SPEECH TRANSCRIPT FROM A1 CHAIRMAN PHILIP FISH'S SPEECH TO A MEETING OF THE CENTRAL COMMITTEE (08/02/2010)
Greetings to my fellow micronationalists:
This is my long-winded response to an issue that’s been annoying me for a while – micronationalism in Antarctica, especially from MicroWiki nations.
To begin with, I really don’t see the point. I quite seriously don’t. Micronations claiming territory in a place which they are never going to visit or inhabit, much less govern, is something that just doesn’t register.
The first point that I don’t understand is the fact that micronations claiming land in Antarctica argue that it’s legal through some ‘loophole’ in the 1959 Antarctic Treaty.
Now, I’m no lawyer, but I don’t believe that the countries signing the Treaty (U.S., U.S.S.R, Australia, etc.) would have ever considered the possibility that a bunch of micronationalists in around 50 years from them would try to claim bits of the place. To put it simply: there is no ‘loophole’ that gives such claims any legitimacy whatsoever.
The second point that I don’t understand is micronations that are apparently based either entirely or mostly in Antarctica.
Like I mentioned previously, there is absolutely no point at all in pretending that you’re building cities, airports, bases, roads, etc, on a continent that is 98% ice on its surface. There is no point at all in claiming this land that you’re not ever likely to get within 3000 km of, let alone govern. Moreover, there is no point at all in making ridiculously ambitious and, quite frankly, absurd claims such as a “potential” population of a million people and “Keep Watch was established through a loophole in the Antarctic Treaty, and claiming this land as a single entity, not a nation or party.”
I do acknowledge that no micronation has, or is ever likely to, have actual control/sovereignty over any size territory (with a few notable exceptions). However, some claims are at least relatively realistic and even, maybe, slightly believable. Entire Antarctic claims do not fall into this category. The notion that some micronation thousands of kilometres away from some giant icy wasteland and having absolutely no contact can lay a “legitimate” claim to large chunks of it is plain silly.
The last point that I don’t understand is conflicts arising over these claims.
Micronational war is a silly thing. Not because I believe that the world can live in peace and harmony etc (mainly because I don’t believe this), but because you can’t physically invade/attack someone in micronationalism. It usually consists of a declaration of war by both sides, “rousing” speeches by both leaders, following by about a week of confused MicroWiki kerfuffle, followed by a few more days of awkward silence and then some sort of ‘resolution’ being reached which results in everyone living happily ever after.
But the crème de la crème of micronational war’s ridiculousness is Antarctic micronational conflict. These are even more futile and pointless than normal micronational conflicts, as they involve serious arguments over territory that is nobody’s to argue about. To put it simply, the conflicting sides are arguing over something that neither side has control over. Nor does it matter who wins – you’re both back to square one. So in conclusion, I hold very little respect for Antarctic Micronationalism. However, this is not to say that I don’t like micronations that claim little titbits of the place to add on to their micronation. My main gripe is with micronations that try to exercise what little sovereignty a micronation has over an icy wasteland, thousands of kilometres from anywhere that they’re even going to get close to, without even visiting, living or governing it, and wasting everyone’s time.
That is all.
Answer from the Secretary-General of the AMU to the speech of Chairman Freeman Edit
Mr. Freeman, in this speech you actually criticize Antarctic micronations who are recognized by your own nation? As Secretary-General of the AMU I want to defend Antarctic micronationalism and answer on your speech.
The Antarctic Treaty goes about West-Antarctica, not the whole continent. In 1959 the nations of the Antarctic Treaty decided that no nation may claim land in that area. The ‘loophole’ in this treaty is that they don’t forbid individual claims. For example, the islands of Flandrensis are claimed by me personal and I contacted those nations personal. Yes you can start a whole discussion about this, but that’s micronationalism! You can discus the legality of every micronational claim in the world: from Sealand, Flandrensis, St. Charlie, … yes even your own micronation.
