NATION

PASSWORD

[PASSED] WA Development Foundation

A carefully preserved record of the most notable World Assembly debates.
User avatar
Unibot III
Minister
 
Posts: 3162
Founded: Mar 11, 2011
New York Times Democracy

Postby Unibot III » Wed Nov 21, 2012 3:31 am

At first glance, I'd be worried about adverse conditionalities. For example, what if the WA Development Foundation is recommending the privatization of an area -- this is not only a hypothetical example, The IMF and the WB have horrible records of dismantling entire public water or education facilities because of poor recommendations (often based on faulty right-wing economics).

I think this resolution may necessitate a resolution limiting what conditionalities that the World Assembly can set on loans. I dropped that project a while back because it was deemed to be just a blocker.
[violet] wrote:I mean this in the best possible way,
but Unibot is not a typical NS player.
Milograd wrote:You're a caring, resolute lunatic
with the best of intentions.
Org. Join Date: 25/05/2008 | Delegate of The Rejected Realms | Gameplay Alignment: -18 / -13
Unibotian Factbook // An Analysis of NationStates Generations // The Gameplay Alignment Test // NS Weather // How do I join the UDL? // The Transpacific Trade
Paradise Found // The Unibotian Life Expectancy Index // Proudly Authored 9 GA Res., 14 SC Res. // Commended by SC#78 // The Polysemes of Nativeness;

▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
✯ Duty is Eternal, Justice is Imminent: UDL

User avatar
Dagguerro
Envoy
 
Posts: 339
Founded: Apr 05, 2005
Ex-Nation

Postby Dagguerro » Wed Nov 21, 2012 3:36 am

Auralia wrote:
United Federation of Canada wrote: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.


Pretty sure the rules themselves are on your side here, no mod ruling necessary because its already covered:
◦Goes Nowhere, Does Nothing/Bloggish

Also know as a blogposal, this violation usually results from a proposal not actually doing anything due to lack of an operational clause. Remember, proposals must be more than just your idea and why it's great but must also give directions to the WA or member states in what to do. Operational (or directive) clauses would be words such as 'Requires', 'Urges', 'Demands', 'Mandates', etc. If your proposal reads more like a blog post about how it'd be great if the WA did this, it'll get chucked.


Emphasis mine. Given that "Urges" is an appropriate operative clause it is no great stretch to say "Encourages" (which does exactly the same thing) is also a viable operative clause.
Last edited by Dagguerro on Wed Nov 21, 2012 3:36 am, edited 1 time in total.
Patrician Lord Nicholas Ashemore - Elected Supreme Leader of The Benevolent Empire of Dagguerro

His Excellency Lord Daniel Swift - Dagguerrean Ambassador to the World Assembly

User avatar
Parti Ouvrier
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1623
Founded: Aug 19, 2010
Civil Rights Lovefest

We do not support this resolution.

Postby Parti Ouvrier » Wed Nov 21, 2012 11:27 am

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;...


Part of this sounds patronising to me, and the enforced austerity measures, balanced budgets ect I cannot support.


Article III: Sovereign Loans Program

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.
Member nations shall use these loans exclusively to implement the recommendations from their development strategy, though the Foundation may allow exceptions during times of national emergency and economic crisis.


Again this is patronising, and what if the strategy is incompatible with the country that seeks a loan? Perhaps that is where the Foundation "may" allow exceptions during times of economic crisis, but how are exceptions decided? By bureaucrats?
By the way, I am assuming that exceptions will be made in most times of national emergency.

Darren Cahil
WA Ambassador
Last edited by Parti Ouvrier on Wed Nov 21, 2012 11:28 am, edited 1 time in total.
-For a voluntary Federated democratic Republic of Scotland, England and Wales and abolish the House of Lords.
EU: All power to the European parliament! And a democratically controlled ECB!
Abolish the European Council of Ministers
Replace the EU commission by an executive democratically responsible to the parliament.
Level up wages and conditions, industrial unions on a European scale and for the free movement of labour
Towards a Communist Party of the European Union[/spoiler]

User avatar
Villarshtein
Political Columnist
 
Posts: 2
Founded: Aug 29, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Villarshtein » Wed Nov 21, 2012 12:49 pm

