Shireroth

The Khan of Vijayanagara wrote:At least hack-propagandists have been having fun:

The river Elwynn is live giving? This I gotta see

Yes, the Ashkanatzi seem to really be unmovable on this issue.

I'd have thought that we were merely fulfilling the generally accepted diplomatic practice...

A note about the situation:



I need to start with propaganda too...

Amokolia takes the side of Ashkenatza.

If Shireroth is to claim the River Vattna from bank to bank is unnecessary, as the Amokolian government does not charge tolls. Any attempt to claim the whole Vattna is an insult to Amokolian sovergienty. We are not afraid to assert are claim, and if Shireroth continues to assert claim to both banks of the Vattna it will be necessary for us to take further actions against Shireroth. Also, any water-works on the Amokolian side of the Vattna will be demolished unless a bounty is paid and we can maintain control of our side of the River Vattna.

Sincerely,

Jess Heimer

Any attempt to claim the whole Vattna is an insult to Amokolian sovergienty

I second that. To put it bluntly, if Shireroth is to meet its self-declared intentions of the Small Commonwealth it so benevolently founded, there needs to be a drastic change in the Old Guard Shirereithan mentality. The we hark back to the days of Automatica and Audentior attitude creates a supremacist attitude to the MCS- something overwhelmingly started by former Shirereithan citizens- thereby making it very difficult for other nations to find a niche on the Benacian continent unless they do it by Shireroth's terms.

Shireroth can't push around the little people and still maintain a veneer of paternal responsibility (as it has done) for nations such as Amokolia. Ashkenatza stands stalwart behind Amokolia against this unjust claim.

Sorry, chaps, but it did have to be said. And the first paragraph mainly echoes my own sentiments rather than those of the Ashkenatzi Government and Knesset.
Ashkenatza wants to live side-by-side with Shireroth and to become supportive and caring neighbours- we're both Benacians, after all- but we won't stand for intimidation and we don't want to join the Small Commonwealth.
Ashkenatza is a Benacian Nation which isn't in the Shirereithan sphere of influence.
Please find it in your hearts to deal with that and maybe we can all move on.

... says a representative that based his claim of Batavian land on the idea that it was Ashkenatzan in the first place. The sluice, unique and Shirithian (and nothing else!) is always been part of Shireroth, we where first to say it somewhat rudely .

The sluice, unique and Shirithian (and nothing else!) is always been part of Shireroth, we where first to say it somewhat rudely

But you're missing the point. We're not claiming the sluice, nor any of the lands thereof- we're merely defending our right to land which is intermicronationally recognised by the MCS to be legally Ashkenatzi territory. Something which I believe is called common and understandable behaviour... unless defending one's right to one's own land is an abhorrent idea?
The 'we were there first' idea is exactly what I'm talking about. If both the lands on the banks of the Elwynn River were always Shirereithan for time immemorial, then why the hell didn't you claim them and have them represented as such on the MCS map?

The fact is, and the fact nevertheless remains, that the land was never marked as Shirereithan. It is therefore legally Ashkenatzi and it is not only sheer folly, but puerile and destructive to boot to claim otherwise. As Herr Ben Mavet recently stated in the Knesset, if Shireroth can't abide by simple, courteous diplomatic norms, then we are fast moving past the stage at which conventional diplomacy is feasible, which neither of us want for the sake of Benacian security, something the Small Commonwealth claims to uphold (I suppose, there won't be any Benacian Security until all that continent is under Shirereithan Political influence, but there you go).

... says a representative that based his claim of Batavian land on the idea that it was Ashkenatzan in the first place

Subtle distinction. I claimed the existence of Batavian Jews in those territories on the basis that they were Ashkenatzi beforehand- hence why autonomy for them as an inherent and inalienable part of Batavia was so explicitly mentioned in the ultimatum, had you briefly delved into it. Indeed, totally regardless of the fact that Shireroth never in fact owned the current Trans-Elwynn Autonomous Region of Ashkenatza, we still maintain autonomy for Elwynnese citizens.

Unless Shireroth drops these spurious and fundamentally unjust claims on the West Bank and all the waters of the Elwynn River, then I see no argument for Shireroth's being a stabilising force in Benacia, as she would have us believe.
So prove me wrong, and, Shirereithans, take the leap and practice what you preach, just as Ashkenatza just repealed the ultimatum to Batavia in the name of intermicronational harmony.

Or is bowing to someone who had the audacity to believe land not marked on the MCS as Shirereithan was, for all that time, Shirereithan anyway beyond you?
I think we're seeing the true face of the Micras Sector here- one rule for Shireroth, another for everyone else. As I said, prove me wrong.

