| abstract | - Greetings to my fellow micronationalists: This is my long-winded response to an issue that’s been annoying me for a while – micronationalism in Antarctica, especially from MicroWiki nations. To begin with, I really don’t see the point. I quite seriously don’t. Micronations claiming territory in a place which they are never going to visit or inhabit, much less govern, is something that just doesn’t register. The first point that I don’t understand is the fact that micronations claiming land in Antarctica argue that it’s legal through some ‘loophole’ in the 1959 Antarctic Treaty. Now, I’m no lawyer, but I don’t believe that the countries signing the Treaty (U.S., U.S.S.R, Australia, etc.) would have ever considered the possibility that a bunch of micronationalists in around 50 years from them would try to claim bits of the place. To put it simply: there is no ‘loophole’ that gives such claims any legitimacy whatsoever. The second point that I don’t understand is micronations that are apparently based either entirely or mostly in Antarctica. Like I mentioned previously, there is absolutely no point at all in pretending that you’re building cities, airports, bases, roads, etc, on a continent that is 98% ice on its surface. There is no point at all in claiming this land that you’re not ever likely to get within 3000 km of, let alone govern. Moreover, there is no point at all in making ridiculously ambitious and, quite frankly, absurd claims such as a “potential” population of a million people and “Keep Watch was established through a loophole in the Antarctic Treaty, and claiming this land as a single entity, not a nation or party.” I do acknowledge that no micronation has, or is ever likely to, have actual control/sovereignty over any size territory (with a few notable exceptions). However, some claims are at least relatively realistic and even, maybe, slightly believable. Entire Antarctic claims do not fall into this category. The notion that some micronation thousands of kilometres away from some giant icy wasteland and having absolutely no contact can lay a “legitimate” claim to large chunks of it is plain silly. The last point that I don’t understand is conflicts arising over these claims. Micronational war is a silly thing. Not because I believe that the world can live in peace and harmony etc (mainly because I don’t believe this), but because you can’t physically invade/attack someone in micronationalism. It usually consists of a declaration of war by both sides, “rousing” speeches by both leaders, following by about a week of confused MicroWiki kerfuffle, followed by a few more days of awkward silence and then some sort of ‘resolution’ being reached which results in everyone living happily ever after. But the crème de la crème of micronational war’s ridiculousness is Antarctic micronational conflict. These are even more futile and pointless than normal micronational conflicts, as they involve serious arguments over territory that is nobody’s to argue about. To put it simply, the conflicting sides are arguing over something that neither side has control over. Nor does it matter who wins – you’re both back to square one. So in conclusion, I hold very little respect for Antarctic Micronationalism. However, this is not to say that I don’t like micronations that claim little titbits of the place to add on to their micronation. My main gripe is with micronations that try to exercise what little sovereignty a micronation has over an icy wasteland, thousands of kilometres from anywhere that they’re even going to get close to, without even visiting, living or governing it, and wasting everyone’s time. That is all.
|
