[PASSED] WA Development Foundation

[Auralia]

...what? No nation is being forced into anything; participation in the sovereign loans program is optional.

PRECISELY why this piece of legislation is illegal. It doesn't legislate ANYTHING. All it does is give nations the OPTION to sit on an OPTIONAL committee, and borrow money from the WA, if they WANT TO.

GHR has been submitted on this one on several violations. We can only hope the Secretariat get around to looking at it before this gets to vote.

ENCOURAGES clauses are considered non-optional in the sense that a nation is required to be encouraged. This proposal contains one of them, and therefore does not fall afoul of the optionality rule.

[United Federation of Canada]

Really? Has there been an official ruling on this?

[Auralia]

Really? Has there been an official ruling on this?

Perhaps, though I'm not aware of one. However, if you read through the thread, there seems to be consensus on this point.

Precedent seems to be on my side as well. Biomedical Innovation Organization's non-committee provisions are optional.

[Xarxis]

OOC: Yanking them from the queue because of their rule-bending is all well and good, but if this gets to vote (which it will in less than 48 hours, unless somebody can catch an illegality) then we need some IC reasons why it's a fallacy!

The Councils of Xarxis can not and will not support your proposal in its current form.

The World Assembly Development Foundation is established, mandated with promoting socioeconomic development in developing member nations through foreign investment...

Foreign investment could mean anything. Even something as ridiculous as loans with 500% interest rates. Until "foreign investment" is explained, the Councils can't support this.

1. The Foundation shall conduct extensive research relating to socioeconomic development in all developing member nations. All of the Foundation's research shall be released to the general public.
2. Based on its research, the Foundation shall create a comprehensive development strategy for all developing member nations, including as necessary:
   1. capital investment projects designed to improve the infrastructure required to support future economic development and provide basic public services;
   2. governmental reforms designed to promote good governance and remove barriers to foreign investment and international trade, including but not limited to austerity measures, balanced budgets, trade liberalization, privatization and deregulation, sustainable development programs, democratic reforms, improved respect for fundamental human rights, and increased spending on basic public services as appropriate; and
   3. reasonable timelines for the completion of the aforementioned projects and reforms.
   Development strategies shall be drafted with the full participation of all the major stakeholders in the subject nation.

1. Xarxis is a developing member nation, so your Foundation shall (as in "it shall be done") conduct extensive research on the development of Xarxis. It shall then release this information of Xarxis' development (or lack thereof) to the general public (meaning every WA nation), whether we want them to or not. How is that going to help us?
a. The main "infrastructure" of Xarxis (and several other nations as well) is based on manufacturing weapons. We implore you to realize how foolish you seem now, given that you're advocating the production of weapons to improve the economy.
b. We're socialists. Do you really believe we'll agree to this? Yes, our entire government is elected (hence, we're democrats), but the economy is under the control of the Councils, and it will stay that way. We would trade with other nations if we had anything to trade besides firearms! Who buys firearms? People preparing for war, who we really don't want to encourage. Fundamental human rights? First off, it has come to the attention of the Councils that not every nation is solely inhabited by humans. Xarxis may be a human nation, but that doesn't mean we're blind to the existence of non-humans.

In general, member nations are encouraged to provide debt relief to other member nations during times of national emergency and economic crisis.

...this is not a requirement. There is nothing in this that forces us to provide debt relief to some other nation, and, more importantly, there is nothing that forces any other nations from providing us with debt relief.

Beyond these points, we can find no other issues with your proposal. If you were to fix them, we Xarxans would gladly support your well-intentioned proposal.
But as it stands, our vote is guaranteed to be AGAINST when the time comes.

[Auralia]

Foreign investment could mean anything. Even something as ridiculous as loans with 500% interest rates. Until "foreign investment" is explained, the Councils can't support this.

I have no clue what you're concerned about. You'll have to explain.

Xarxis is a developing member nation, so your Foundation shall (as in "it shall be done") conduct extensive research on the development of Xarxis. It shall then release this information of Xarxis' development (or lack thereof) to the general public (meaning every WA nation), whether we want them to or not. How is that going to help us?

