The 29th June Crisis – my point of view…

This article in no way shows the stance of the St. Charlian Observer during this crisis. This article is completely the view of its author.

It was with great sadness that last night I witnessed 5 sensible and strong micronations leave the Organisation of Active Micronations, and after talking to several other micronationalists, and viewing the OAM forum, I seem to find this whole matter disturbing, because these 5 nations have given up on working with the remainder of the OAM, which is deeply upsetting.

I have never been a member of the OAM, in fact, you know me as the Vice Chairman of the Grand Unified Micronational. All 5 of those nations were also GUM members, as you may have noticed. These 5 delegates are well known to me, and they are still a friend to the Landashir’n people, but in no way, do I support the actions of these countries and their governments. Just as an organisation is destroying itself internally because of the constant paranoia and the many resolutions that may have been seen as offensive: these 5 nations did not want to remain members. They were fed up of it, and they left. In fact, there was no physical progress made, just arguments, essays, flying everywhere.

Before 8pm last night, I had witnessed the planning of the matter. Something didn’t seem right. Why, these nations are leaving the rest of the OAM to sort out their own affairs, while these 5 nations who should be spear heading the organisation, left in disgust.

In all honesty, I believe that it is the fault of the majority of active micronations within the OAM. Surely, you cannot deny that those who left, may have contributed a little to this disaster; and they leave the consequences to the inexperienced, the members who are new, and other nations like St. Charlie to deal with.

It was all planned, I saw it. They gave up on the Organisation, because it wasn’t “diplomatic” enough, or it just had “too many” members. I, just really don’t care if a micronationalist should always be writing in formal English, or should be constantly using unnecessary formalities and courtesies. This is micronationalism.

Yes, we have seen many, many problems in the past; Mark Dresner, Rajputistan and the right-wing controversy, but I do not see how leaving an organisation can at all fix these problems effectively.

Therefore, my feelings towards intermicronational politics have turned negative. I don’t know what I can do, and this has severely destroyed the reputation of the OAM.

Those 5 micronations have created a future for the OAM, with grave consequences. I call on micronationalists such as Philip Fish to fix the OAM, and to work with the rest of the OAM members to build a decent society, so that these 5 countries can embrace your organisation once again.

And so I quote Thomas Edison, a great man you all know: “If we did all the things we are capable of doing, we would literally astonish ourselves“. I think you can understand my message. Thank you.

Comments
3 Responses to “The 29th June Crisis – my point of view…”
  1. Robert Lethler says:

    There are those who, no doubt, presume that Mister Puchowski has the moral authority to speak on this matter. It is with an almost profound sense of regret that I must say he is most certainly in no position to judge other nations for a course of action he himself was prepared to take not long ago.

    Unlike the Premier of Landashir, I command an understanding of basic civility, and realise that it is considered highly offensive in most cultures to disclose details of private conversations to those who were not privy to them. Indeed, I would like to note that when this action was discussed, more than half of those involved explicitly stated that it would be a gross violation of their confidentiality and their privacy for details of it to be published without their prior consent. Noting that Mister Puchowski does NOT have prior consent, I would advise the Observer to immediately retract this article lest it find itself in a very difficult position with regards to privacy law and the confidentiality of sources.

    Regardless, the good Premier of Landashir does – as I say – criticise use for action he himself conceived a long time before any of us. There was some time ago an extremely sensitive diplomatic issue, which I will not disclose details of because I – unlike Puchowski – respect the privacy of those I communicate with, concerning Landashir and the wider community. Puchowski, during this issue, explicitly stated that it was his intention to pull Landashir out of the GUM and to resign as Vice-Chairman of the Quorum. Though this was known to me, it would have – because of the nature of that diplomatic issue (which did *Not* involve Erusia) – been sudden and completely unexpected to the GUM as a whole. Suffice to say, among the reasons why Landashir was prepared to do this thing were the membership and representative systems of the GUM – systems he made no effort to reform, and still refuses to make any effort to reform despite his apparent grievances with them. Whilst we five withdrew from the OAM in the hope that our actions would spark a sudden and sharp realignment within it, he was prepared to withdraw from the GUM for selfish national – nay, personal – interests.

    Clearly, Mister Puchowski has chosen to forget this quaint little incident, which was only avoided thanks to careful negotiation. He is in absolutely no position to judge or condemn any nation that participated in this action within the Organisation, for he himself must surely be guilty of that which he accuses us of. Furthermore, by his own admission, Mister Puchowski did not fully understand what was happening at the time and made it quite clear that he felt it none of his business – it seems to me that he has changed his tone so suddenly because he has realised this is an opportunity to capitalise on an incident, beyond his diplomatic remit, for credit in the eyes of his colleagues. Indeed, this must surely be the case, for Puchowski’s nation is not an OAM member state and so does not have access to all of the information he needs to make such judgements – he has not seen the resolutions that have gone forwarded to encourage reform and be met with systematic hostility, nor has he been part of events to appreciate them.

    James Puchowski is, quite frankly, a despicable man. He is seeking now to condemn and judge others for the very “crimes” he himself is guilty of, and it rather seems to me that he does so purely because it serves his own narrow personal interests. Irrespective of what opinions we may each hold on this issue, I am certain we can all agree that a man like James Puchowski most certainly does NOT have moral authority on this issue, and that his words should be ignored entirely.

  2. Bradley says:

    Mister Lethlers words should be forgotten as this analyses of the situation are better than his.

  3. Alexander Reinhardt says:

    Whatever the case, Lethler needs to write to Nick, who seems to on holiday.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: