[FP] Interview with the SG of the Pacifica, TheJuliusCaesar

Day 3,504, 11:56 Published in Turkey Turkey by J211


Hello fellow citizens of the eWorld. Here is my brand new interview with the Secretary General of the Pacifica, TheJuliusCaesar. It was a real pleasure to make this interview and I hope you will enjoy this too.




First of all thank you for accepting this interview. I hope this will help eRepublik citizens to understand Pacifica and it's policies. Let's start with you. Tell us little bit about yourself. What do you do for living? When did you started the game and tell us the journey to becoming SG of the Pacifica since you have started.


It's always nice to take part in interviews like these, thanks for inviting. I am a 21 year old student from Helsinki, Finland. I generally enjoy hanging outside, Helsinki is a beautiful city. I am most fond of cats and follow politics keenly also in RL, as it goes close to my studying field. Writing is close to my heart, as can probably be deduced from my erep newspaper too.

I started erep back in 2011, I was really young back then. First few months were two-clicking and trying to figure out erep and finding myself into the still vibrant meta game. Finland had a nice forum for country administration and an active IRC channel. Gradually I stepped towards ministerial positions as years went, and by 2014 I was practically a continuous MoFA of Finland, as the player base had sunk low and I had gathered experience. At some point it developed to first Supreme Commandership in the now defunct Asgard alliance in 2014, which was my first dive into the truly global alliance politics. I played major part in Finnish transition from the Asgard alliance to Pacifica in 2015, and gradually took more active role within the alliance too. It all culminated in our former Secretary General and a good friend of mine, Nalaja, presenting me for the SG of Pacifica back in last December. So here we are.



So that's pretty long time in this game. Secondly I would like to ask about your country since you are citizen of Finland. How Finland is doing in the game? Are you sattisfied with you current situation or you could do much more? Tell us one very critical thing that you need to change in your country.


I am still called a young newbie by some of my friends who started the game already in 2008 or 2009 so xdxd

I am most content in the overall position of Finland at the moment. Our cores are intact, our FA game is decent and we have done many endeavours during the last 6 months, for example in UK and in Turkey most recently. Activity and the dwindling player base is, of course, a problem but I believe it is a rather global one. Low activity leads to many vices, in Finland it has caused a stagnant and one-sided party politics, as well as certain ministerial positions being too much associated with just one person rather than an institutionalised continuity. Those are some things needing fixing, but solutions are scarce.



Well that seems pretty common problem in all countries. Since the activity in this game dropped if we look back in 2-3 years there were more people playing it. Yet we have new owners, we will see how that will affect the game activity.

Since you are SG of Pacifica, how your position helps your country inside the alliance and the relations of Finland with other Pacifica countries?


This is an interesting question. I have tried to distance myself from Finland as my native country and treat it as a member among others, representing all the 10 superb nations we have in the alliance. It would be, in my mind, unfair to single out Finland either positively or negatively. In overall, I have sought to approach the SG post with promoting healthy discussion, seeking to connect and perhaps explain arguments of one member to another. Pacifica is a curious alliance in its way, because the "leader" of the alliance is not a leader in a traditional way, not a Supreme Commander. I do not have an authority to decide practically anything, I've often paraphrased the position as more of a coordinator and a negotiator within the alliance than a unilateral autocrat. Members are the strength of the alliance, all stems from them. This has certain consequences for alliance politics, one being that I probably even couldn't favour Finland in decision-making that much even if I wanted to do that, which I don't.



In your words you said Pacifica's members are in the strength of alliance. In the last year Pacifica have gained more power with new members. How do you explain this and what are your plans for the future? What are your aims and goals as an alliance?

New members are a two-edged sword. On the one hand, they indeed add up the strength of the alliance with pure damage, as well as bring valuable foreign affairs connections with them. On the other hand, a one more nation inside means more objectives for an alliance to fulfill, more priorities to try to achieve, more arguments to handle, all of which might be interfering with the objectives, priorities and arguments of other members. Every time a new nation is added, the internal politics of an alliance gains a new level of complexity and enables a possibility of internal rift at some point. This is why Pacifica introduced a new charter last autumn: each new applicant has to receive an unanimous approval by member nations for their application. This guarantees that, at least in the present moment or near future, the objectives, priorities and arguments won't conflict with those of the current members too badly. Member nations are definitiely a strength, but only if the added complexity and possible negative sides can be minimized and diminished.

