What is the UMMOA, or the United Micronations
Multi-Oceanic Archipelago?
The first thing one needs to note is that the term micronation is both a neologism and an exonym, and it is a pretty inferior example of English as well. The term microstate today always implies a small state. However, the term micronation does not imply a small nation, but according to the Wikipedia, an imaginary or aspirational state. Rather than rely on Wikipedian terms, micronationalists should start their aspirations of independence by first adopting an endonym, rather than an exonym, to describe their national entities, and Fifth World nation is a better and more neutral term than micronation, and Sixth World nation is a better and more neutral term to describe a young micronation.
In its article about micronations, the Wikipedia goes on to say that micronations differ from secession and self-determination movements in that they are largely viewed as being eccentric and ephemeral in nature, and micronations also differ from other kinds of social groups such as eco-villages, campuses, tribes, clans, sects, and residential community associations, since they express formal and persistent, even if unrecognised, claims of sovereignty over some physical territory. Why does the Wikipedia use so many examples of what a micronation is not, instead of using a few but clear examples of what a micronation is? Is this some sort of propaganda piece passing for genuine political science? Do we call black people Africans, or African-Americans, depending on where they reside, or do we call them "something less than white people"? A more meaningful and accurate term than micronation would be aspirational or imaginary state, rather than micronation.
It is clear that the UMMOA is not a micronation, not at least as the Wikipedia defines it, and the word itself is unbecoming of any real small nation anyway. The word micronation is a disparaging and a demeaning term, not a neutral and/or scientific one.
Is the UMMOA a state with limited recognition?
This is not the case either. While most of these states are recognised by at least one UN member state, this is not the distinguishing feature of these either. The distinguishing feature of these entities is that they are all de facto states, and some are de jure states as well, despite being diplomatically challenged. A better term to define these would be putative states. The UMMOA is not a de jure state recognised by that special club of states called the United Nations, and it is not a de facto state that has control of its territory either, since it has largely irredentist, rather than secessionist claims.
So what is the UMMOA?
The closest article the Wikipedia has to define it, is the article about national liberation movements recognised by international organisations. The UMMOA definitely belongs in this list, but as the Wikipedia tends to show bias towards certain states (secession and self-determination movements), rather than to others (irredentist and social identity movements), it also tends to show bias towards certain intergovernmental organisations (IGOs), rather than to others. If your national liberation (or active separatist) movement is recognised by the United Nations (UN), well, you are certainly mentioned in the article. If your national liberation movement is recognised by intergovernmental organisations such as the African Union (AU), or the Arab League (AL), then all is well. If your national liberation movement is recognised by the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), then it is also quite acceptable.
The UMMOA is not mentioned in this list either, however, because the genuine intergovernmental organisation which recognises it is the International (States) Parliament for Safety and Peace, and the latter is treated like a pariah intergovernmental organisation, which is, of course, another example of Wikipedian political pseudoscience. The UMMOA is also recognised by another intergovernmental organisation, the Organization of Emerging African States (OEAS), and since the UMMOA is also an IGO in its own right, it has consultative organisation status with the OEAS, and is also affiliated with non-governmental organisations (NGOs) that are international in scope, such as the Federation of International Blue Cross & Blue Crescent Organisations (FIBCO).
The UMMOA, like other real states, incorporates several companies or organisations, some of which are international in scope. Some of these companies or organisations, such as the Micronational Professional Registry, the Fifth World Health Organisation, Saint René Descartes University, and the Salubriology School, are affiliated institutional members of NGOs that are international in scope, and some companies or organisations, such as the Cesidian Root and Saint René Descartes University, have consultative status with IGOs.
The UMMOA, like another superpower, also runs its own alternative DNS root server system or Internet, the Cesidian Root.
The UMMOA has the traits of a tiny thing, like a micronation. It has the traits of a very big thing, like a superpower. And the UMMOA is also somewhere in the middle. You can belittle us, as much smaller micronations often do; or ignore us, as much bigger superpowers; however, you will be able to deny we are a nation, a state, and an international organisation only if you are intellectually challenged.
It is completely obvious to us that the UMMOA is an emerging state, but it may not be completely obvious to you that you may be living in a decaying state, a has-been, a former power, a future Ozymandias.