The reason why micronations wants to claim territories in West-Antarctica: no nation of the world claims it. The Republic of A1 is from Australia, St. Charlie from Italy, New Europe from the USA, … but Flandrensis, Arkel, Republic of West Antarctica, State of Marie, … are from nobody.
Yes you have right, we can’t build a real nation with airplanes and others. But also someone who start a micronation in his garden or bedroom can’t do this. But some Antarctic nations like ASEA have a few buildings and population (scientists) in Antarctica! And others want to visit their land in the future, yes even I want to visit my islands. And the best part of Antarctic territory: unlike European or American micronations there is no human activity in that area, no cities, roads, factories, pollution, ... Antarctica is one of the few unspoiled places in this world.
About micronational conflicts we have the same opinion. But also here are Antarctic micronations not different than any other micronations. A1 is in Australia, what if another Australian micronationalist suddenly claims a big part of Australia including the territory of the Republic A1? Another example is the territorial dispute between New Europe and Angador… Nobody wants that someone others claims his micronation, well it’s the same as in Antarctica.
Yes there was the Siple War and I’m honest when I say that it’s the darkest page in the history of Flandrensis, but that was the very first beginning of Antarctic micronationalism and we were inexperienced. That is the reason why we found the AMU, to avoid such conflicts and disputes. The AMU already negotiate in disputes with FSA, Keep Watch, Azusa, West Antarctica, ASEA, Union of Antarctic Colonies, … And do you heard much about this disputes? Where there any new Antarctic wars? The last real discussion on MicroWiki that I remember is that between FSA and ASEA, and some persons tried to blown this dispute up (yes, not everyone likes Antarctic micronationalism). But as you can see, ASEA is now a member of the AMU and during the negotiations (privately and not on MicroWiki) there was never mentioned of a new Antarctic war….
Some micronations considered Antarctic micronations as different micronationalism, but actually it’s all the same. The only protest I can understand is that we don’t have a permanent population in Antarctica. But what with micronations who have claims in space, virtual micronations, … or what with all the million peoples who lived in an micronational territory without they even know what a micronation is? If you can criticize Antarctic micronations, than you must criticize all kind of micronations! Therefore we have an unwritten rule: respect all forms of micronationalism and respect each other, we have all the same ideals: building a nation and a better place in this world, meeting new people, sharing ideas, … a place for your own and for your friends.
Thank you for reading my answer to defend Antarctic micronationalism, for any question be free to contact me. To avoid misunderstandings: I used a lot of micronations (St. Charlie, New Europe and other European and American or virtual micronations) as example but I don't condemned any micronational form or claim.
Grand Duke Niels of Flandrensis, Secretary-General of the AMU
Reply from James Puchowski Edit
I follow Niels' statement, as I say that A1's government has NO right whatsoever to criticize Antarctic Micronationalism, or at least not publish it to the whole micronational world. I have some questions for Mr. Freeman;
- Does he feel the same about galactic micronations?
- What about Sealand in general?, since that nation isn't built on proper land anyway, and of course, it is one of the fathers of micronationalism.
People who claim Antarctic territory have the same rights to do so than any other micronation. Of course these islands that I have claimed in Antarctica are uninhabitable, and I know it will be very hard to visit them, but I have claimed them because I have concern for the Antarctic continent. I claimed them because I wanted to make sure that no one could take them, and use them illegally or improperly. They are MY possessions, and no one should have the right to tell me that I cannot possess them, when no one owns them in the first place!. I would like to also say that we are not wasting anyone's time. That has sincerely angered me. We are just a part of micronationalism as everyone else. We wish not to be seen as a "joke". Take mine and Niels' comments seriously. We will not put up with other nations telling us that we are worth no respect, but if a little. Sincerely,
James Puchowski --The Crown Prince of Landashir, James Puchowski 16:30, February 9, 2010 (UTC)
Reply from David Powell Edit
Antarctic micronations are different from other types of micronations in the same way that science fiction movies are different from romantic comedies. Quite frankly, I see the ridicule of Antarctic micronations in the same vein as a sci-fi writer ridiculing romantic comedy writers because they don't write sci-fi films.