It will help member nations make better decisions about whether to loan money to your country, and for what purposes.

The main "infrastructure" of Xarxis (and several other nations as well) is based on manufacturing weapons. We implore you to realize how foolish you seem now, given that you're advocating the production of weapons to improve the economy.

I'm not sure where the resolution says the Foundation will advocate for the production of weapons. There is more than one form of economic development, you know.

We're socialists. Do you really believe we'll agree to this?

I don't know, but you don't have to, so why do you care so much?

...this is not a requirement. There is nothing in this that forces us to provide debt relief to some other nation, and, more importantly, there is nothing that forces any other nations from providing us with debt relief.

...so?

[Malland]

Article 4

Why does the investor need to pay risk premium when lending a hand to developing region is already a huge risk?

[Firstaria]

I'm actually TEMPTED to vote for this only because is finally a well written resolution, the WA in general was seeing collecting a streak of horrible ones in the last times.

However, I examined the whole program and...it doesn't sound so bad. It looks as a way to regulate under the WA banner the loans to the poor countries for their development, assuring more balance in the whole affair.

This brings me to the point that this resolution will be important, discussed, repealed and rewrote several times until reaching his balance itself. But that's the WA game, and for now what I read here is so good that my vote goes FOR it.

[Auralia]

Article 4

Why does the investor need to pay risk premium when lending a hand to developing region is already a huge risk?

Are you familiar with how insurance works?

[Damanucus]

I'm going to apologize in advance if I bring up points which have been addressed already; I've just been busy helping out on a...project...

Recognizing that developing member nations often encounter significant difficulties in making capital investments and attracting foreign investment,

Probably not just developing nations, but let's not get petty with that.

1. The World Assembly Development Foundation is established, mandated with promoting socioeconomic development in developing member nations through foreign investment and international trade.
2. The Foundation shall conduct extensive research relating to socioeconomic development in all developing member nations. All of the Foundation's research shall be released to the general public.

Again, not just developing nations. It would be better if it did an analysis of all nations under WA jurisdiction.

1. The Foundation is authorized to offer sovereign loans at its discretion to any developing member nation. Nations must have made a good-faith effort towards implementing the governmental reforms recommended by their development strategy, though the Foundation may allow exceptions during times of national emergency and economic crisis.

This may be a stupid question, but where, may I ask, will this money come from?

1. Loans extended by the Foundation shall be entirely financed by willing member nations. The Foundation shall not be held liable in the event that a member nation defaults on a loan. A nation's share of all loan payments and influence on the Foundation's loan policy shall be proportional to the size of its contributions to the Foundation.

...Then again, never mind. Although, given that member nations are also ask to assist in debt relief, maybe this will be straw that breaks the camel's back financially? Additionally, shouldn't the Foundation be financed by the General Fund first and foremost, since nations are already investing in it?

1. The Foundation is authorized to insure any foreign investment in developing member nations at its discretion when available insurance is inadequate. The grounds for a claim are limited to currency inconvertibility, expropriation, war, terrorism and civil disturbance, breaches of contract, and governmental failure to honour financial obligations.

Care to elaborate on this statement?

1. The Foundation shall take any reasonable course of action to avoid bankruptcy, and must maintain a minimum liquidity ratio of 10% at all times.

And how, may I ask, shall the Foundation avoid bankruptcy?

I shall refrain at this point from voting, at least until I can be assured of an answer to my concerns.

Stephanie Orman
Representative, Nomadic Peoples of Damanucus

[EuroSoviet]

I will oppose to any neoliberist plan that only brings to more inequality and poverty around the world, for the benefit of the privileged elite, and at the expense of the majority of the population.
Any resolution advocating the privatisation of the resources and elementary services, as well as any deregulation attempt, should be rejected by anyone that recognises in these policies the cause of the current economic crisis as well as the explosion of the financial crisis in 2008.

As a leftist I utterly reject the resolution and I raise again the ideal of social justice and a more fair world.

[Baarle-Hertog H-23]

Agreed. Fuck neo-global capitalism and the same old colonialism in the same old 20th-century form of usurious "world bank"-type "development" loans.

