[Ashkenatza] Statement from the Foreign Office

[Maksym Hadjimehmetov]

Di Oysland Ministeryum Der Shtat Ashkenatzas
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Ashkenatza

18042009- A Statment to the Imperial Republic of Shireroth

Ladies and Gentlemen,

It is my pleasure to have been appointed Foreign Minister of the Republic once more and I do hope I'll be spending more time in Shireroth on my diplomatic duties, of course on amicable terms.
However, my government has been concerned for a while now regarding the growing tensions between Ashkenatza and Shireroth, in part fuelled by the lack of friendship between the Small Commonwealth Nations and the Republic, and tensions with our neighbours Amokolia and Batavia in the past and ongoing.

Firstly, I would like to address a few points brought up by Ministers in the Landsraad regarding these issues- especially pertaining to the establishment of the Trans-Elwynn Autonomous Region and the current ongoing dispute with Batavia regarding our former Ashkenatzi Jewish populations under Batavian rule. The Foreign Ministry is currently trying to reach an amicable solution to the latter situation and would be indebted to the Small Commonwealth and Shireroth if you did not view this as a border conflict but as a non-violent and amicable debate between Batavia and Ashkenatza.
Therefore I do not believe that a

Small Commonwealth joint taskforce

would be a viable or advisable solution to this already complex problem, and respectfully advise the Small Commonwealth to remain amicable and non-belligerent towards the Republic, whilst we of course respect you have a vested interest in the Batavian situation as per your Military Alliance with them via the Small Commonwealth.

As regards the Trans-Elwynn Autonomous Region, His Excellency Nohsi Ben Mavet has instructed me to communicate the Ashkenatzi Government's official standpoint on the situation and its ramifications with Shireroth.
We have noted with concern in the Knesset the statement in the Landsraad on 17042009 that

the River Elwynn, from Araxion to Musica, from it's banks to the left and to the right of its flow, all constitutes internal Shirerithian waters, that the Sluices and Dams of the River are Shirerithian, remain Shirerithian and will forever be Shirerithian!

As previously stated, the establishment of the Trans-Elwynn Autonomous Region not only shows our commitment to Minority Rights within Ashkenatza and good relations with all Shirereithan ethnicities, but our official position is that

the Trans-Elwynn shall remain a self-governing, autonomous but inalienable portion of the Republic of Ashkenatza

We therefore do not view the establishment of the Trans-Elwynn as an obstacle to cultural and trade exchanges between our two nations and view the region's creation as a positive event in our diplomatic relations.
However, I would cite to Your Excellencies that the phrase that

it is probably to our advantage to have a "buffer state" between ourselves and the fast-growing power to our west

is somewhat misleading in terminology as the region is not a 'buffer state' as such, since it is an inalienable and integral part of the Republic's territory, regardless of whatever ethnic similarities may exist between the Elw in Ashkenatza and the Elw in Shireroth.
May I draw as a relevant example the parallel between this situation and that of the Batavian Jews- the Republic of Ashkenatza remains committed merely to minority rights for the aforementioned minority and has no desire to undermine the territorial integrity of the Batavian Nation. We stress this point with all goodwill to the Shirereithan Government and Small Commonwealth. Therefore I would like to correct the statement that

the Ashkenatzi government has threatened our good friends the Batavians with war

as a misinterpretation of the facts at hand and call upon the Landsraad to recognise this.

To conclude, the Republic of Ashkenatza's dignitaries have already stated that:
On behalf of the Trans-Elwynnese Autonomous Region the Republic of Ashkenatza claims as its right, and its customary due under the norms of international relations, sovereignty over the West Elwynn river from the West Bank to middle of the main channel of navigation of the West Elwynn river. Further, within those bounds, the Republic of Ashkenatza reserves the right to site warships and law enforcement vessels on the river and to divert a proportionate volume of the total flow of water for its own agricultural and industrial purposes. The Republic of Ashkenatza holds these points to be self evident but welcomes the opportunity to reach an accord with the Imperial Republic of Shireroth formalising this.

I do hope this clears up any existing misunderstandings between our two nations and helps bring us together in this troubled spate of disputes with the Small Commonwealth across Batavia.

May I also send our congratulations to His Niftiness Kaiser Erasmas I on his accession to the Golden Mango Throne and wish him good fortune in his leadership of the Imperial Republic of Shireroth.

