Open letter to Guillaume Sœrgèl

Comrade Sœrgèl:

You have made many comments recently attacking the Organisation of Active Micronations, which we are both members of, and I wish to address these, without moving into the delicate territory of the Rajputistan Saga.

You stated firstly that:

“For months I have stood completely silent of the molested diplomatic protocol exhibited by members of this organization. This is no organization for sports, athletics, or – in this case – discriminatory policies. This organization, which could have been essentially better than that of the G.U.M., has failed to provide to the new nations the experience and the sense of duty that I feel to Sandus. I am completely disgusted by many of you and there are very few of you which have ever exhibited some sort of coherent politics to me.”

Your silence on this apparent issue gives you no right to come out now, in a time of unfortunate divisions & events, and attack the OAM in such a feverish and aggressive way. Your premise appears to be that because many member nations are not agreeing with your extreme stance on the Rajputistan issue, we are all hence guilty of “molested diplomatic protocol”.

The above statement is also typical of future statements, in that it includes sweeping generalisations without providing any evidence whatsoever. Even when asked to provide evidence, you still do not give it; such grave accusations require evidence behind them to support them.

“The OAM needs mocking, I see, if we can not even come to a blatant ethical response to this or come to some sense that this exact ignorance is what has led to the same, recurring bad relations between Pakistan and India for the last 40 years. “

Imposing your own ‘ethics’ on others is a contradiction in terms. Each person’s ethical beliefs can differ wildly, and it is not business of others to impose their own system of ethics on others. The fact that around 40 micronations, all with greatly varying beliefs, systems and moral values cannot agree on a single course of action, is to be expected. Again, none of the member nations are supporting the discriminating resolution or beliefs of Rajputistan, but are arguing for common sense to prevail here.

“And, this is no nation, M. Bradley, the OAM is comprised of delegates, not of regular citizens; we should be told when to shut-up and when to speak due to basic convention of member-states, that’s how the GUM works when there are the few major disputes. Otherwise, it defeats the point of collaboration, no? To always talk, but never listen. We need regulations, rules, and protocol. Something which very many of you dislike and object to, and something which makes things unorganized and disorderly.”

That may be how the GUM works, but we are not the GUM, nor do we strive to be. Why should we adopt this so-called “basic convention” of GUM-style diplomacy, just because you hold these values dear? What right do you have to come here and impose your own values on the rest of us? You are certainly free to propose any modification that you like to the OAM’s proceedings & workings, but you have not done so; ever.

We have such “regulations, rules and protocol”; that’s what Comrade Lethler’s excellently authored Resolution 28 was designed to do. There were hardly any objections to it, and fewer still to the need for such a resolution. “Very many” of us did not object to this, nor is the OAM “unorganised and disorderly”. Yet again, you fail to provide any evidence at all to support these vast and incorrect generalisations and accusations, even when asked to do so.

Again, if you have had such issues and grievances with us for “months”, you were never hindered in any way to voice this to myself, Mr. Bralesford, The Council or indeed, anybody at the OAM. The fact that you never did gives you no right to go swanning around complaining about how “unorganised and disorderly” we all are, how we “molest diplomatic protocol” and how we fail to have any “regulations, rules and protocol”. If you had/have a problem with anything to do with how the OAM works, conducts itself, etc, you were and are always, repeat, always free to express these views to anybody in the OAM, so that workings may be examined, detrimental effects removed and negative impacts countered.

And yet, after all this, you say:

“And M. Fish, I do believe my findings of misconduct have had the correct amount of evidence to support them. And I do not find anything wrong with which the way OAM works, I merely find it at times to be less and less diplomatic and more – to use the words of a delegate from Rajputistan – and more like a “game forum”. The single time that such discriminatory action is battled with a resolution which implies to end and ensure such discrimination happens, the resolution is argued against and the enforcer of law is called a dictator. If we can not abide by the regulations we lay out, then how can we do anything as an organization? This organization is not meant to be for fun, it is – as I see it – an international organization tasked with uniting active micronations to a determined united front.

I am not attacking the organs of the organization, but the lack of diplomatic protocol exhibited by some members.”

The only person to call Mr. Bralesford a “dictator” was Rajputistan, that I am sure we can agree hardly counts, as he was at the receiving end of this, and has a tendency to overreact, etcetera. Nobody else even insinuated that Mr. Bralesford was such a thing, much less call him that directly. As I’ve stated in the past, the misgivings of one member nation does not represent the Organisation in any way.

I implore you to reply as soon as is feasible.

Sincerely,

Sir. Philip Fish

Chairman

Most Glorious People’s Republic of A1