Interview with PEACE Secretary General: on the current state of PEACE

Day 643, 18:51 • Published in France Canada • by Adam Legge

Welcome to "Conversations", the newspaper that brings the thoughts and opinions of prominent eRepublik figures to you, the people.

There's is no question that we find ourselves in the middle of the largest war in eRepublik history. Neutral countries are scarce and the tally of defeated countries is slowly growing. After the defeat of Atlantis, formerly the largest alliance in the eWorld, PEACE GC is the strongest force on this earth, comprised of 25 countries and nearly half the World's citizens. 4/5 and 6/10 top nations are members of this global force.

Khan's Mongolia, Alexander's Greece, the Roman Empire, Communist Russia. These are all examples of empires that grew so large, they'd lost their emotion, their humanity. Inevitably as a civilization represents more and more people, it resembles the people less and less. As this numbness progresses, the empire gains critics, adversaries, enemies, even from inside their own borders. Khan's descendants were defeated, Alexander was poisoned, the Roman empire fractured, and the USSR was divided.

Ever louder are the critics standing on ever higher soapboxes. PEACE has entered its climax. It has crushed its adversaries and it is dominant. No one will argue that. Slowly though, the wide-eyed observer may see cracks in its foundation, despite the rigidity with which it stands today.

This week I had a conversation with Secretary General of PEACE, Matthieu Bonne. A native of France, Bonne may be one of the most powerful figures in the eWorld. Since taking the reins of the largest alliance in history on July 9th, Matthieu Bonne has certainly left an undeniable mark. I spoke with Secretary General Bonne at 7:00 eRepublik time, Day 643 on the PEACE IRC. The conversation went as follows:

Adam Legge: Hello Matthieu, thanks for your time!

Matthieu Bonne: Hi Adam!

AL: For the readers, can you briefly summarize the cause and purpose of this war?

MB: Well, there were many goals. Retaliation from previous wars (French Toast) and having some fun together were the two we all shared, I think. PEACE had been defending for months, trying to protect its members, and now we had the opportunity to attack our old opponents. There's no hatred in that, that's just the game.

AL: Ok, so in its essence it was a defensive retaliation.

MB: We had been planning this in the past weeks and when we started the first battle in Canada. We did it knowing we would go to the end. Well, i won't make hypocrisy and say "it was to protect ourselves", you know. They attacked us many times, now we were stronger, so we made them the honour of a little invasion. Of course it helps our members since it weakens our opponents. But that's an offensive stance, and I my humble opinion there's no shame in it since we face countries that attacked us many times before!

AL: Haha, I understand. Now, many critics would say that PEACE GC is guilty of precisely the same wrongs it accuses its enemies of, for example imperialism, oppression, and unwanted occupation of foreign territory. So, you would say that's not exactly hypocrisy, as much as it is justification for the invasion

MB: We don't invade countries who didn't do us harm before, that's one thing. And we don't try to completely force occupation of any country! That would be stupid anyway.

AL: Well said, a good point.

MB: We're in a game that's focused on war, and being called "PEACE" doesn't mean we never attack - we just don't do it for no reason, and our top priority is our members' security (we don't attack when one of us is in danger).

AL: So, the defensive alliance clause of the constitution doesn't mean its a passive alliance, as much as it means its top priority is defense, and foreign campaigns are secondary.

MB: That's it. But to be very honest, we've been talking about modifying this charter, so people don't misunderstand it.

AL: It is commonly misunderstood. Canada and Spain have been successfully defeated and the USA had surrendered to the PEACE invasion. In a loophole sparking nearly unanimous international outrage, Russia has foregone signing the NAP and continued the North Eastern offensive. Prime Minister Jacobi of Canada in the previous edition of Conversations cited the continued offensive as a "slap in the face." What is your opinion? What is PEACE's official stance on Russia's actions? Do you sympathise with the Americans?

MB: Well, a peace treaty must be accepted by all parts of the deal. Russia didn't accept it, they said it clearly. We can't force them. That's not a "slap in the face", that's just a proof that we don't all want the same things. But as always, PEACE supports its members, especially since Russia (like France) has been the spearhead of the first attacks.

AL: Do you condemn their actions?

MB: Definitely not. Personally, I would have liked to sign the treaty, really - it was good for everyone. But Russia was in its rights, so that's it.