Shabbat Shalom,

M.I Rozenthal

[Andreas the Wise]

A question for the Ashkenatzan Delegation, if you would be so kind as to answer.

A lot has been said recently about tensions between the Small Commonwealth and Ashkenatza. I must ask ... what tensions and when? As a Small Commonwealth delegate I can recall no times the Small Commonwealth has discussed Ashkenatza as a problem before this issue was brought to Shirithian attention. Indeed, apart from indicating that they'd be welcome to join, and then going off topic into possible Shirithian involvement in the Romero conference, I can find no mention of Ashkenatza in the Small Commonwealth forums, and so am at a loss as to why we would apparently have tensions with you. Unless there was some perceived slight the Ahskenatzans hold against us that they have not made the Small Commonwealth as an organisation aware of?

[Maksym Hadjimehmetov]

Communiqué from the Ashkenatzi Foreign Ministry [22042009]

Your Excellency,

There have been numerous tensions for quite a while now between not only our nation and Shireroth, but also Amokolia as well. On numerous occasions an elected government official for Amokolia, Jess, has stated that he intends to 'bomb the Jews', and 'light Ashkenatza on fire'- surely highly inappropriate given the current situation.
Amokolian attempts to install a puppet leader in Tellia after the Treaty of Romersk, in which Ashkenatza legally annexed Tellia after full signatory agreement by dignitaries of the Tellian Royal Government, were also thwarted.
During the same period of time, unfounded Amokolian accusations that the Ashkenater Militerish Kraft intended to invade and occupy the aforementioned nation prompted the Shirereithan Kaiser at that time, Agni I, (if my memory serves correctly) to declare that 'Ashkenatza should be punished'.

I feel I would be doing a disservice to the entire Ashkenatzi population and their consensus were I not to air our concerns that Shireroth is adapting an increasingly jingoistic and paternalistic attitudes to its neighbours in Benacia. Naturally, as the oldest and most poweful nation on the Benacian Continent, Shirereithan Delegates have a lot of influence in Benacian affairs, but we in Ashkenatza feel that continued pressure for us to join the Small Commonwealth, as well as Shirereithan threats to Ashkenatza through that organisation, allegedly in support of Batavia and Amokolia, do little to help our intermicronational affairs and are furthermore threatening the new safety we thought we had secured for our nation after the peaceful union of Tellia and Ashkenatza earlier on.

The two recent issues of Batavian Border Disputes and the Elwynn River have also left me somewhat vexed- the Ashkenatzi Government- despite some initial ill-chosen words, has reached an amicable level of debate with the Batavian Ambassador to our nation, a Herr Gustaf Vermeylen. Furthermore, I would like to reiterate that we do not seek to violate Batavia's territorial integrity and wish only for the welfare of the people in lands which, some months ago, were legally Ashkenatzi territory. I thank Herr Siskind for his kind comments in the Landsraad regarding our concern for the Batavian Jews, and are pleased that Shirereithans have not, on the whole, misconstrued Ashkenatzi requests of the Batavian government.
Indeed, as a multi-ethnic nation with Jews, Tellians, and Elw comprising the ethnic tapestry of our nation, Ashkenatza seeks equality for all within its borders- Your Excellency may have noticed autonomy for the Tellians in the provinces of Thither Tellia and the Tellian Territories, and also more recently for the Elw in the Trans-Elwynn Region.
Our concern for the Batavian Jews is just the same as Shireroth may have for the Elwynnese as the major nation that ethnic group inhabits on Micras, and we hope you sympathise with us to a degree.

However, I am somewhat concerned over Shireroth's dogged refusal to submit to standard intermicronational and international decrees on river borders- it seems to me fair that the Shirereithan and Ashkenatzi nations should share a modicum of the North Elwynn River- both being responsible for the ecological and economic conditions of that waterway.
Whilst we realise that the majority of the Elwynn River lies within Shirereithan territory- as do its many tributaries and outlets to the oceans of Micras- we would like to formalise some agreement regarding maritime traffic so we can fully dispense with this issue and perhaps work towards a meaningful friendship. What we most strongly object to is the view that all lands on either side of the Elwynn River are Shirereithan Property. We view this as undermining Ashkenatzi legal authority in our own lands and violation of our territorial integrity as an independent nation-state.
Shireroth must recognise that the Tellian Territories and the Trans-Elwynn Autonomous Region are inalienable and inseperable portions of the Republic of Ashkenatza.