Our government is upset that such a proposal has made it to the assembly. Such a proposal is good, but should be moderated. Using such "help" powerful nations running the committee can influence and control the countries they are focusing on. Thus they just build their own power in the disguise of foreign aid. It is just a form of imperialism. We need to limit such power in the committee. >:(

User avatar
Malland
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 43
Founded: May 30, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Malland » Wed Nov 21, 2012 1:17 pm

I can see this hitting 50-50 :clap: Gonna be an interesting one to watch

I voted against, the insurance policy is a bit blurry :unsure:

User avatar
Glen-Rhodes
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 7535
Founded: Jun 25, 2008
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Glen-Rhodes » Wed Nov 21, 2012 3:56 pm

Malland wrote:I can see this hitting 50-50 :clap: Gonna be an interesting one to watch

It's passing by 66% right now. If the past few resolution are decent predictors, there's only around 1,000 more votes to be cast. This resolution will most likely be law in two days.

User avatar
The Union of Gun Toting Nationalists
Civilian
 
Posts: 1
Founded: Nov 20, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby The Union of Gun Toting Nationalists » Wed Nov 21, 2012 10:53 pm

This is the world assembly butting into the imterest of Sovereign nations.

Who's going to fund this absurd nonsense!

User avatar
Motor Polska
Civilian
 
Posts: 1
Founded: Nov 16, 2012
Ex-Nation

Why should I?

Postby Motor Polska » Thu Nov 22, 2012 1:35 pm

Why should I vote for legislation that doesn't clearly specify its outcome on not only my nation-state, but those of other members of the WA. This legislation has the good intention of expanding economic freedom. If someone can clearly explain the bill's effect on political, economic, and social sovereignty, I will be sure to vote for or against it. :)

User avatar
Hittanryan
Senator
 
Posts: 4710
Founded: Mar 10, 2011
New York Times Democracy

Postby Hittanryan » Thu Nov 22, 2012 1:38 pm

Opposed due to Article II, Section 2b in conjunction with Article III, Section 1. This constitutes a coercive measure that is beyond the scope of the WA; developmental loans should not be conditional on what the Republic considers top-down interference in domestic affairs.
Factbook
46 things Ambassador Friedman can no longer do in the realm of diplomacy
In-character name of the nation is "Adiron," because I like the name better.

User avatar
Thesan
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1140
Founded: Mar 19, 2012
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Thesan » Thu Nov 22, 2012 2:45 pm

Thesan strongly oppose this proposal, not only allows "no-limits" privatization of public sectors but also will lend to a drastic reduction of the national sovereignty in the name of a fictitious "economic stability" and it will create a strong difference between the citizens of a "rich" country and the citizens of a country with a "not-so-healthy" economy.
These recipes of economic development taken from an old liberist economy book will not work and there are MANY examples.

As a democratic republic, we cannot tolerate a reduction of the citizens' will in favor of a different and UNELECTED entity as the WA.

If the voting proportions will not change drastically within 24 hours Thesan will probably resign from the WA (this is only an observation, not a threat).
Economic LEFT/Right: -6.62
Social LIBERTARIAN/Authoritarian: -7.38
Patriotic Social Democrat (with 68% of ecological!)
Thesan Territories
Thesan | Nedor | Irova

This nation reflects my political views.

User avatar
The Dominion of Plebians
Lobbyist
 
Posts: 25
Founded: May 26, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby The Dominion of Plebians » Thu Nov 22, 2012 8:00 pm

I fail to see why so many nations are against this proposal. If one disagrees with this scheme, than one can feel free not to participate in it. Further, by providing the money needed for poor nations to open up their borders and build critical infrastructure, this should boost global economic growth. This provides a potential way out for countries that feel that they have no options.

User avatar
Damanucus
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1666
Founded: Dec 10, 2006
Democratic Socialists

Postby Damanucus » Fri Nov 23, 2012 4:52 am

The Dominion of Plebians wrote:I fail to see why so many nations are against this proposal. If one disagrees with this scheme, than one can feel free not to participate in it. Further, by providing the money needed for poor nations to open up their borders and build critical infrastructure, this should boost global economic growth. This provides a potential way out for countries that feel that they have no options.


If you observe the debates, many aren't against the concept; they are merely against its implementation.

Stephanie Orman
Representative, Nomadic Peoples of Damanucus

User avatar
Auralia
Senator
 
Posts: 4021
Founded: Dec 15, 2011
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Auralia » Fri Nov 23, 2012 10:45 am

Damanucus wrote: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?


