The Lack of Reasons for Such a Grave Move

Ave, Sandum Citizens, and I hope you excuse the long time that has had to have been waited. I had prepared to write this article last evening, after releasing information on possible tax increases. Unfortunately, that article was attacked, ridiculed and insulted by multiple people, some in the past who have shown their aggression towards me, some who have recently done so, and one who has particularly betrayed me. Alas, it must be noted that I am merely one person. I run this State, its policies, its laws, and its society by effort and work; I have hardly ever wished to betray that message and that purpose I have laid out for myself. However, as I have noted, I am merely one person and those against me are many. Nemkhavia’s Federal Government has three major ministers; this makes it one to three. Those who attack me from the former TASPAC number some five individuals; this increases the ratio to one to eight. And then there are the other, temporary conflicts and issues which number far more. This particular issue last evening marked one to five and, I am afraid, it was an issue of very deep and personal importance to me that the abuse directed my way, the ridicule of our State, cause me to ground myself in human emotions which, if only our State’s enemies had witnessed it, they would understand that our State is no laughing or insignificant matter and that I am not as inhumane as they believe me to be.
This morning and afternoon, I marked three years of our Independence and Sovereignty as a state. While I was in the seclusion of the majesty of our land, I was reminded of the duty I have, the duty we all have as Sandum citizens, towards our world and our State. That is why that, upon returning home, I responded to every piece of hostility against Sandus I could. I was reminded in my duty to serve Sandus, our People, and our State faithfully. Just as I have done countless times before — upon the anniversary of Sovereignty from St.Charlie, upon the anniversary of the State, upon the anniversary of the Great and Eternal Victory, upon my election as Sôgmô on the Winter Solstice — I swear my oath of faith, loyalty and fidelity to the State and may I make an altar out of my bureau.

Tonight rings out Händel’s Wassermusik amongst those gathered within the Palaso. Unfortunately, the music’s call and beckoning is to great to discard or to not follow in its path. Therefore, I hope you excuse this article’s lack of ceremony as I go, paragraph-by-paragraph, to respond to the accusations against us.

In the first paragraph of M. Hakimoto’s reasoning, if it could be called such, he says that the article could be considered an official response and continues to note his informal writing. Though I normally do not encourage such to be utilised, and I hold no authority over M. Hakimoto, I do believe his concept of informal is not so informal as it is unnecessarily direct or personal, though there would be no fault in this save for the fact that it makes it appear exactly that — personal rather than official. However, I will largely respond in the same manner that he has responded. I would, too, like to note that if this is in fact Nemkhavia’ official response that the Nemkhav Federal Government had informed me, by the mouth of Prime Minister Mejakhansk, that no such reply would be given. In fact, so as to provide evidence — as M. Hakimoto has asked a lot of me lately and we have asked the same, save for a more grave matter — these were the exact words:

The Government didnt feel it to be in the Federation’s best interests to have relations with Sandus, so upon a democratic vote, the relations were cut. That is that, the statement is a matter of procedure.
[5:14:34 PM] Marka Mejakhansk: It doesn’t need to release anything
[5:14:45 PM] Marka Mejakhansk: we could quite easily have decided not to release anything on the matter

[5:24:42 PM] Marka Mejakhansk: The Federation has no further comment to make about it, it ends here with us

Upon writing, which I was aware of before the “Op-Ed” was published, it was clear that these statements were about as true as the assurance given to this government the night of the 22nd of April, which foreshadowed Nemkhavia’s first hostilities and violations of the former Treaty on the 23rd of April. M. Hakimoto informed another micronational official, just as M. Mejakhansk admitted later on, that these statements by M. Mejakhansk were in fact false and that the action of responding was expected and, in fact, planned. Of course, this is no surprise to this Office, but it is a surprise that Nemkhavia would lie on such a petty issue and do so deliberately. Even if they did not intend to write a response, they have violated these assurances and statements. Therefore, I believe that Sandus and the Central People’s Government is warranted in noting the lack of trust in Nemkhavia, even without the treaty to support relations.