As representative of the Knesset and Ashkenatzi Government I convey to Your Excellency Ashkenatza's refusal of the continued offer to join the Small Commonwealth. Whilst we wish to remain side by side as friends and neighbours to all in the organisation, we feel we have little to offer and vice versa. If the ensuing relationship which occurs as a result of our refusal to join is one of hate, then Shireroth will ever more have convinced Ashkenatza that her intentions for a 'unified alliance' are far from scrupulous and extend to nothing more than a political sphere of influence created due to the MCS's restrictions on Shireroth's claiming more land.
On the other hand, if Shireroth respects the democratic right of the Ashkenatzi nation not to enter into an alliance via the Small Commonwealth, this perception of the Imperial Republic is unlikely to come to fruition amongst Ashkenatzim- by respecting our diplomatic freedom, we shall mutually learn to respect each other in time.

Kol Tov v' Mazel Tov,

Maksym Izaak Rozenthal,

Foreign Minister of the Republic of Ashkenatza

[Jonas]

I don't see any reason why Shireroth wouldn't help its allies in a conflict. Batavia would do the same.

I want add to your comment that sir Vermeylen isn't an ambassador. The Prime Minister condemned the ultimatum, some Batavians see it as very agressive. You're nagging about Shireroth and its foreign policy, but the same time, Ashkenatza is behaving as an imperialist nation (nothing wrong with that, but then you don't need to complain about others being paternalistic).

To make sure you don't misunderstand me: I still like you and your nation.

[Maksym Hadjimehmetov]

You're nagging about Shireroth and its foreign policy, but the same time, Ashkenatza is behaving as an imperialist nation

An interesting comparison, but essentially a weak one. The fact is that Ashkenatza isn't behaving in an imperialist manner- the definition of the word, for example, states that Imperialism is:

The policy of forcefully extending a nation's authority by territorial gain or by the establishment of economic and political dominance over other nations

Now, Ashkenatza has never attempted economic nor political dominance over other nations, and when we have it was bilateral and fully legal- hence the annexation of Tellia. Surely Shireroth, not only as an Imperial Republic, but leader state of the Small Commonwealth, is more at fault by your own line of reasoning, by that logic.

Additionally, the fact remains- a fact which many Batavians simply haven't been able to grasp- that we're not claiming those lands. All we want is autonomy for the Jewish populations there- and if you'd care to look at MCS maps between September 2008 and the present day, you'd notice that Ashkenatza made favourable concessions to Batavia of her own free will, simply as a gesture of friendship. Since those lands had never before been Batavian- only Ashkenatzi- it is therefore reasonable to assume the existence of an Ashkenatzi Jewish population in those areas currently under Batavian suzeranity.

As such, instead of Imperialism, I'd suggest anyone else making that attack on Ashkenatza should read up on our politics- the very document which inspired the ultimatum- the Yiddishkeyt Declaration of 27102008- was itself issued by the socialist-led Bundist Government which had ruled up until earlier this year. So no, imperialism isn't really the adjective. It's more a point of fulfilling micronational simulationism, upholding Foreign Policy, and most of all helping Ashkenatzi Citizens.
Ashkenatza feels threatened by the Small Commonwealth, and recent Shirereithan rhetoric hasn't, frankly, done much to remedy that. How can you blame us for acting in national interests of former Ashkenatzi citizens abroad when we're surrounded by nations who seem to see us as a Pariah State?

Were there less antagonism toward Ashkenatza, myself and the Knesset would not have felt it necessary to press these land claims on our Batavian friends to the East- sadly, recent Small Commonwealth attitudes to Ashkenatza (which probably found fruition somewhere in the firebrands of the tactless Amokolian government) have done little to foster any feelings of mutual respect.

I for one, believe it's up to nations as independent states to sit together and talk respectfully about these things, without the childish calling on their 'big friend Shireroth' used consistently as a result to win the political right of any dispute. Such is my personal problem with the Small Commonwealth.

Regards,

Rozenthal

[Aurangzeb Khan]

Max - go visit the Hanokem Sholom Tower some time in the next 24 hours. Ta.

