but because Tehran refused to comply with the very terms it had previously accepted. The question facing policymakers in Washington and, indeed, in Canberra is not whether we prefer diplomacy over conflict. Of course we do. It is whether diplomacy alone can halt a regime that has no intention of negotiating in good faith. At a certain point, the cost of inaction outweighs the risk of confrontation. That is precisely where the United States found itself. Given Iran's refusal to cooperate with international monitors and its aggressive posture across the region, including arming Hezbollah, enabling Hamas to commit atrocities on innocent Israelis, supporting Houthi attacks on Red Sea shipping, the Trump administration concluded that a targeted strike was the only viable option left. Only the US could have taken this step and President Trump should be commended for his courage and leadership, especially by allies. This was not a broad campaign. It was a calibrated operation aimed at degrading the most advanced elements of Iran's nuclear infrastructure specifically, targeting Natanz, Isfahan and Fordow. The objective was not regime change. It was to halt Iran's progression toward nuclear weapons capability and to send a clear message that the West's red lines still mean something. Yet here in Australia, the official response from the government has been muted. No strong statement of support for the United States. That silence is telling. It suggests a reluctance to confront difficult choices and to support our most important ally in the righteousness of the actions that have taken. I believe that such an approach is short-sighted and fundamentally misjudges the nature of the challenge we face. Australia cannot afford to be passive in moments like this. Our voice matters, not just because we are a U.S. ally, but because we are a middle power with global responsibilities. We sit at the intersection of East and West, of advanced democracies and rising developing powers. Our stance sends signals across the region, from Beijing to Moscow, Jakarta to Seoul. We must make the case for resistance against authoritarian arrogance. That doesn't mean we should follow Washington blindly. It means we must be clear, consistent and credible in how we support a global order that has protected our prosperity and security for generations. This is a time for strategic clarity, not importantly, we must ensure our own defences are fit for purpose. AUKUS is not a theoretical construct. It is a practical framework for dealing with the kinds of threats we are now seeing unfold. That means accelerating delivery timelines, investing in sovereign capabilities, and ensuring that deterrence in our own region is not eroded by distraction or delay. The world is entering a more dangerous phase. The era of risk aversion is over. Strategic competitors are testing our resolve, our alliances, and our willingness to act in defence of shared values. The choices we make now will define the kind of world our children inherit. We must choose clarity over confusion. Strength over silence. And principle over passivity. We must know who we stand with. That is the standard Australia has upheld in the past. And it is the standard we must uphold again now Scott Morrison was Australia's 30th Prime Minister.