Antarctic micronationalism is based on idealism. Most of us know realistically that the odds of successfully landing in Antarctica and governing exactly as prescribed on our websites are impossibly small. But that's not the point. Antarctic micronationalists believe in environmental protection and we believe in building nations with new ways of governing. While successfully settling Antarctica does have its challenges, it is far easier to plan a nation on a continent that has no current government or population than it is to try to transform an existing macronation into one that conforms to our ideals.
So while I regret that you feel "annoyed" by the concept of Antarctic micronationalism, I could similarly ridicule you for claiming your home or bedroom in your parent's house to be a kingdom. But I won't do that, because micronationalism means different things to different people. Your micronation can be your back yard, your yacht anchored in international waters, or it can be some imagined colony on the Moon. Rycherr 21:50, February 9, 2010 (UTC)
Defence of speech from Gordon Freeman Edit
To both repliers:
Mr Niels, I understand your viewpoints. However, both you and Mr. Puchowski here require this extra information that I neglected to mention in my speech, but was in the A1NS article. Recently, the A1 MoFA&I announced new changes to A1's foreign recognition policy. In this, it was outlined that A1 would not recognise micronations with claims in:
- Any place that's not on Earth
- The Arctic
- Seamounts & other underwater formations
- Aircraft/hanging places in the sky/anywhere that is not actual land
The difference between micronations like St. Charlie and A1 and Landashir and West Antarctica is that entirely Antarctic micronations do not and cannot actually exercise activities in real life and hence, may only be classified as 'simulationist', based entirely on the internet. This is in contrast to a micronation such as St. Charlie, which actually carries out activities in real life.
ASEA have scientists and buildings in Antarctica? Does this mean that they are citizens of ASEA?
And yes - quite recently we did have another micronation claims all of Australia, including A1. This was solved diplomatically though. I do, perhaps, wish to apologise for the level at which I got worked up at this stage, towards the end of my speech, and would probably like to have toned down the bit about Antarctic micronational conflict.
The AMU is a noble venture, and is to be commended, assuming that Antarctic micronationalism is seen favourably in my mind. As long as Antarctic micronations exist, the existence of the AMU, or a similar organisation, is definitely required for the good reasons that you [Niels] have outlined. Thank you for doing so.
I believe that every micronationalist has the unalienable right to express whatever opinion they may have to the public, no matter what it is. Stifling debate and viewpoints does no good to anyone.
Here are the answers to your questions.
1. Does he feel the same about galactic micronations? Yes I do. It's just that this was a speech about Antarctic micronationalism, not galactic ones. As can be seen at the beginning of this reply, A1 no longer recognises galactic micronations.
2. What about Sealand in general? No I don't. Sealand is built on 'actual land', as defined by the A1 MoFA&I, has regular visitors & a permanent population, has effective control over its territory, etc. This is an entirely different matter, and does not related to Antarctic micronationalism.
However, I can see the confusion. When I said 'actual land', I meant to exclude micronations that are based on imaginary space stations/giant blimps etc, not ones built on artificial structures. Apologies for the confusion, this will be clarified.
- "I know it will be very hard to visit them, but I have claimed them because I have concern for the Antarctic continent. I claimed them because I wanted to make sure that no one could take them, and use them illegally or improperly."
This actually highlights a main problem of mine.
Imagine the scenario. The Chileans (to take a random country) are buildling a missile silo in your claimed territory in Antarctica and pollution starts to seep through the ice, killing penguins, etc. What are you going to do? Send them a letter? Declare war? Fly down there and physically block their construction? There is actually nothing that you, me, or any other micronationalist, in our capacity as such, can do. If such a scenario were to occur, I'm sure the macronational world can take care of it itself.
