[PASSED] WA Development Foundation

[Auralia]

WA Development Foundation
Category: Free Trade | Strength: Mild

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

The General Assembly adopts the following resolution:

Article I: Mandate

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

Article II: Development Strategies

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.

Article III: Sovereign Loans Program

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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. In general, member nations are encouraged to provide debt relief to other member nations during times of national emergency and economic crisis.

Article IV: Foreign Investment Insurance Program

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.
2. The Foundation shall charge premiums to investors sufficiently high to cover the risk of their investment and the expenses incurred in determining that risk.
3. The Foundation shall take any reasonable course of action to avoid bankruptcy, and must maintain a minimum liquidity ratio of 10% at all times.

---

OOC: This proposal closely resembles the World Bank. In fact, the valid criteria for an insurance claim are based on those of the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency.

[Auralia]

Anyone interested in this proposal?

[Cowardly Pacifists]

All this proposal does is create a committee and empower that committee to give out our money at its discretion. It kind of requires our money be used for "poverty reduction" (which means whatever the hell the committee wants it to mean), though the "primarily" language in Clause III,2 means that a little less than half of it can go to whatever the recipient nation damn-well pleases (including, perhaps, building nuclear warheads - hey, it would put a lot of people to work, right?).

As a cherry on top, it offers investment insurance - exactly the kind of investment insurance that can wreck the international economy if, say, a few too many nations use their loans to build weapons and then completely abandon their loan repayment obligations (who's going to stop them?). Even honorable nations are not likely to take the repayment obligation seriously in light of the last clause, which essentially tells developed nations to give their debtors a break if the weather gets cold.

So no, I'm not interested. That said, I'll support this if it keeps you from legislating on abortion for another month.

Friendliest Regards,

[Glen-Rhodes]

All this proposal does is create a committee and empower that committee to give out our money at its discretion. It kind of requires our money be used for "poverty reduction" (which means whatever the hell the committee wants it to mean), though the "primarily" language in Clause III,2 means that a little less than half of it can go to whatever the recipient nation damn-well pleases (including, perhaps, building nuclear warheads - hey, it would put a lot of people to work, right?).

This is very misleading. First of all, no member state is forced to participate in the loan program. Member states are capable of assessing what the poverty reduction plans for developing nations are, and we can all agree that member states can reasonably monitor the progress and predict the future progress of those plans. Upon those assessments, member states can choose to provide funds for loans, for which they will be paid back plus interest.

If the poverty reduction plans are not implemented favorably, or the whole system seems to not be working, then we can expect that no member state will want to provide funding for the loans. Why pay into a program that does not work, with funds that you will not get back? Through this process, it's fairly obvious that the major sources of funding will have proportional influence in what these poverty reduction plans look like.

Let's remember that this is an intergovernmental forum. It is not a tabloid or some blog. It may be reasonable to some cooks out there to connect a poverty reduction program to financing nuclear weapons, but no serious diplomatic corps would provide a pedestal for such conspiracy theories. Let's try to maintain a modicum of decorum.

- Dr. B. Castro

[Auralia]

GR has it spot-on, but I've still made some changes to make certain things clearer and to allay some of CP's concerns.

[Cowardly Pacifists]

Let's remember that this is an intergovernmental forum. It is not a tabloid or some blog. It may be reasonable to some cooks out there to connect a poverty reduction program to financing nuclear weapons, but no serious diplomatic corps would provide a pedestal for such conspiracy theories. Let's try to maintain a modicum of decorum.

My goal was to point out a flaw in the text of the proposal. In the previous draft the Act provided little oversight on how the loan money could be spent. By requiring only that the money be used "primarily" for poverty reduction, the Act would have allowed some money to be used for whatever the recipient nations wants. The (admittedly extreme) example of weapons manufacturing was just a rhetorical device to emphatically point out that flaw.

I notice that Auralia has made an appropriate change by changing "primarily" to "exclusively." That effectively closes the loophole I was trying to point out. I would thank Dr. Castro to be more generous to my criticisms in the future before writing them off as conspiracy theories. I would also recommend to Dr. Castro that he consider how his ad hominem attacks on the "seriousness" of other delegations might detract from the dignity of this Assembly before accusing others of the same.

I remain troubled by the insurance provisions. I don't know that I want the WA getting involved in the investment insurance business in the first place, especially in light of the potential for grave financial risk that business carries. Even assuming a world of fair dealing sans any corruption, there are bound to be failed ventures. Enough failed ventures all coming at the same time would represent a grave threat to the stability of international markets as investor nations scramble to be the first to claim their insurance benefits.