The first thing one needs to note is that the term micronation is both a neologism and an exonym, and it is a pretty inferior example of English as well. The term microstate today always implies a small state. However, the term micronation does not imply a small nation, but according to the Wikipedia, an imaginary or aspirational state. Rather than rely on Wikipedian terms, micronationalists should start their aspirations of independence by first adopting an endonym, rather than an exonym, to describe their national entities, and Fifth World nation is a better and more neutral term than micronation, and Sixth World nation is a better and more neutral term to describe a young micronation.
In its article about micronations, the Wikipedia goes on to say that micronations differ from secession and self-determination movements in that they are largely viewed as being eccentric and ephemeral in nature, and micronations also differ from other kinds of social groups such as eco-villages, campuses, tribes, clans, sects, and residential community associations, since they express formal and persistent, even if unrecognised, claims of sovereignty over some physical territory. Why does the Wikipedia use so many examples of what a micronation is not, instead of using a few but clear examples of what a micronation is? Is this some sort of propaganda piece passing for genuine political science? Do we call black people Africans, or African-Americans, depending on where they reside, or do we call them "something less than white people"? A more meaningful and accurate term than micronation would be aspirational or imaginary state, rather than micronation.
It is clear that the UMMOA is not a micronation, not at least as the Wikipedia defines it, and the word itself is unbecoming of any real small nation anyway. The word micronation is a disparaging and a demeaning term, not a neutral and/or scientific one.
Is the UMMOA a state with limited recognition?
This is not the case either. While most of these states are recognised by at least one UN member state, this is not the distinguishing feature of these either. The distinguishing feature of these entities is that they are all de facto states, and some are de jure states as well, despite being diplomatically challenged. A better term to define these would be putative states. The UMMOA is not a de jure state recognised by that special club of states called the United Nations, and it is not a de facto state that has control of its territory either, since it has largely irredentist, rather than secessionist claims.
So what is the UMMOA?
The closest article the Wikipedia has to define it, is the article about national liberation movements recognised by international organisations. The UMMOA definitely belongs in this list, but as the Wikipedia tends to show bias towards certain states (secession and self-determination movements), rather than to others (irredentist and social identity movements), it also tends to show bias towards certain intergovernmental organisations (IGOs), rather than to others. If your national liberation (or active separatist) movement is recognised by the United Nations (UN), well, you are certainly mentioned in the article. If your national liberation movement is recognised by intergovernmental organisations such as the African Union (AU), or the Arab League (AL), then all is well. If your national liberation movement is recognised by the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), then it is also quite acceptable.
The UMMOA is not mentioned in this list either, however, because the genuine intergovernmental organisation which recognises it is the International (States) Parliament for Safety and Peace, and the latter is treated like a pariah intergovernmental organisation, which is, of course, another example of Wikipedian political pseudoscience. The UMMOA is also recognised by another intergovernmental organisation, the Organization of Emerging African States (OEAS), and since the UMMOA is also an IGO in its own right, it has consultative organisation status with the OEAS, and is also affiliated with non-governmental organisations (NGOs) that are international in scope, such as the Federation of International Blue Cross & Blue Crescent Organisations (FIBCO).
The UMMOA, like other real states, incorporates several companies or organisations, some of which are international in scope. Some of these companies or organisations, such as the Micronational Professional Registry, the Fifth World Health Organisation, Saint René Descartes University, and the Salubriology School, are affiliated institutional members of NGOs that are international in scope, and some companies or organisations, such as the Cesidian Root and Saint René Descartes University, have consultative status with IGOs.
The UMMOA, like another superpower, also runs its own alternative DNS root server system or Internet, the Cesidian Root.
The UMMOA has the traits of a tiny thing, like a micronation. It has the traits of a very big thing, like a superpower. And the UMMOA is also somewhere in the middle. You can belittle us, as much smaller micronations often do; or ignore us, as much bigger superpowers; however, you will be able to deny we are a nation, a state, and an international organisation only if you are intellectually challenged.
It is completely obvious to us that the UMMOA is an emerging state, but it may not be completely obvious to you that you may be living in a decaying state, a has-been, a former power, a future Ozymandias.