Scenario 2. A very very serious micronationalist manages to raise the millions of dollars required to actually set up a base in Antarctica, and does so in your claimed territory in Antarctica. X begins building his base, and pollution leaks into the surrounding ice, killing penguins, etc. Again, what are you going to do? Again, there is actually nothing that you, me, or any other micronationalist, in our capacity as such, can do. And if such a scenario were to occur, X and his buildings would be taken care of (i.e. removed) by the macronational world.
- "They are MY possessions, and no one should have the right to tell me that I cannot possess them, when no one owns them in the first place!."
They are not your possessions. They are no one's possessions. This is the way it was meant to be, that's why it was dealt with in the Antarctic Treaty, freezing land claims. Until you, or indeed anyone, can exercise some sort of demonstration of authority over your claimed territories, then sovereignty is hardly claimable.
I also wish to point to this, Article IV, Clause 2, of the Antarctic Treaty:
"No acts or activities taking place while the present Treaty is in force shall constitute a basis for asserting, supporting or denying a claim to territorial sovereignty in Antarctica or create any rights of sovereignty in Antarctica. No new claim, or enlargement of an existing claim, to territorial sovereignty in Antarctica shall be asserted while the present Treaty is in force."
- "I would like to also say that we are not wasting anyone's time."
Granted. That comment was supposed to be appended to the micronational conflict section. I apologise for this error.
- "We wish not to be seen as a "joke"."
You are not called a "joke" by me. Who are you quoting?
- "We will not put up with other nations telling us that we are worth no respect, but if a little."
That is my view. I pointed out that "I hold very little...". I believe that Antarctic Micronationalism is on the same level as simulationst micronations, as an entirely Antarctic micronation can do nothing in real life, as everything is based online.
- "Antarctic micronations are different from other types of micronations in the same way that science fiction movies are different from romantic comedies."
I don't entirely understand this analogy. Could you please clarify?
- "Antarctic micronationalism is based on idealism. Most of us know realistically that the odds of successfully landing in Antarctica and governing exactly as prescribed on our websites are impossibly small."
I agree. All micronations are based in idealism. However, in this case, the purely simulationist nature of Antarctic micronations dictates that they be placed on the same level as simulationist micronations, for these micronations exist entirely in the minds of their creators and on the internet, with no 'bricks and mortar', so to speak, or real life activities.
- "I could similarly ridicule you for claiming your home or bedroom in your parent's house to be a kingdom. But I won't do that, because micronationalism means different things to different people. Your micronation can be your back yard, your yacht anchored in international waters, or it can be some imagined colony on the Moon."
I agree. I am not saying that Antarctic micronations not be considered a part of micronationalism, but to be on the same level as simulationist micronations, for the reasons I have outlined above.
Other than the errors pointed out, I stand by my speech.
I hope this answered all of your queries/concerns.
Sir. Gordon Freeman A-One 22:48, February 9, 2010 (UTC)
All Micronations are Simulations Edit
Well, maybe not all. Sealand is probably the only example of a micronation that is truly brick-and-mortar. All other micronations are nothing more than exercises in simulation and idealism.
As far as the example whereby Chile or some other nation builds a facility in territories claimed by Antarctic micronations, it's no different than if your house gets foreclosed by the bank. That's the end of your micronational "sovereignty". You can write an official letter to the bank on letterhead from the President of Dumbfukia, and all the bank will do is laugh. If your parents decide it's time for you to get a job and your own place and stop spending all day on the computer, that's the end of the "sovereign" territory of your bedroom.
So I hardly see how you can make a distinction between "real" and "simulationist" micronations unless you own an oil rig in international waters with a population. Rycherr 23:09, February 9, 2010 (UTC)
Reply to "All micronations are SImulations" from Sammy BeefbrainEdit
This is truely igronace. So callled "simulations" are micronations which don't seek recognition, and are used to "simulate" the running of "real life state". Separatist or "real" (as you referred to them) seek independence, and there are plenty more out there than just Sealand. And most separatist micronations claim territory outside their leader's house, and wish to "break way" from the macronation they are located in. Think of micronations as break-away territories (i.e. South Ossetia, Transnistria, Nagorno-Krabakh), they claimed and occupied land owned by a macronation, and wish to get independence from that macronation. And "Dumbfukia", as you referred to, just shows your unprofessionalism and immaturity. --SaluteChicken 11:46, September 8, 2012 (UTC)
Response from Gordon Freeman Edit
'Bricks-and-mortar', as a definition in micronationalism, means: "a “Bricks and Mortar” micronation might have an online presence, but would continue to exist if the server hosting their space ceased to exist." () Hence, is an Antarctic micronation's online presence ceased to exist, there would nothing or almost nothing left of their claims or micronation.