M. Hakimoto has defended the statement, stating that this Office pointed out their indecision. However, such is certainly true or something similar when there is still no explanation of events and no explanation or reasons for the actions taken. The only thing Nemkhavia notes is our hostility, which is far from truth when one considers the 23rd of April, the 23rd of May, and the 19th of May. Multiple micronationalists, from Sandus, her Socilivo States and abroad, have asked it of Nemkhavia to provide reasons; they not only outright denied it when the incident was fresh but they have done so again today. M. Hakimoto blames Nemkhavia’s “stepping back and analysing the situation”. However, if such was the case, would Nemkhavia have not stepped back and analysed terminating all relations with Sandus before taking such a grave action? It makes little logical sense to have said that the reasons were not published because they were being analysed and, yet, that is typically an action that is taken at the on-set of such a grave move on Nemkhavia’s part. Perhaps it is Nemkhavia’s haste that they did not heed their “usual method of addressing a crisis”, by merely foregoing one of the most important steps of any rational or logical decision: analysing the problem.

M. Hakimoto then continues to address this Office’s argument on the lack of the liberty of speech. He seems to have confused the importance of M. Mejakhansk’s quick action to make sure that M. Hakimoto did not comment on the action with the mutual responses of both. We concede the fact that M. Hakimoto’s response was the same as M. Mejakhansk, but it is a matter of decency and of upholding this façade of Nemkhavia’s to have let M. Hakimoto responded without intervention by the Premier. Would it not have made more sense, citing the constant self-promotion and self-righteousness of Nemkhavia — especially after the actions taken on the 22nd of April, to have followed through to have upheld the self-made image of Nemkhavia as the defender of democracy and liberty rather than to have a higher authority in the Federal Government intervene in a citizen’s ability to expression? In such a way, this is the very fact of Nemkhavia’s façade. It proclaims democracy and freedom to the intermicronational world and, yet, it does not provide freedom to its citizens, it denies the rule of democracy in the GUM, it intervenes in the democracy of foreign nations, and it obstructs the liberties of expression even within our own State — a nation that, until the 23rd of May, had a legal requirement of respecting those rights. With M. Mejakhansk’s rash action to make sure M. Hakimoto did not step out of line, answering for him when the questions was clearly not addressed to him, it has been shown that the façade of Nemkhavia was easily collapse as just as easy it was constructed.

And now begins Lully’s Te Deum.

And so begins with Nemkhavia’s trump card in the entire dispute.
The Federal Government claims that Sandus some how harmed Nemkhavia by voting in relation to its lack of confidence in former Chair Dullahan of Wyvern. As M. Mello pointed out, M. Hakimoto’s article clearly displays the clear favouritism towards the Nemkhav delegation, which is further reason for his lack of confidence. As Chair, this Office has treated all members as equal, which Nemkhavia has interpreted as being a harm to herself. I have been reasonable with the sadly divisive issues of emoticons within the Lounge, I have been fair in the treatment of delegations and delegates that I am not on friendly terms with and, whenever I would ever take action against them — as I did with the Nemkhav President Whitmarsh for his clear breach of decorum and respect, I made sure to see if the Supreme Judge was in approval. Now, this argument of Nemkhavia’s dates back to when the Supreme Judge ruled that Sandus’ support of the vote of no confidence, which we neither proposed nor motioned for, was of a potential and hypothetical threat to Nemkhavia. If such was a real and concrete threat, however, Nemkhavia would have most likely not grabbed at this sole violation, to their five violations, with such ecstatic lust and passion for their aggression against us. Such a “violation” was even acknowledged to be hypothetical by the Supreme Judge; Nemkhavia’s entire defence of “you did it too” rests on this single, hypothetical “violation”.
Recognising our “mutual faults”, however, resulted in not only a meeting, but also an agreement from that meeting. Such an agreement was mindlessly violated by Nemkhavia. Furthermore,  the only fault we had, to Nemkhavia’s several, was one that was hypothetical and that we merely agreed could be perceived as harmful. According to M. Hakimoto’s play of events, it appears that the meeting was to take place in the future, and yet it had already happened. We came together, made an agreement, and then Hakimoto states that Sandus began to attack Nemkhavia in Quorum. Such can be further from logic or truth. The issue arose from the fact that Koss had recently decided to join St.Charlie, a move that Sandus did not look well upon since it would mean the destruction of her sovereignty — something Sandus has always advised against, and not from Nemkhavia. Furthermore, unlike what Hakimoto has led others to believe, nothing came of this discussion and it was dropped. To this day, such a concept has not been put to work, sadly, as it was meant to advise other, younger micronations. It is difficult to seek the best interest of younger micronationalists when you tell them to succumb to the power, might and influence of larger micronations. I would believe that is completely irrelevant to the concept of giving advise to micronations, as it clearly means their demise. Furthermore, just as Nemkhavia has defended her shameless growth, Nemkhav officials have stated that it would mean less nations joining the Federation, meaning that Nemkhavia will do what ever it can to continue to expand in numbers and power — effectively creating an era of imperialism within Nemkhavia that is now under attack by both Sandus and those who have recently taken action within Zealandia against the NSMZ. Finally, it appears that Hakimoto has forgotten his own Premier’s inquisition of this Office the day before such was even brought up.

