With the creation of a micronation, just as any other state or political entity, a mindful obligation of success and prosperity arises for the founder or founders. This obligation is not one rooted in the necessary success or entrenched in the concept of amusement. Though these two items are very important for the individual micronationalist, the obligation is often a combination of the former and one thing all states require: it is an obligation of sovereignty. The actual definition of sovereignty is disputed and varies over ideologies and systems of governance, but it should be noted that the underlying importance is independence and, in the case of national states, the supremacy of the national government.
However, in our intermicronational community, this obligation is often ignored. The obligation which arises declares us to swear an oath before our states for their utmost sovereignty. Indeed the very basic term micronation could be described as the political movement for individual and self-determined sovereignty. However, the greatest threat to this sovereignty is not a macronation’s repression but the micronational leader’s own violation of oath.
The very importance of micronationalism is sovereignty and independence. Afterall, it is the individual micronationalist who declares his state independent not only from a mother country but from all other countries. In so doing, the micronationalist has revolted, out of political reason or for petty amusement, against the sovereignty of a foreign state upon their land. When the micronationalist creates law and conducts policy, they act in clear defiance of macronations and thereby their sovereignty grows and expands. They may not declare an oath for their state, though many do so mentally and verbally, that oath arises from the conscious obligation for the success and sovereignty of their state.
A micronational leader violates his oath by subverting and out-right destroying the sovereignty of his state. This is the action of the greatest threat and, that is, the admission to a supranational union or federation. By joining a federation or a union, a micronational leader and his micronation are no longer sovereign and their mutual self-arising obligation has been destroyed. Whilst in the federation, at many times, an individual state suffers neglect by its leaders for their role in the federal government. Though the leaders may continue to conduct the affairs of the individual state, their time is still never completely devoted to their individual state and, therefore, their state suffers or is not advanced as far as it could be if its leaders had kept it sovereign. This neglect and the violation of this self-arising obligation often torments micronationalists who begin to seek to pacify the raging oath they have violated and to seek a new amusement. This amusement often leads, then, to chaos in the state as the state departs the federation which subverted its sovereignty. However, then, this amusement and this entire process can recycle itself, as we have seen with Koss or Kozuc, and the cycle of subversion of sovereignty and chaos by reclaiming sovereignty can continue for some time.
Many have argued that the process of federalisation improves or teaches micronationalists. Yet in the process of reclaiming the state’s sovereignty is only the topic of true knowledge imparted from the federation unto the micronationalist. This argument is in fact rather empty, for many micronations have subverted and destroyed their sovereignty, then left, thinking they had learned, and then they end up rejoining another federation or union. The examples of Kozuc, which has created a union with Skendal and recently joined St.Charlie, or Koss, which had been in the Nemkhav Federation, its own imperial union, and now St.Charlie, are those which completely violate the logic of this argument that federations some how teach micronationalists. The greatest lesson of a micronationalist is to curb their impulses and desires for grandeur or power and, instead, remain level-headed and continue in the advance of a micronation with her sovereignty. And none are immune to these impulses, for the desires for amusement and grandeur have been the undoing of many Sandum governments as well. However, with reality, we strive for our advancement as a sovereign state, as all micronations rightfully are and should. This strive is mirrored in sovereign nations such as Renasia, Austenasia, or Juclandia, all of which have out-right proclaimed their independence and have upheld its defence. Within those nations, as well, action has been taken to advance the nation with no foreign involvement, as in Sandus under Libera, and they have been successful in their advancement; their obligations, as with Sandus’, have been fulfilled and their oaths upheld. Therefore, no knowledge is imparted to those under federations or unions; their only knowledge is upon their departure, a knowledge often betrayed by impulse and desire.
Some have argued too that it is a micronation’s sovereign right to decide to join a federation. That is clearly counter-productive. If a federation is to undermine the sovereignty of independent states, then why would a sovereign state decide in favour of that federation? It is as if a democratic nation voted democratically to overthrow their democracy and to impose an autocracy. It is beyond logic to consider such a position and to give it credence, as many have and have argued in its defence, and to argue that it is a state’s sovereign decision to do so. Of course it is a state’s sovereign decision, for it is their supreme and legitimate will to do so, but in what course of action or logic does one consider the enemy of my enemy to be my friend? In such linear modes of thought, perhaps, one could consider that a reasonable argument but, for the logic of many variables and exponents, it is not a solution for a sovereign nation.
However, are all federations and unions inherently destructive? No, quite the opposite for some. Federations and unions can be a mode of advancement and reunification of culturally and socially similar peoples. Over divisions of states, peoples who are once again united by federations or unions with those of geographic relativity, cultural relation, and social similarities are those federations which provide more benefit to being united than being divided. In the case of Québec and France, la Francophonie has provided the unification of the two after two centuries divided by the politics of their states. The Union State, as well, unites Belarus and Russia, even if in name only, in the sharing of culturally similar peoples. Yet these macronational examples may extend to our micronational world. In the recent case of Danesland, the Federal Union of Socialist Republics unites socially similar, culturally relative and geographicly close states under one government of all constituent nations. In the case of Carshalton, the Shahanshah of the Sector unites the many different nations and states of the sector under one “king of kings”. This union of geography and culture is one which has advanced nations such as Austenasia and New Wessex. In these cases, the detriments of the destruction of sovereignty are outweighed by the advances and reunification of culturally and socially similar peoples under a federation or a union.
This State completely stands against the federalisation of sovereign states. Noting the lack of continuity between constituent countries and the breach of sovereignty in federations, this State has constantly declared against the federalisation of nations under a larger one or the mutual coming together. Noting the underlying impulses and desires for amusement and action, this State constantly watches for news of missions of federations to sovereign nations or movements of nations to joining federations. This matter has become especially volatile in the past few months with the upcoming and increasing trend of nations joining and creating federations. Of the micronations Sandus recognises by means of its communications policy, which declares we recognise all nations we have contact with, Sandus has always done its best to express this policy. With the hope of expressing the Sandum view for the advancement of micronational sovereignty and for the advancement of micronationalism beyond the demeaning spectre of amusement and fun, this State outright condemns actions of federations to impede the sovereignty of foreign nations and condemns the actions of federations to create policies in order so that more members will join their union. This Government views those actions as clear attempts at similarly imperial power and irrelevant and destructive to the course and purpose of micronationalism. This Office clearly warns all states from the deception and impulse of joining federations for, in doing so, one violates the integrity of their oath and corrupts their obligation in an action which goes beyond logic and faith.
This article has been written to express Sandus’ anti-Federalism policy in specific relation to micronationalism.
No intent was taken to embroil relations between Sandus and federations but, rather, to explain and rationalise Sandus’ anti-Federalism policy.
This article can also be used to explain Sandus’ stance against the incorporation of foreign missions into the affairs of sovereign governments, such as the Nemkhav Mission to Zealandia and the proposed Nemkhav Mission to Havnesgade-Amager.
— Sôgmô Sörgel.