My Chilean scenario was intended to outline the futility of Mr. Puchowski's claim that he was claiming the territory in Antarctica in order to protect it and that no one could use it "illegally and improperly". It is not the same thing. However, it is perfectly true that even a 'bricks and mortar' micronation can vanish overnight for the very reasons that you have outlined. And yes, all micronations are simulations and an exercise in idealism.
The distinction that I make between simulationist and other micronations (I never said 'real') is precisely as outlined above in the definition of 'Bricks-and-Mortar'. A simulationist micronation is one that would cease to exist if their online presence was terminated.
A-One 05:02, February 10, 2010 (UTC)
Quick further reply from me Edit
I would like Mr. Freeman to know that we are not a simulation at all. We don't have an internet-based parliament, government or economy. We run everything here in the Embassy-Headquarters, a land "possession" of the Landashir'n Government. We have always run our country (since 2001) here, at "my house" with "my citizens (family)", (which by the way, none of my family take part in any Landashir'n internet activity, which means that there is no "virtual" government that is run.). I hope that that has corrected a statement said by you earlier, --Premier of the Antarctic Community of Landashir, James Puchowski 07:30, February 10, 2010 (UTC)
Reply from the Republic of West Antarctica Edit
I am surprised that this critic comes from someone like Mr. Freeman. First of all, since I am much older than you and since I want to believe I know more about politics than you, I think I have the right to make the following comments. You represent a micronation named A1- a name that is ridiculous even for a six-grader let alone someone who has serious micronatinal aspirations. Nevertheless, you call yourself a "chairman" of a "democratic parliamentary communist dictatorship". Dear "Sir"( since I doubt you have ever been knighted by the Queen), there is no democracy in communism, I should know, I grew up in a communist country. You should look up to it, instead of acting as a major micronational authority. Secondly, who ever gave you right to discuss Antarctic micronationalism? In real democracies (unlike your own) you have the full right to freedom of speech, but to misuse it in order to attack micronations is totally unacceptable. If you manage to secede from Australia and Indonesia, you will have the moral right to give us instructions how to manage our own micronations, but until then, please, restrain yourself from these type of comments. Respectfully yours, Nikola Lasica, the President of the Republic of West Antarctica
Weighing in on Antarctic Micronationalism Edit
I would like to take the time to say that if I was on the recieving end of Mr Lasica's comment, then I would probably feel rather patronised and condescended upon. Yes, A1 may not have been a name that you or I would have chosen, but it is just a name. I wouldn't care if a town was called Crappiville, as long as it was a pleasant place to live.
There are certain nuances that I think you may have missed while writing your reply. While the versions of commununism used in the USSR and Eastern Europe, and the version used today in China were and are undoubtedly flawed and possibly corrupt, there are an enourmous number of varients on Communism that have not been tried - Communalism, Left Communism, and Luxemburgism to name just a few. Communism is a fascinating model to disseminate and build upon in the micronational world. By tweaking and changing certain elements, you could potentially have a system which gives more power to communites, safeguards democracy, safeguards basic human rights, protects the planet's ecosystem, and makes the population of a nation generally better off - or so some people say.
Another thing which I would like to comment on is your warped interpretation of free speech. Surely, free speech is the right to criticise and be criticised, the right to disseminate and critique, the right to say almost whatever you like without fear of persecution? If we start limiting aspects of free speech in the name of free speech, then we end up undermining what we intended to protect.