It's this kind of propping up that keeps that wretched system of inequality from collapsing. I say let it die.

Nyet!

[BushSucks-istan]

BushSucks-istan and its region The alliance of Jacques will vote against this resolution. We will not permit the capitalization of the lesser nations on this planet. If this act passes corporations will make profit out of these developing countries at the expense of the people.

[Allinlia]

His excellency is concerned about article II. 2. b. which talks about "governmental reforms" to be implemented in developing member nations. We do not want to wake up one day and find that the WA is forcing a small, overly privatized government on newly growing nations, or worse, on us should we be classified as "developing"

We would like clarification on what exactly this clause is meant to do, are these recommendations? Are the developing nations bound by the findings of these reports? What exactly does "trade liberalization" "privatization and deregulation" and "democratic reforms" entail?

[Pragia]

The council is absolutely against this bill, due to the lack of any mandate and the "encouragement" of giving unspecified sums of money, without any good reason, to any nation qualified as "developing" no matter how corrupt or contrary to our views it is.

[Tskhinvali]

If this passes,We are out of the WA.


~WA Ambassador Erik Helms

[Glen-Rhodes]

The council is absolutely against this bill, due to the lack of any mandate and the "encouragement" of giving unspecified sums of money, without any good reason, to any nation qualified as "developing" no matter how corrupt or contrary to our views it is.

If Pragia does not wish to lend, it does not have to lend. If Pragia does not feel any nation is qualified, then none of those nations will receive any loans from Pragia. This isn't some kind of sovereign welfare fund. It's a loan facilitator.

[Free To Chose]

This proposal is much related to the fractional reserve banking system of interest rates through loans of impoverished nations in the event to try and raise them up. This system has been displayed throughout the world and has proven to be a way of keeping those the most impoverished still impoverished through collected debt with rising interest and where would these loans come from when it says member nations as members of the WA would be funding public service of other countries I'm for the lowering of trade barriers and lower regulation and for the use of a balance budget but we must allow the sovereignty of these nations to decide to their own economic faith without the use of credit with other nations money and also want does it mean when it says the default of loans of other nations does that mean that the nations could default on their won dues to nations and the program of loaning this money wont be held responsible.

[Xarxis]

...I find it odd that with all the people against this on the forums, it's already got a nearly 2-to-1 for/against ratio.

[Libraria and Ausitoria]

We remain firmly in favour of the principal of this proposal, although we wish the research program extended to non-developing member nations and we wish the financing program extended directly to non-member nations, so that funding could be greater and private markets invigorated.

However, fortunately we can do something about the latter:

From: The International Trade and Customs Office, Libraria and Ausitoria
To: The World, particularly people with money who want to make more, and people without it who could borrow some to make it

In the event of the passage of the WADF resolution at vote in the World Assembly, The Imperial Commonwealth of Libraria and Ausitoria will be happy to borrow money from any organization operating under WA laws, and to automatically invest it on their behalf in Sovereign loans of their choice established by the WADF under the WADF resolution. The Imperial Commonwealth of Libraria and Ausitoria automatically guarantees, as per our constitution, to respect in full the rights of organizations to collect their fair share of interest and will automatically pass on the opinions of such organizations to directly influence the Foundation's loan policy proportionally to the investing organization's investment(s).

We are convinced that such an action will enormously increase the capacity of the WADF to receive funding for their loans and provide investors with properly informed investment opportunities without compare, improving rich and poor economies alike.

We have the honour to remain,
Your servants,
The ITCO, Libraria and Ausitoria

And so we are wholeheartedly for this proposal.

[RB Rebecca Black]

This was well-written, but the WA cannot and should not exercise the authority to be handing out loans. We are not a financial institution, and we do not need to be one in order to encourage development. Opposed.

[Communal Ecotopia]

May we propose a few amendments?

Section 2. The Foundation shall create a comprehensive poverty reduction strategy for all developing member nations based on its research. The strategy must be drafted with the full participation of all the major stakeholders in the subject nation.