As I understand it Shireroth has no legitimate claim to the western bank of the West-Elwynn River and it would be stretching both the credulity and patience of Amokolia and Ashkenatza if it were to do so. Now it might also, on the grounds of culture, heritage and sentiment, seek to claim the entirety of the River West-Elwynn from the east bank across to the west bank but not including the territory of the west bank, and it might point to the hydrological works which span the river (an Osmanid conceit I thank you very much) as proof of that point. However it borders on the perverse to seek to shut Amokolia and Ashkenatza off from a river that they face onto and indeed it paints Shireroth as a bad neighbour that it does not accept that the border between the Central Benacian Powers and Shireroth lies in the midpoint of the West-Elwynn River as per established international norms.

If Shireroth cannot agree to this basic point we are indeed moving past the point where diplomacy can actually be expected to achieve anything.

Which brings be back to the following, which I must stress is pretty much the last chance saloon for a sensible and peaceful outcome.

I can make and implement a sensible and moderate proposal putting the West Elwynn River (not the territory adjacent, just the river) under a demilitarised tripartite administration and ensuring that the division of rights to the waterflow is roughly half of the total flow to Shireroth with a quarter each going subsequently to Amokolia and Ashkenatza respectively.

Its 33.3nothing.

This whole matter has been blown vastly out of proportion because people have taken comments by other people without proper authority as representative of the whole nation*. For a start, Max and Ardy should both know from previous experience that there is virtually no statement all Shirithians will agree on (except perhaps that we all have a soft spot for ). There's almost always a couple people in dissent to any given thing. Exactly the same here. The Shirithian Mini-Ex made no official comment on anything (because he's gone inactive, but that doesn't mean he isn't the one you should be asking to give an official response). The Kaiser has made no official statement on the matter. The only thing anywhere near an official statement was by Scott saying it was all a misunderstanding and why don't we talk about it?

Yes, a couple Dukes supported the proposal that the River Elwynn is Shirithian. But almost immediately Scott spoke up in dissent, exposing the ... shall we say hypocrisy? ... in the Shirithian position. Yardistan was publicly in dissent in the Landsraad. And the new Duke of Elwynn said a whole week ago "The West Bank can go to whoever is over there." And yet there's still this claim bandied around that the whole of Shireroth is in some evil plot to take over all of Benacia (that's Babkha and Eura, guys ... ). That's not to mention Rai's petition to the Kaiser saying he was sorry for starting this mess and would like to fix it by discussion. If Ashkenatza were seriously interested in peace, they wouldn't have reacted so ... aggressively to this issue. To me, it looks like a lot of warmongering and political posturing on their part to make the statement "Hey, we're a big force on Benacia and we won't do what Shireroth asks us to," largely sustained by pulling up old or non-representative Shirithian or Batavian views as straw men to pull down, and ignoring parts where Shireroth made attempts at peace. That's just my view as a lowly Baron and shouldn't be taken as representative of Shireroth as a whole or of any other nations I happen to have citizenship in.

Oh, and there are some really obviously wrong statements in the above thread. Max, you should know the archives. And both you and Ardy should be well aware of the circumstances that restrict Shireroth from claiming as much land as she likes (thus explaining why land isn't marked on the MCS map that she believes she has a claim to). You should also be well aware that, by definition, that makes any comment by Shirithian officials saying "hey, we should claim that area" not official policy and frankly impossible to achieve because the MCS will never (or at least, not with the current council) allow any more pixels. And as to the matter of the river - if you apply the "we each get half the river" logic, well, Mike Fors is perfectly within his rights to say that no non-Brookshirithian ships can pass through the Brookshire area where Shireroth clearly controls both banks. So if you really want to construct dry docks for the purpose of building warships to put in your half of the river for its limited stretch, by all means do so, but it seems to be rather silly to do so, considering you can never move them into international waters without first invading Shireroth ...

*And so you should of course not take this post as representative of the whole nation.

EDIT: Because I realised it sounds more aggressive than it was intended , I should add - what you're asking for is generally quite reasonable, and yes, any reasonable nation should agree to it. But the way you're asking for it tends to come across very aggressively (we demand this ultimatum, we'll not give in to Shirithian Imperialism etc) or betraying ignorance I feel you shouldn't have because I know you've been Shirithian citizens at one or more points in time. And in micronations how you say it often counts a lot more than what you say. You make it sound like if Shireroth now agreed to your reasonable requests, it would be some great victory for you and hence make Shirithians feel disinclined towards agreeing. Where as if you had just said nicely, "Hey guys, be reasonable, we've got land on the other side of the river, we should be able to use the river, kay?" it would probably have been peacefully resolved a long time ago. Of course, you might prefer it the way it currently is.

Hear hear. Well said Andreas.

I would also like to point out that no representative of the Small Commonwealth has at any point even made a comment on the matter.

So I shall, Leave us out of this! If a nation wishes to join, we will likely welcome it. If it does not wish to join there is no means or reason for the Commonwealth or any member of it to try and force others to join.

The Small Commonwealth is here to be a force of good, understanding and international progression, not Shirerithian power. I will fight to the last to make sure this remains true. While I am a Shireroth citizens, in matters concerning the Small Commonwealth, I am foremost the head of the Commonwealth Assembly, and will not let it be used by any nation for it's own power mongering.