Querren Edition
Querren: Northern TensionsWagstaffe, Ainslie
Querren on Tuesday night featured the Deputy Prime Minister of Siberia North, the Head of State of Ainslie and the Defence Minister of Covonant. The debate around tensions in the northern seas of the Isles dominated the discussion, with the intended topic being Rationalism vs Reactionism. Querren was happening out of Wagstaffe, a city based near a floodplain, and a bastion of advocates for common sense Ahnslen politics.
The hosts and producers of Querren knew that the world would be watching this program, and thus, the standard reactionary liberal rhetoric was removed and each group of society appeared to be represented proportionally. Many media commentators hope that this is a precedent that will continue.
This episode was destined to be a good one, with the two major sides of a potential war being at one panel. The questions about the incident begun quickly, and barely stopped. Here are some of the most interesting questions posed to the guests by the audience.
Q: This is to the Defence Minister of Covonant. Is your visit a sign of closer relations with Ainslie, and if so, will we begin to see more Covonantian influence in Gael?
C: Covonant has always had an interest in having a presence in Gael. We have maintained very close relations with Ostehaar and Noronica, and with Agadar as well. We see Ainslie as an ally and friend of Covonant and with Ainslie joining the Cooperative Union, we saw it as a nation that we wanted to forge a closer relations to. We saw that evident with the state visit of Prime Minister Kenzai to Covonant which saw discussions relating to closer relations expressed so my visit to Ainslie is to foster closer relations. As I said earlier that Covonant has maintained close relations with most areas in Gael and with our new relation with Ainslie there will be more Covonantian presence in the sub-region and by extension more Covonantian influence shall arise as well.
Q: To the Mr Shirazi, do you believe that Covonantian influence is good for the region?
A: Well, we see Covonant as a nation which is surprisingly similar to us when factoring in its distance. I believe that a counterbalance to the more imperialist forces in the region can never be a bad thing.
Q: Hi, I would like to know how the condemning of peace talks works, and most importantly, why this was done.
C: Well firstly condemnation of peace talks by countries in the region and more so communistic states is a threat to the peace and stability of the region. For a country to condemn the peaceful route of solving a conflict or crisis is really saying to the international community from that state that they don’t value the art of diplomacy and they are not for peace. I personally can’t say why it was done, what I can assume is that such states believe that it portrays them as weak and prevents them from exercising what goals they may have wanted to, but for me seeking a peaceful route at an issue shows that you are willing to cooperate and to have peace reigns.
Siberia: While I do agree that condemning peace talks is a threat to the peace and stability of this region, the peace talks never benfit the commies side of view! The peace talks between SanJ and Ronnea has failed. Another one will make the whole thing worst.
Q: Does the condemning of peace talks damage international credibility?
C: I don’t see it damaging international credibility, more so than it damages the credibility of a state. They are many countries in the region that supports a peace initiative taken. So internationally there is great support for peace, a few states however don’t understand the value of peace and so condemns it. That speaks loud of the character of the leaders and nation. Those are the country that will have a hard time with Covonant as we will not tolerate their antagonistic views that threatens peace.
Q: On the note of the peace talks, what shall we expect from them?
C: I don’t want to speak too quickly on that matter. I am hopeful that a peaceful solution will arise. Covonant has been trying very hard to have both sides deal with the conflict amicably. Only time will tell if it is a success or not.
Q: How, if we can, bridge the divide between capitalists and communists and forge meaningful change and foster international cooperation between these nations?
C: We first have to appreciate our difference and understand that our politics and ideologies are different but should not focus moreso on the difference but what makes us similar and unique. I personally believe that Communist state do not want to be in constant fighting with democratic states, nor do democratic states want to constantly be at odds with communist states, so we want peace, we want to co-exist and cooperate within the international system and the Isles. But some states are somewhat egoistic and it makes it hard to reach out to those states that are prized on being loud but are saying nothing of worth. But the divide can be mended by mutual respect and understanding of each other's differences and not making it so much of an issue.
Sibera: If the capitalists ever want to befriend commies they need to stop having such powerful alliances. Alliances like MSTO forces communists nations to build a military to prevent invasion! This has been the case for a long time!
Q: Is Siberia North a nation which is reactionary and adverse in its nature, if so, to what extent would Siberia North go to in order to protect its’ interests?
C: I think all states have a limit to how far they will go in whatever they are pursuing. At some point that state would have to ask, is it necessary for me to put my people at risk for political cause? I think at times they are reactionary without making proper assessment of what the ends may do to them, but being reactive doesn’t mean they are foolish. They know exactly what they are doing and why they are doing it, The question is how far are they willing to take it. I personally don’t think they have that much leverage within the region to take it too far, at some point realism kicks in and they realise that it would be hard to pursue or “protect” its interest as it may be conflictual.