Best Regards, President Pierre d'Égtavie
Reply to attacks from West Antarctica Edit
Mr. d'Égtavie - I thank you for that reply to that insulting comment of Mr. Lasica.
- "First of all, since I am much older than you and since I want to believe I know more about politics than you, I think I have the right to make the following comments."
You may want to believe it, but I think you'll find it may not be true. I have a Unit 1,2,3 & 4 qualification in VCE International Studies/Politics, achieving the 4th highest score in my school.
Age does not automatically equal knowledge and wisdom.
And even if you did know more about politics (which I am not claiming), it still gives you no right whatsoever to make the ad hominem attacks on me and my micronation.
- "You represent a micronation named A1- a name that is ridiculous even for a six-grader let alone someone who has serious micronatinal [sic] aspirations."
I, and the citizens with whom I have told today, are greatly insulted by your remark that our micronation's name is "ridiculous", and is not taken lightly. I implore you to read the very first section of the A1 MicroWiki page (http://micronations.wikia.com/wiki/A1) entitled 'Etymology', but I will explain anyway.
The name 'A1' comes from the name of the classroom where the idea of A1 was first conceived. It is also the original territory of A1 and the location of the Pprit 'Revolution'. Hence, it holds enormous historical significance to our population. Even if we were willing/wanting to change the name of our nation, we are bound by an order by former Chairman Pprit, which states that the name of A1 is not to be changed "...unless under extreme circumstances". I do not believe that such circumstances apply or have ever applied in A1.
- "Nevertheless, you call yourself a "chairman" of a "democratic parliamentary communist dictatorship"
The same as you call yourself "President" of a "Presidential Republic"?
- "Dear "Sir"( since I doubt you have ever been knighted by the Queen), there is no democracy in communism, I should know, I grew up in a communist country."
Of course I haven't been knighted by the Queen! If you would care to read the MicroWiki article on me (and the A1 website), I was knighted by former Chairman Pprit for rendering great services to A1. I have never and will never claims the same knighthood as one bestowed by Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, or her heirs and successors. It has always been said the knighthood was of the Order of A1.
Dear "President", as Mr. d'Égtavie correctly pointed out, one may play around with Communism, or indeed any other idea that one comes across. This is why we call our ideology 'A1ism', which is a combination of three different ideas.
- "You should look up to it, instead of acting as [sic] a major micronational authority."
We have not and do not act as a "major micronational authority". Could you provide us with some examples?
- "Secondly, who ever [sic] gave you right to discuss Antarctic micronationalism?"
Nobody, which is the very essence of free speech. I should not have to seek permission from you, the AMU, or indeed anyone else in order to express my opinion. Sure, A1 is not an Antarctic micronation, but that doesn't mean that I, or anyone else, can't have an opinion.
- "In real democracies (unlike your own) you have the full right to freedom of speech, but to misuse it in order to attack micronations is totally unacceptable."
I take this to be a very grave insult and I am greatly offended by this remark, by insinuating that A1 is not democratic. Again, the citizens of A1 with whom I have told, have been equally offended by this remark.
I wish to point to the following things that prove, beyond doubt, that A1 is about as democratic as a micronation can be:
- We have a clear separation of powers between the Judicial and Executive Branches
- Our High Justice, Maximus Ze Blah, is totally apolitical, and is widely respected within A1 for being a neutral party
- We have free, fair and frequent elections - one of the key components of a liberal democracy
Within the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which your micronation has adopted, it holds Freedom of Expression, Thought and Speech as vital to the Declaration, even making it into the Preamble.
- If you manage to secede from Australia and Indonesia, you will have the moral right to give us instructions how to manage our own micronations, but until then, please, restrain yourself from these type of comments."
I am giving no one instructions anywhere. Nowhere in my initial statement, or indeed any statement, have I ever told anyone how to manage their micronations.
I wish, also, to call on you to please restrain yourself from these types of comments, even if you somehow demonstrate your sovereignty over your claimed territory.