In my soon ending tenure as a SG I have obviously sought to enhance the overall position of Pacifica. Back in January and February we were on the verge of an annihilation, almost facing a full blown circle of conflicts with the whole ProAsteria side. I am aware not everyone, especially on the now disintegrated Syndicate side of the alliance spectrum, agreed with the direction I started to nudge Pacifica towards to, but I fully stand behind the warming relations with Asteria. I am foremost for Pacifica, which unfortunately sometimes means deteriorating the situation of some other blocs. In future now that we have achieved the medium-term goal and aim of self-preservation? That is something I cannot fully spell out for obvious reasons, but I do think the smoke signals are already in the air to one way or another regarding what the future holds.



As you mentioned Asteria, what are your current relations with them? There might be some differences, they are different alliance at all and sometimes there can be conflicts. Like Hungary-Romania situation in the past. What is the Pacifica's stance on this? What will you do if Hungary decides to attack Romania? Or any other country can be in conflict and can end up with a war, with an Asteria member. What happens then?

This is a much discussed question indeed. During the last months our alliance priorities in foreign affairs have coincided with the priorities of Asteria in the similar field. That enabled us to forge friendships and act almost cooperatively for a shared goal. Certain of our members have more warm relations with proAsterian nations, some a bit less warm. In overall, we have moved towards them in the open field.

You know, in fact I was asked this specific same question a while back in an interview for a Hungarian newspaper about Hungary attacking Romania and vice versa, it's clearly a hot potato. I don't like, again, to engage in much speculation, but I do have employed and strongly brought forward a notion in foreign affairs that, objectively, actions have consequences. Even when detaching the normative opinions of whether something should happen, it is still clear that certain actions will lead to different consequences than other actions, regardless how one feels things should go. Depends wildly on circumstances as to what would happen in such hypothetical occasion



Let's be honest on this one Asteria having good relations with Pacifica is a powerful block. Which makes the enemy, in that case is the former Syndicate states mostly, very weak. Maybe even that affected the Syndicate's disintegration. Don't you think that can change? We know the balance of power can change swiftly in this game. Can we see in the future radical changes in the balance of power? And how Pacifica will react in that case?

I am fully aware indeed and mostly agree with that Pacifica aligning more with Asteria possibly was a significant factor in Syndicate's demise. Alliance balance of power changes among years, as you mentioned. I have not yet witnessed an eternal alliance system, no matter how deep rooted it might look like. Therefore yes, I do indeed see changes in BoP in future, even though I am of the opinion that the creation of Andes lengthened the preservation of current system status quo, as it only knitted the already struggling nations closer to each other rather than seeking to build bridges across alliance lines, which could enable change in BoP. In my mind, Pacifica needs to be proactive, making moves rather than merely adapting to them. Being only reactive means you are always one step behind those designing the actions.



Finally what can you tell to the citizens of eRepublik? After all if we are enemies or friends it is just a game and we are all trying to have some fun right? 🙂

One of my principles in this game is that I do not hate any player or any nation. Sure, I have disagreed with countless players and many nations on myriad of issues, even been blatantly stabbed back and insulted, but I still can't and won't say I hate a certain nation. Politics change, alliances change, people in government change, friends change, enemies change. Good relations last if objectives align, they won't last if the respect is gone, communication is bad and objectives do not align. This is one of the reason why I don't sign the notion of "eternal friends" or allies. See for example what has happened to the Croatia-Romania brotherhood once thought and branded eternal back in EDEN times, examples are numerous.

This game is about having fun. We all do it differently, but that is the core point of it. Some do it based on feelings and spontaneous acts, some do it coldly without emotions and only with pure calculation, some excercise something in between. Let us not hate each other, but play the game or get played by others, in which case you accept your loss and start to devise ways to again gain an upper hand.

In that I agree we should have fun and remember that this is only a game and not hate anyone or any nation. Thanks for the interview, it was a pleasure.

Thank you, my friend