Hakimoto then defends his Premier’s inquisition of Sandum media, arguing that they were “respectful”. Such is hardly the case when the Premier believed this Office to be guilty of some offence or another and, yet, claim that they were being respectful. It does not make sense to be believed to be guilty and to be treated with respect; this is the very origin of our argument that Nemkhavia and her Federal Government openly undermined the sovereign rights of Sandum citizens for expression and undermined the inviolability of our sovereign media. This was, in fact, the first shot that Hakimoto confuses with the President’s ridicule and insult. It was hardly constructive, as M. Hakimoto believes, to have the right and sovereignty of Sandus’ media to be violated by a foreign power, especially instances of that media being from the CCPS-cooperative and then from this Office. Such is not constructive criticism, that is plain inquisition for the purpose of defaming and undermining our State. Especially when the conversation was asked to be ended multiple times and it continued, it became unbearable for this Office to continue the masquerade that the Nemkhav Premier had set up for us.

And, finally, Hakimoto argues that Sandus believed Nemkhavia not to be an ally after the Quorum and the media incident. However, normalcy had been returned to again after both events and chaos did not reign again until Nemkhavia severed all relations with Sandus. It was only after that point that this government recognised that Nemkhavia was no longer friendly towards Sandus, as it was noted that after the 23rd of April Nemkhavia was not either — until the 29th of April. To have even believed that Sandus did not honour her treaty and agreement with Nemkhavia is completely false, as the Libera article written on the Voice of Sandus was trimmed down to include only A1 and not Nemkhavia in order to note the improvement in relations between Nemkhavia and Sandus. And, yet, to this day, Sandus continues to approve the use of arbitration and diplomacy to restore relations and, yet, Nemkhavia has now out-right denied, much like they did before the 29th of April, any sort of diplomacy or arbitration. This, too, is completely against the self-created image of Nemkhavia for its love of peace, liberty, and democracy.

And, to this day, Nemkhavia seeks to further its imperialism by expanding her façade. News has just been received from Zealandia that Nemkhavia’s hand-in-the-pot has now become so imperialistic and heavy-handed that all major politicians within the nation are revolting against Nemkhavia’s stability “mission”, rather than providing assistance from affair as advice. Nemkhavia still defends her right to imperialism under the disguise of attacking this State for wanting to advise against joining larger micronations for new micronationalists, something which is mere common sense when your intention is to advise on their sovereignty. Sandus, however long we must fight, is determined for our security, peace, and fighting imperialism. Until the next response or action taken by Nemkhavia, we shall be ready and prepared to act.

And, yet, to this day, Nemkhavia still denies giving any coherent, concrete or actual reasons for breaking off diplomacy with Sandus, unlike what M. Hakimoto set out to address in his article.

— Sôgmô Sörgel.