The comments that you have made were very rude and insulting, and amount to no more than ad hominem attacks against me and my micronation. If you wish to debate the actual content of my speech, as Mr. Niels, Mr. Puchowski and Mr. Powell have done, then I am more than happy to answer your concerns, comments or queries. However, taking pot shots and my micronation and I will not be tolerated.
On behalf of the A1 government, I implore you to issue an apology and retract your attacks on me and my micronation as soon as is possible.
Thank you for clarifying. My speech was not meant to attack individual micronations, only the broad group which I have outlined already.
A-One 04:54, February 11, 2010 (UTC)
Reply from ASEA government Edit
Regards, Mr. Freeman, I am writing on behalf of the Government of ASEA. At first, we were a private group, engaged in expeditions to Antarctica since 2003. In 2006 we reclaimed the territory and we continued to make expeditions annually. You, however, have some control on Australia (for example)? The Australian government knows of the existence of your micronation? You have sent letters to claim the sovereignty of other states of the world? If the answer is no, then you have no right to criticize the work of others, and your Micronation is only a game. A joke. Your words have hurt the pride and the work being done by us and other Antarctic Micronations and your rules about Micronations to be recognized are ridiculous. Do you really think that any micronation occupying the soil of a sovereign nation can be recognized without an armed conflict? If you answer is yes, I leave you in your dream as a child. Greetings, ASEA government
Reply to ASEA government Edit
As I have repeatedly stated ("The notion that some micronation thousands of kilometres away from some giant icy wasteland and having absolutely no contact can lay a “legitimate” claim to large chunks of it is plain silly." (emphasis is mine), I have my problem with Antarctic micronationalism only when there is no legitimate reasons to do so. If your claims are true (they may or may not be - it's not for me to judge) that you have engaged in expeditions to your claimed territory, then you are obviously not in this category.
Yes we assume that they know of our existence. We sent the Australian Government a letter a while ago, but they did not reply.
- "...your rules about Micronations to be recognized are ridiculous."
TO EVERYONE ELSE WHO IS WRITING A REPLY: These are my opinions, and those only. I am not, repeat not, imposing any "rules" or anything similar on any micronation at all. I am a great supporter or the International Relations Theory of Rationalism, which is protective of states' sovereignty. I wish not to impose ANY rules or regulations upon any micronation. Again, this is just my opinion.
And to clarify yet again, I am not saying that micronations need to be recognised. I am saying that this apparent "loophole" in the Antarctic Treaty does not exist. I will post it here again:
"Article IV, Clause 2, of the Antarctic Treaty:
"No new claim, or enlargement of an existing claim, to territorial sovereignty in Antarctica shall be asserted while the present Treaty is in force."
- "...you have no right to criticize the work of others..."
Of course I do - everyone does. Freedom of Speech, Thought, etc.
If someone wants to criticise me or my micronation with rational arguments and an absence of personal/ad hominem attacks, then I have no problem with that. As I have also said before, I believe in the real concept of Freedom of Speech, not the version that many people seem to think it is ('Say what you want but only if it agrees with what I want you to say/my opinion').
- "Do you really think that any micronation occupying the soil of a sovereign nation can be recognized without an armed conflict?"
I don't think so. A conflict, maybe. An armed conflict? Maybe not. It all depends on the location, size, country, etc.
However, I do think that claiming territory in an area specifically stated in the treaty that apparently has a "loophole" in it and claiming more legitimacy than other micronations is wrong.
- "I leave you in your dream as a child."
That's the second attack in one day on my age. I've said it once, and I'll say it again:
Age does not automatically equal knowledge (or maturity in West Antarctica's case).
TO ANY FURTHER REPLIERS
I seriously do not want to have to waste more time on this. If you're thinking of posting your reply on here, please read my existing replies. I think you'll find that they cover your concerns extensively.