[Andreas the Wise]

My thanks to the Ashkenatzi delegate for responding to my question. I would merely say that Amokolia is by no means representative of the Small Commonwealth as a whole, and note that the comments were made at a time before Amokolia had joined the Small Commonwealth - indeed, before it was properly founded. Indeed, the Kaiser at the time, Loki III (if that thread serves correctly) clearly told Jess that the comments were innapropriate and repeated that both nations were friends with Shireroth.

I do remember the time when Ashkenatza was accused of wanting to invade Amokolia. As I recall, nobody in Shireroth had the full information immediately and asked for further information. However, as you would be well aware, the threat of war by any micronation, even if misconstrued, tends to cast that nation in a bad light for starting the war. Again, that issue was handled entirely by Shireroth and Amokolia and completely separate from the Small Commonwealth framework. Show me the topic in the Small Commonwealth where the assembly discussed the issue and proposed to intervene in Ashkenatza on Amokolia's behalf, and I will take back this next comment. As far as I can see, any tension between the Small Commonwealth and Ashkenatza is completely imagined on Ashkenatza's part, based on an inappropriate understanding of the Small Commonwealth's function - ie that you think it is an extension of Shireroth, when instead, it is a collection of soverign nations which Shireroth merely founded. Shirithian foreign policy and Small Commonwealth Foreign Policy (if the Small Commonwealth has ever had any foreign policy) are not the same thing. While I can see some merit in your observation of previous tensions with Shireroth due to Amokolia, I reject your statement that this should have any bearings on your relationship with the Small Commonwealth.

As a Small Commonwealth delegate, and speaking entirely in that role and not necessarily representative of the organisation as a whole, I would appreciate if Ashkenatza learned the difference between Shireroth and an organisation that Shireroth is a part of, but by no means has control over. It's just, if you don't, there will be enmity between Ashkenatza and the Small Commonwealth, merely because the Small Commonwealth gets so annoyed at being told we've got enmity with Ashkenatza and that we're purely a pawn of Shirithian foreign policy, responsible for their every whim. And I'm sure you don't actually want to create enmity between Ashkenatza and the Small Commonwealth when none is necessary.

[Jonas]

The policy of forcefully extending a nation's authority by territorial gain or by the establishment of economic and political dominance over other nations

=

All we want is autonomy for the Jewish populations there-

Ahum...

The Batavians recognise the existence of Jews in Batavia (except those who don't like fictional history, etc., like Nihill Romez), but nothing more. Meddling in interior affairs is, for so far I know, in some way trying to get influence over state affairs.

How can you blame us for acting in national interests of former Ashkenatzi citizens abroad when we're surrounded by nations who seem to see us as a Pariah State?

By sending an ultimatum (I don't know if it has another meaning in English, but in Dutch it's seen as quite aggressive) you don't make yourself popular. We didn't think about Ashkenatza as a Pariah State (that's just nonsense), but how do you expect a nation to react after getting an ultimatum? Happy?!


I can only agree with the statement made by Andreas.

[Maksym Hadjimehmetov]

Political autonomy isn't the same thing as ethnocentric dominance.
By having an autonomous Batavian Jewish protectorate, we'd renounce any claims on those lands. In reality, it's the same thing as Bulgaria getting angry at Greece today for not granting any rights to Pomak and Bulgarian citizens in Thrace and the Dedeagach.
Now, I know the analogy isn't entirely appropriate as Bulgaria took those lands off Greece in WWII, but then again, comparing Ashkenatza to Fascist Bulgaria and the antisemitism thereof would be... ambitious, I must say.

Trivialities aside, may it please Your Excellencies that Batavia and Ashkenatza are now on the path to reconciliation.

So, umm... Mazel Tov to us both, I guess.

[Jonas]

You're missing the point: Ashkenatza declared that we need to give the Jews autonomy (interference!) or give back the land.
I'm happy the Ashkenatzans still believe they are a just, noble nation.

[Maksym Hadjimehmetov]

Happy dialogue. The debate between Ashkenatza and Batavia is partially pointless due to the differences of degree of simulationism both those nations maintain.
Either way, with Ashkenatza's repeal of the ultimatum, there's little more which remains to be said.

EDIT: and I still have no idea who Ashkenatzans are... it's Ashkenatzim.