Section 3. A poverty reduction strategy must include as necessary:

1. capital projects targeted at improving the infrastructure required to provide basic services to the population and support future economic development,
2. appropriate governmental reforms, including austerity measures and balanced budgets, democratic reforms, improving respect for fundamental human rights, anti-corruption legislation, trade liberalization and privatization, increased spending on basic social programs, and the promotion of sustainable development, and
3. a reasonable timeline for the completion of these projects and reforms.

As for Articles II to IV, we are indeed concerned at the considerable risk the WA would be taking upon itself. As such we would much prefer to limit these activities to an enabling mechanism whereby the Foundation recommends worthy nations who should receive loans and aid.

It is this section 3 that concerns us most. We see "governmental reforms" and hear echos of the Structural Adjustment Programs which have wreaked havoc upon the poor in RL Earth nations when mandated by organizations such as the WTO and World Bank. If these are in any way mandated in order for loans to proceed, we cannot, in good conscience, approve of this legislation, well-written though it is.

[Communal Ecotopia]

Isn't optionality an illegality for proposals?

I raised this issue back on the first page:

if Discoveria is allowed to see this proposal pass without contributing to it in any way, doesn't the whole proposal fall foul of the Optionality rule? You have a committee which does something, but only makes demands of willing nations.

With the current draft, one could argue that nations are required to observe the following in good faith:

Development strategies shall be drafted with the full participation of all the major stakeholders in the subject nation.

The rest of the proposal looks totally optional to me.

It's obviously optional in a strict sense, but, as an opponent, it seems like we're creating a framework of last resort here for nations in extremis who likely have very few other options but to submit to the conditions of the organization created in exchange for a loan.

[Malland]

Article 4

Why does the investor need to pay risk premium when lending a hand to developing region is already a huge risk?

Are you familiar with how insurance works?

Paying premium when bailing regions out for their own failure dosent make sense?

[The Dominion of Plebians]

Are you familiar with how insurance works?

Paying premium when bailing regions out for their own failure dosent make sense?

If I take out insurance on a loan, house, car, etc. I essentially transfer the risk to someone else. If something terrible happens, I'm get my money at the insurance providers expense, therefore one pays for the transfer of risk. Further, to pay for potential claims, the insurance company must charge a premium. No one is forcing anyone to take out said insurance, however, it is only there to help calm potential investors.

Also, this isn't a "bail-out." They're not getting money because they can't pay their current loans, they're getting money to start economic development. If I believe Country A has potential, I can loan it money to give it a chance through the WA with this legislation. If they grow, I get my money back, if they don't, I don't. If I believe that there is a risk that a jealous neighbor may nuke them, then I take out insurance to try to cap my losses if that indeed happens. This is really a very elegant piece of legislation.

[Fusion Corp]

Concerning the the proposed World Assembly Development Foundation legislation

governmental reforms designed to promote good governance and remove barriers to foreign investment and international trade, including but not limited to austerity measures, balanced budgets, trade liberalization, privatization and deregulation, sustainable development programs, democratic reforms, improved respect for fundamental human rights, and increased spending on basic public services as appropriate

The World Assembly is a political institution, not a financial one. This "foundation" promotes better fiscal responsibility and human rights, but privatising resources will only exacerbate problems by opening up countries to big capital exploitation and cutting off a primary source of income for these developing nations. The Fusion Corp will not stand for such blatantly contradictory policy such as "increased respect for human rights" and "privatisation and deregulation" which goes against all World Assembly and stated Development Foundation ethics by promoting wage manipulation and rights mangling via big capital exploitation, which is allowed by said "deregulation".
Austerity policy has been shown time and time again to retard growth and exacerbate economic problems, by disallowing economic subsidisation of key sectors which are essential as employment and investment industries. Promoting austerity decreases investor confidence, and ultimately contradicts to supposed "goals" of this institution.

Either re-write this legislation, or remove it from the vote, as it is looking more like a investment security firm hiding under the guise of "national development" than it is a "foundation" for the latter.

The Popular Trust of the Fusion of the Peoples and Liable Government