[Norsklow]

We oppose. A strict maintenance of our Hierarchy is our Policy. Any attempts to make the lower orders of society less subservient is an unacceptable interference with our National prerogatives.

[Bears Armed]

Doesn't fit the category.

[Glen-Rhodes]

The (admittedly extreme) example of weapons manufacturing was just a rhetorical device to emphatically point out that flaw.

Nuclear proliferation is a serious issue, not a rhetorical device. Your point was well understood, but it could have been made in a more tactful manner. It is difficult to take a delegation's statements seriously when they are so obviously exaggerated. If the honorable delegation does not believe the loan program within this proposal would actually be used to finance nuclear weapons programs, then the honorable delegation should not pursue that line of argument.

The quality of debate in this assembly continues to diminish with each passing week, as more and more delegations reach for the absurd, rather than stick to the reasonable. My own delegation is guilty of this at times, but we wish to promote more moderated debate that will actually produce quality international law. Incendiary "rhetorical devices" only serve to distract from the substance of the proposal at hand.

I remain troubled by the insurance provisions. I don't know that I want the WA getting involved in the investment insurance business in the first place, especially in light of the potential for grave financial risk that business carries. Even assuming a world of fair dealing sans any corruption, there are bound to be failed ventures. Enough failed ventures all coming at the same time would represent a grave threat to the stability of international markets as investor nations scramble to be the first to claim their insurance benefits.

There must be a misunderstanding here. The loans provided by the Foundation would not be going to corporate capital investment. Rather, these would be sovereign loans between the Foundation and member states, which go directly to state capital investments in infrastructure, social programs, and sustainable development.

A subset of these loans would serve as financial stability programs during economic crises, a venture Glen-Rhodes supports and has attempted to establish in international law this past year. It is important that developing countries have access to lines of credit during severe economic crises, as those lines are almost always cut off in normal international bond markets.

In the event that a investment turns out to be a poor one, I do not think a fair reading of the law guarantees an insurance claim for the financiers. Insurance is only paid out for currency inconvertibility, expropriation, certain armed conflicts, and failure to abide by contract. In other words, the failure of an investment due to simple market dynamics would not be grounds for a claim. Only extraordinary situations would warrant a claim.

- Dr. B. Castro

[Auralia]

I remain troubled by the insurance provisions. I don't know that I want the WA getting involved in the investment insurance business in the first place, especially in light of the potential for grave financial risk that business carries. Even assuming a world of fair dealing sans any corruption, there are bound to be failed ventures. Enough failed ventures all coming at the same time would represent a grave threat to the stability of international markets as investor nations scramble to be the first to claim their insurance benefits.

There must be a misunderstanding here. The loans provided by the Foundation would not be going to corporate capital investment. Rather, these would be sovereign loans between the Foundation and member states, which go directly to state capital investments in infrastructure, social programs, and sustainable development.

A subset of these loans would serve as financial stability programs during economic crises, a venture Glen-Rhodes supports and has attempted to establish in international law this past year. It is important that developing countries have access to lines of credit during severe economic crises, as those lines are almost always cut off in normal international bond markets.

In the event that a investment turns out to be a poor one, I do not think a fair reading of the law guarantees an insurance claim for the financiers. Insurance is only paid out for currency inconvertibility, expropriation, certain armed conflicts, and failure to abide by contract. In other words, the failure of an investment due to simple market dynamics would not be grounds for a claim. Only extraordinary situations would warrant a claim.

Glen-Rhodes is, again, quite correct. I would also like to point out that the Foundation will probably not end up insuring extremely high-risk investments anyway since the premiums would be prohibitively high.

I tweaked III.2 to expand loan usage to financial stability; I mistakenly closed off that option when I changed "primarily" to "exclusively".

Doesn't fit the category.

I disagree. The resolution promotes foreign investment and encourages trade liberalization. I'd say that puts it in the "Free Trade" category.

[Dilange]

No. I dont want the World Assembly to funnel funds to nations for reasons unknown. How you wording goes for "Poverty reduction strategy" can go from rebuilding an economy, to hijacking finances, to conquering nations to gain wealth, to starting a nuclear holocaust. Wording is key in this bill if you expect it to be at least though to be voted on. Yet, I do not have any interest in creating a committee.

[Discoveria]

OOC: I don't think the Discoverian government would support this proposal, even though I the player would. We'd need to be persuaded that funding development loans for other, often non-Utopian, societies is in our national interest. I'll abstain for now.