AL: Do you have any sympathy for America, specifically Emerick, because he put his political reputation on the line?

MB: Hmmm... Well, yes. I think he did what he could. But maybe the Russian decision will be something good for eUSA on the long term, you know.

AL: Just as it was good for Canada. OK, last question about criticism before we get to some questions on policy! Critics of PEACE, some inside the alliance itself, have said the major member-countries have not divided the spoils of war among the orbital members. How do you respond?

MB: That's inaccurate. Big countries (I don't like words like "major" or "orbital" - we are all equal in PEACE, and that's a principle I will always fight for) spent a lot of money to do this war. We'll never reach a fair result - of course some countries took more benefit from this war while others didn't. But I don't think we can see it as a big/little issue. And honestly, this war cost much more than it already gave us - it will take months for that. I tried to convince the Security Council of the necessity of a PEACE Funding that would spread and share the money between all members, and I hope our next Secretary General will finalize the project, this is more and more necessary.

AL: OK, that's a fair response. This war has been fought impeccably from the PEACE front. In a little over a month, you have brought some of the strongest nations of the eWorld to their knees, while bringing stability and prosperity to the alliance. What would have to happen for this, the biggest war in history, to end? Does there exist an official PEACE policy on this? Are you aiming for complete eradication of enemy nations? Or simple non-aggression agreements?

MB: We don't aim for eradication of any country.

AL:Haha right answer.

MB: We aim for victory. And that's what we had, in my opinion at least.

AL: There's not many that would argue against you there.

MB: Now, we must mix two goals: let the defeated countries win their freedom back without threatening our members; and secure some regions we want to keep (spoils of war): California, Asturias, Nunavut (and Quebec, may i add as a french citizen). I think the result will depend on our ability to negotiate with these countries - I think we can do it with Canada and USA, but Spain doesn't want any negotiation for now.

AL: Will you invade Romania?

MB: Haha, I won't answer, sorry...

AL: Haha that's OK I understand.

MB: But i can tell you something - Romania wasn't in our plan. Will it be one day? I don't know, our council will decide But the current war was against USA, Canada and Spain - and Croatia since they TOed Italy.

AL: Are all non-members of PEACE enemies? Suppose an enemy country, after defeat, agreed to end all PEACE-directed aggression if their territories were returned. Would this notion be entertained?

MB: Neutral countries aren't enemies, of course. I think the case you mention is interesting but we want to keep a few regions we conquered to pay the war - maybe a clause to give the regions back after X months could work. As far as i know, some talks have already been made with one of our opponents to sign a NAP in exchange of most of their regions.

AL: Recently there has been much confusion surrounding the reasons behind the impeachment of Hungarian president, Falban. Can you shed any light on this issue?

MB: No, sorry, I can't talk about our members' internal affairs.

AL: Ok, no problem. Finally, do you have a message you want to convey to the enemies of PEACE or even to the public generally?

MB: To our opponents, I'd just like to ask them if they have had some fun with this war - I hope they have. We tried to play fair and avoid trash-talk and insults (like we saw too much during French Toast), and I think everyone had the opportunity to have fun. And to the public generally, well, let's celebrate PEACE's birthday. One year after its creation, under the heavy pressure of the almighty Atlantis, we managed to change the New World's balance and achieve the most incredible conquest we could have dreamt of. I think we can be proud of this success. I hope the next months will be as entertaining.

AL: You speak as if you regard this war as being over. Is that a commonly held belief in PEACE?

MB: No, that's my personal opinion, since we won NJ and Asturias.

AL: Haha I see. Well thanks a lot for your time, I really appreciate it.

MB: You're welcome!

After a series of crushing defeats (the Spanish RWs, the Canadian RWs, the Croat campaign, and Nord-Norge) at the hands of Eden and its allies, members of PEACE may not be polishing their arms just yet. Patriots of PEACE may say that after weeks of fighting, this is simply a time to regroup. However, keen analysts of the eWorld may see the cracks widening into gaps in PEACE's mighty cornerstones.

That's all for this edition of "Conversations", I hope you've enjoyed the article. If you have any comments on the interview or suggestions on who you would like to see in future editions, message me, Adam Legge. Vote, subscribe, pass it on, and keep your eye out for the next Conversation!

Adam Legge