Sir. Philip Fish on Attacks by Members of the AMU; and other things…

Sir. Philip Fish on Attacks by Members of the AMU; and other things…

Most of you already know my strong views on Antarctic Micronationalism, and I have already endured a political storm over it. However, I have been surprised recently to find that nobody appears to have taken heed of this, and proceeded to continue and, in some cases, elevate the attacks on me and people who believe the facts of the matter.

I am, of course, referring to the recent ‘incident’ between myself and Mr. Puchowski on a MicroWiki talk page regarding the Royal reformed States of America’s recent Antarctic claim. The exchange may be seen here.

Following this, I came across this forum thread on the AMU’s online forum, in which the following comments are made by various members of the Union:

James Puchowski: “and we now have a message from Philip Fish. :S I thought he hated Antarctic micronationalism ”

I am personally offended and quite taken aback at these comments. I know, especially, that President Lasica of West Antarctica can be very offensive and rude, and such comments are to be expected of him. However, of Grand Duke Niels, also the Secretary-General of the AMU, I did not expect this. I respect Mr. Niels for his ability to remain calm and diplomatic, even in fiery situations, and these comments are not representative of his usual style.

I wish to settle this issue once and for all here. I am willing to engage in a debate with any Antarctic Micronation about Antarctic Micronationalism; perhaps a topic like “That Antarctic Micronationalism is more legitimate than other secessionist micronations” or “That the Antarctic Treaty includes a legitimate loophole”. Something civilised and informed.

I still do not understand why Antarctic micronations are so unwilling to accept the facts; these being:

1. There is no loophole in the Antarctic Treaty that allows individuals to claim bits of Antarctica.
2. Sovereignty claims in Antarctica are not more legitimate than claims elsewhere in the world.
3. Antarctic micronations are more simulationist and secessionist micronations.

I’ve said it many times before, and I’ll say it yet again; there is NO loophole in the Antarctic Treaty. As far as I know, all Antarctic micronations use this supposed “loophole”, that only nation-states are bound to the treaty and not individuals, to ‘legitimise’ their claims. Unfortunately, as I’ve said many times before, this is explicitly refuted by 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 don’t think that they could have been any more specific.

Also, judging from Mr. Puchowski’s and Mr. Neils’s comments, they do not regard open criticism and scrutiny, via MicroWiki, as acceptable and wish to make such discussions private. Mr. Neils also insinuates that “some micronations”, implicitly the MGPRA1, enjoy these disputes as a chance to attack Antarctic micronations and that MicroWiki is now a “dangerous place for such discussions”.

I do not, by any stretch of the imagination, enjoy disputes, and any micronation that does, deserves to be ostracised and disgraced. Comments like that are certainly not appreciated. If the AMU and other Antarctic micronations cannot tolerate criticism and scrutiny, then they have a lot to learn.

It seems that every time I have pointed these things out, the facts are ignored and no response is given. I know that it is hard for Antarctic micronations to accept these facts and stop claiming Antarctica as “ours”, stop claiming that there is a loophole and stop attempting to legitimise their claims, but for the good of themselves, as well as micronationalism in general, it must cease.