This program is voluntary, and so will not place any financial burden on member nations unless so desired. The Foundation does not have recourse to the General Fund to keep the program optional.

Damanucus wrote:
Auralia wrote:
  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?


Any foreign direct investment in developing nations may be insured by the Foundation; an indemnity will be paid when damages are suffered due to the listed grounds. The goal of the program is to encourage such investments by reducing the risk associated with doing business with developing nations.

Damanucus wrote:
Auralia wrote:
  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?


Not insuring extremely high risk investments, charging a high premium for relatively high risk investments, that sort of thing.

Unibot III wrote:At first glance, I'd be worried about adverse conditionalities. For example, what if the WA Development Foundation is recommending the privatization of an area -- this is not only a hypothetical example, The IMF and the WB have horrible records of dismantling entire public water or education facilities because of poor recommendations (often based on faulty right-wing economics).

I think this resolution may necessitate a resolution limiting what conditionalities that the World Assembly can set on loans. I dropped that project a while back because it was deemed to be just a blocker.


Privatization and deregulation are not necessarily requirements for loans. II-2 is flexible, stating that any reforms must be appropriate to the nation in question. II-2 was also balanced with "sustainable development programs, democratic reforms, improved respect for fundamental human rights, and increased spending on basic public services".
Last edited by Auralia on Fri Nov 23, 2012 10:46 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Hittanryan
Senator
 
Posts: 4710
Founded: Mar 10, 2011
New York Times Democracy

Postby Hittanryan » Fri Nov 23, 2012 5:07 pm

The Dominion of Plebians wrote:I fail to see why so many nations are against this proposal. If one disagrees with this scheme, than one can feel free not to participate in it. Further, by providing the money needed for poor nations to open up their borders and build critical infrastructure, this should boost global economic growth. This provides a potential way out for countries that feel that they have no options.

Except that aid is conditional on the nations in question altering domestic policy. Adiron does not oppose developmental aid on principle. We do, however, oppose these sorts of structural adjustment programs which tend to result in top-down changes based largely on the ideology of the committee in question. We feel that Article II, Section 2b should be stricken from the resolution in order to minimize politicization of what should be a good idea.

Otherwise, the Republic will not fund the Foundation nor will it be a participant.
Last edited by Hittanryan on Fri Nov 23, 2012 5:17 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Factbook
46 things Ambassador Friedman can no longer do in the realm of diplomacy
In-character name of the nation is "Adiron," because I like the name better.

User avatar
Evanicaland
Secretary
 
Posts: 37
Founded: Feb 29, 2012
Democratic Socialists

Postby Evanicaland » Sat Nov 24, 2012 11:32 am

I am supportive of this because I think that the WA does need a committee to manage member nations. The only problem is the management of this committee. Who will take charge? Also, I think the poverty content needs to be edited. I think there is no need for help towards poor nations, because it is their fault that they have come to a deficit!!
The Constitutional Federation of Evanicaland
Delegation to the Commonwealth of Crowns

User avatar
Free South Califas
Senator
 
Posts: 4213
Founded: May 22, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Free South Califas » Sat Nov 24, 2012 4:12 pm

While we didn't support this resolution, the Califan WAGA detachment would like to express our appreciation for the balanced approach taken by the honorable Auralian delegation, our congratulations on its passing and our hope that its new institutions will be founts of universal aid and prosperity. While we do not categorically oppose all possible repeals, we urge fellow socialist delegations to use the tools given to us in ways that strengthen solidarity and mutual health and welfare.
FSC Government
Senate: Saul Califas; First Deputy Leader of the Opposition
Senior Whip, Communist Party (Meiderup)

WA: Califan WA Detachment (CWAD).
Justice
On Autism/"R-word"
(Lir. apologized, so ignore that part.)
Anarchy Works/Open Borders
Flag
.
.
.
I'm autistic and (proud, but) thus not a "social detective", so be warned: I might misread or accidentally offend you.
'Obvious' implications, tones, cues etc. may also be missed.
SELF MANAGEMENT ✯ DIRECT ACTION ✯ WORKER SOLIDARITY
Libertarian Communist

.
COMINTERN/Stonewall/TRC

Previous

Remove ads

Return to WA Archives

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

Remove ads