[Auralia]

No. I dont want the World Assembly to funnel funds to nations for reasons unknown. How you wording goes for "Poverty reduction strategy" can go from rebuilding an economy, to hijacking finances, to conquering nations to gain wealth, to starting a nuclear holocaust. Wording is key in this bill if you expect it to be at least though to be voted on. Yet, I do not have any interest in creating a committee.

I don't understand what you're talking about. II.2 details what should go in a poverty reduction strategy, and it says nothing about "hijacking finances", "conquering nations to gain wealth", or "starting a nuclear holocaust".

OOC: I don't think the Discoverian government would support this proposal, even though I the player would. We'd need to be persuaded that funding development loans for other, often non-Utopian, societies is in our national interest. I'll abstain for now.

The programs offered by the Foundation are completely optional; you don't have to participate in them. Are you stating that your government is opposed to other developed nations giving developing nations some assistance?

[Cowardly Pacifists]

Nuclear proliferation is a serious issue, not a rhetorical device. Your point was well understood, but it could have been made in a more tactful manner. It is difficult to take a delegation's statements seriously when they are so obviously exaggerated. If the honorable delegation does not believe the loan program within this proposal would actually be used to finance nuclear weapons programs, then the honorable delegation should not pursue that line of argument.

The quality of debate in this assembly continues to diminish with each passing week, as more and more delegations reach for the absurd, rather than stick to the reasonable. My own delegation is guilty of this at times, but we wish to promote more moderated debate that will actually produce quality international law. Incendiary "rhetorical devices" only serve to distract from the substance of the proposal at hand.

To quote a great patriot of my country: "I may not like your use of exaggeration and absurdity as rhetorical devices, but I will defend to the death your right to use them."

I might ask if criticizing the manner in which my delegation gets its well-understood point across is really the best way to promote moderation and improve the quality of the debate. But, of course, it's not my place to question another ambassador's method of discourse. For, as the prophet said: "let he who is without sin - or Dr. Castro - impose his standard of debate on the rest of us."

In other words, the failure of an investment due to simple market dynamics would not be grounds for a claim. Only extraordinary situations would warrant a claim.

Glen-Rhodes is, again, quite correct. I would also like to point out that the Foundation will probably not end up insuring extremely high-risk investments anyway since the premiums would be prohibitively high.

My concern about the insurance provisions is that if, for whatever reason, there is a run on the insurance reserves it could lead to a major fiscal meltdown. That concern is not diminished simply because the grounds for an insurance claim are limited or because the Foundation will "probably not" insure high risk ventures. In the event that enough countries - at the same time - go to war, or have the funds stolen, or suffer acts of terror, or suffer civil unrest, or have a contractor breach their contract (presumably for any reason), or simply "fail[] to honour financial obligations" (again, could mean just about anything), there could well be a run on the insurance pool.

A financing nation will likely budget as if it can expect a return on its investment or rely on the insurance it has purchased. In the event that insurance is not available when it needs to be, a financial crisis or even collapse could ensue. And, as you pointed out, we're not talking about companies collapsing. We're talking about sovereign nations.

I am not sure I'm comfortable with the WA as a lender and insurance broker for nations in the first place. I'm less comfortable with the prospect of creating a mechanism for fiscal collapse.

But in any case, I'm even less comfortable debating this measure where my contribution is not appreciated. If the proponents of this Act feel my words are too saucy or my understanding of the issues is too bland, I'll gladly take my leave. I stand opposed.

Best Regards,

[Auralia]

snip

Your concerns are unfounded, for a couple of reasons.

First, they seem to be largely based on a general distrust for any business model that relies on taking calculated risks. I will not deny that, regardless of whether the Foundation charges higher premiums for higher risks, or even refuses to insure outright dangerous or foolish investments, there will still be an remote chance that some calamity might occur and that insurance claims will, for whatever reason, exceed present cash reserves.

The reality, however is that this will never happen in practice, so long as the Foundation takes certain common-sense measures to minimize its own risk. The evidence for this claim is the vast majority of financial institutions, as well as businesses or individuals who have ever made an investment of any kind.

Second, even if we were to completely ignore the first point, the chance for a financial crisis is still slim. Remember, member nations (and private organizations and businesses, by the way - the investment program is not limited to sovereign nations) are not run by idiots; they will not rely on insurance which they believe to be unreliable. If anything, this is an incentive for the Foundation to improve its performance and prevent what you've described from happening.

Ultimately, I can see no issue with the WA acting as a financial institution, so long as the proper precautions are taken. ((OOC: It's worth noting that this already happens in real life with the World Bank.))

[Cowardly Pacifists]

Your concerns are unfounded, for a couple of reasons.

