I thought we got over this
I honestly thought that people had grown sick of the OAM Conspiracy Theory whereby the OAM controls the community, is secretly seeking to violate micronations’ non-existent sovereignty and is incompetent, lenient and hypocritical. But, no. We find this. While ordinarily I would simply ignore stuff like this, now that it’s been reported in the Observer, I feel that only now does it deserve a response.
Firstly I would like to question the authority of the author, Soergel, on any matter concerning the OAM. His nation, Sandus, is not a member of the OAM and he is not a user of the forum. Therefore, as shown by the entire basis of the report, a chatlog and his own preconceptions, he relies on hearsay and his own skewed views of what the OAM is.
In the second section of the document, he says that he is concerned and alarmed at the creation of the OAM Parliament and the apparent effect that this will have on micronations’ sovereignty. He has shown here that he does not understand at all what the OAM Parliament is for, what it does and what is powers are. All that he had to do was read Resolution 159, which outlines the new Parliament.
It is never specifically stated anywhere in the lengthy two paragraphs addressing this, exactly how it is “an obstruction of induvisual member-states’ sovereignty”. The Parliament’s only roles are outlined very clearly in Clause 2 and none of these give the OAM any magical new powers that are suddenly going to destroy micronations’ non-existent sovereignty.
Then “conformity” is addressed, and I don’t see exactly what it’s talking about there.
In the next paragraph, he again shows his ignorance of OAM policy and procedure: “…this government believes that all power should be invested within the Council…”. It is common knowledge throughout the OAM, and, indeed, outside it, that the Council has absolute overriding authority on every single matter in the OAM. Cor, strewth! It’s even in the Charter (Chapter 3 Article 6).
Next we move on to an apparent problem with Duke Bradley, a delegate from Wyvern. The gist of it is that observers should not be given the opportunity to hold any office in the organisation because it doesn’t happen in the esteemed CIS (Commonwealth of Independent States – basically former USSR countries) and the ‘real world’. What has been failed to be understood by Soergel is that we are the OAM, not the CIS or UN or OAS – we are our own organisation and there is no reason at all why we should simply conform to what is regarded as ‘the norm’ just because it is ‘the norm’.
Next is basically a condemnation of the forum and the way in which OAM members communicate with each other.
According to the document, micronationalists in the MicroWiki Sector “over-simplify” diplomacy and degrade it to “a state of watered-down, corrupt friendship”. On this point I agree to a certain extent, but what is totally wrong and misguided is the implication that somehow the use of a forum in the OAM causes this. Apparently, the reason for this is that long posts are better said/used in online chatrooms like Skype because they have a better chance of being read. I disagree, although I suspect that it is a matter of opinion rather than fact.
In the next paragraph, the document expounds that “regional organisations…responded rather well to various instances, however [sic], now a world-wide [sic] organisation is in existence and nothing is done”. I fail to see how an organistion having no effect on its member nations’ apparent sovereignty, hypothetically, can then hope to have any effect on its member nations in this way. If we are referring to internal organisation programmes and agencies, I have only to direct the author of the document to this.
I do concede that more could be done and not enough has been done in certain agencies/areas, but this is largely the result of reports, documents and arguments, such as the very ‘report’ that Soergel put out. If we stopped complaining and belittling organisations, nations and people and being very loud minorities, we would and could get so much more done.
Finally, in the conclusion, he has the gall to say: “…this action has no intention to hinder or harm any relation of any member-state of the OAM as of current [sic] or hinder or harm Sandus’ relations with the organisation as a whole.” How can he expect that, when he has attacked the delegate of a member nation and the organisation “as a whole”?
And in answer to Soergel’s request that we take heed of his report, my resounding answer is no, from a personal point of view anyway. The ‘report’ is based upon little or no evidence, and much of the ‘evidence’ presented is wrong, as I just proved. If you’re going to attempt to slander the OAM in such a way, then I agree that Sandus should not return to the organisation – we can do without things like this.