A-One 11:28, February 11, 2010 (UTC)
Intervention Attempt from the SUNP Edit
Dear fellow micronationalists,
What I am seeing here is appalling. No, even worse, it is impertinently disgraceful! Sir Freeman, what on Earth were you thinking, posting this? It is surely not my intention to infringe upon your freedom of speech and expression. But a display of such delusional scabrousness is truly outstanding. You are not a narcissistic borderline sociopath. What you have done is just outrightly and unbelievably idiotic. A man of your intelligence and competence, you should have known that this would not lead to an applauding mass of readers, but rather a scandal, a dispute which consumes my time, your time, and everyone else’s time.
Have you not listened to Mr. Reinhardt in his awakening New Year’s speech? This is supposed to be an era of peace, the dawn of friendship and cooperation, and what do you do? You go right along and shatter the fragile hope for the collective betterment of micronationalism. If you were any other man, I would declare you insane. Make whatever speeches you want, I could not care less. But posting them publicly just to instigate conflict and disharmony is a true disgrace for you and your nation. A disgrace for the entirety of those nations who seek peace and justice, freedom and friendship.
Now to you, Mr. Nikola Lasica. You are a miserable excuse for a diplomat. Correction. You aren’t a diplomat at all. You are a war-mongering, intolerable, shameful imbecile and deserve not the leadership of a micronation. The fact that you even thought about bringing up the age argument fully proves that your mental age cannot be any higher than six. You believe that you know more about politics than he does. Whereupon is this based? Are you listed in some university directory, perhaps? Could you scan in a certified report from an accredited macronational educational institute? If this is not the case, then, sorry, but I have reason to suspect that it is not only your intelligence that is seemingly substandard, but also your credibility.
Also, how on Earth dare you insult communism? You have not heard of the political compass, I presume? If you did, I am extremely astonished at your blatant ignorance and incompetence. There is such a thing as libertarian communism, which emphasizes on human rights, democracy and freedom. Dresnerism, which the people of the SUNP hold dear, is a specific version of libertarian communism. We are not happy about the fact that an overfed moron like yourself is insulting the undoubtedly most advanced form of society there is. Communism is economic and financial only. Libertarianism and Authoritarianism are political and social. Please do the world the favour of researching what you are talking about before mindlessly bleating out hideous nonsense. Also, learn spelling. Thank you.
Finally, to the original topic itself. I must agree with Sir Freeman that antarctic micronationalism is to some extent pointless. The only reason many micronationalists claim antarctic land is because they think that this makes their claim more legitimate. Here’s the shocker: No, it does not. Claiming land in Antarctica is exactly as legitimate as claiming land in, say, New York City. So, there is no point really in claiming land that isn’t useful for anything but observing meteorological phenomena or watching some neognaths waddling around.
However, it can be very interesting to plan hypothetical settlements, roads etc. and it is after all unused land as Grand Duke Niels pointed out. As he also correctly pointed out, antarctic micronations aren’t any different from micronations that include for example a single room or house. Both sides have valid points, but I tend to support the Antarctic side. Why? Because my attitude is: Let people do what they want, as long as it doesn’t really disturb anyone. Does claiming largely unpopulated land disturb anyone? I think not.
Theodore DuRuisseau, Diplomatic Consultant of the SUNP Department of State and SUNP Ambassador to France
Above statement reflects the view held officially by the SUNP and its people. Text copyedited by Mark Dresner.
Reply to SUNP Edit
I wish to make it known to you that yes, I did make this speech to the Central Committee on the specified date, and yes, this is a correct transcript (other than the 'Fellow micronationalists' bit at the top). However, I did not post it here. The 'A-One' Wiki Account is just that - a MicroWiki account for government members, even though I use it most of the time. In this instance, it was not I who posted it here. I still have yet to find the culprit.
As for the rest, I implore you to read my other responses.
I WILL NOT BE REPLYING FURTHER ON THIS PAGE. IF YOU STILL HAVE CONCERNS, PLEASE EMAIL ME: firstname.lastname@example.org
A-One 21:19, February 11, 2010 (UTC)