First, they seem to be largely based on a general distrust for any business model that relies on taking calculated risks. I will not deny that, regardless of whether the Foundation charges higher premiums for higher risks, or even refuses to insure outright dangerous or foolish investments, there will still be an remote chance that some calamity might occur and that insurance claims will, for whatever reason, exceed present cash reserves.

I have no problem with business models based on calculated risk. I DO have a problem with turning our World Assembly into an international banking business. That's simply not a role I wish to see us fill.

The reality, however is that this will never happen in practice, so long as the Foundation takes certain common-sense measures to minimize its own risk. The evidence for this claim is the vast majority of financial institutions, as well as businesses or individuals who have ever made an investment of any kind.

Second, even if we were to completely ignore the first point, the chance for a financial crisis is still slim. Remember, member nations (and private organizations and businesses, by the way - the investment program is not limited to sovereign nations) are not run by idiots; they will not rely on insurance which they believe to be unreliable. If anything, this is an incentive for the Foundation to improve its performance and prevent what you've described from happening.

Yes I'm sure all investment decisions are made by infallible immortals. That's why we've never had any sort of investment or insurance crisis in the history of time.

Ultimately, I can see no issue with the WA acting as a financial institution, so long as the proper precautions are taken. ((OOC: It's worth noting that this already happens in real life with the World Bank.))

Regardless of how the World Bank operates, I reiterate my distaste with turning the World Assembly into an international lender and insurance company. And as long as we're talking about real life, I should point out that historically speaking a sovereign default or repudiation is orders of magnitude more likely than a fulfillment of debt conditions. Hell, Phillip II of Spain defaulted on Spanish debts four times during his relatively brief reign, and his successors in the next sixty years defaulted six more times.

I am simply opposed to this role for our Assembly.

[Discoveria]

OOC: I don't think the Discoverian government would support this proposal, even though I the player would. We'd need to be persuaded that funding development loans for other, often non-Utopian, societies is in our national interest. I'll abstain for now.

The programs offered by the Foundation are completely optional; you don't have to participate in them. Are you stating that your government is opposed to other developed nations giving developing nations some assistance?

Well, no. Discoveria would respect the authority of other developed nations to decide to provide funding to the WADF.

That said, a new problem appears: 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.

[Sanctaria]

While I'm not particularly opposed to this in theory, I do find it unsettling that in response to legitimate problems posed, the Auralian delegation responds using phrases such as "so long as", or "probably".

There should be no ambiguity, Ambassador, you've been here long enough now to know this. Just because you may say that "X is unlikely to happen", does not mean it will 100% not happen. Unless fail-safes are written into the legislation, and it is then unnecessary to resort to "probably" or "as long as", I cannot support this proposal.

[Glen-Rhodes]

While I'm not particularly opposed to this in theory, I do find it unsettling that in response to legitimate problems posed, the Auralian delegation responds using phrases such as "so long as", or "probably".

There should be no ambiguity, Ambassador, you've been here long enough now to know this. Just because you may say that "X is unlikely to happen", does not mean it will 100% not happen. Unless fail-safes are written into the legislation, and it is then unnecessary to resort to "probably" or "as long as", I cannot support this proposal.

The fail-safe would be good decision-making on behalf of investors. The World Assembly cannot protect against bad decisions made by its member states. Pursuant to that, the Foundation has discretion in which investments are covered under the insurance provisions. The Foundation also has discretion in premium charges, which protect against the already low probability of a massive run on insurance funds.

- Dr. B. Castro

[Sanctaria]

While I'm not particularly opposed to this in theory, I do find it unsettling that in response to legitimate problems posed, the Auralian delegation responds using phrases such as "so long as", or "probably".

There should be no ambiguity, Ambassador, you've been here long enough now to know this. Just because you may say that "X is unlikely to happen", does not mean it will 100% not happen. Unless fail-safes are written into the legislation, and it is then unnecessary to resort to "probably" or "as long as", I cannot support this proposal.

The fail-safe would be good decision-making on behalf of investors. The World Assembly cannot protect against bad decisions made by its member states. Pursuant to that, the Foundation has discretion in which investments are covered under the insurance provisions. The Foundation also has discretion in premium charges, which protect against the already low probability of a massive run on insurance funds.

- Dr. B. Castro

If fail-safes cannot be written into the legislation and there remains even the slightest chance, regardless of how small, that this will backfire and blow up in our faces, then I simply cannot support this, no matter how valiant the cause.

[Glen-Rhodes]

If fail-safes cannot be written into the legislation and there remains even the slightest chance, regardless of how small, that this will backfire and blow up in our faces, then I simply cannot support this, no matter how valiant the cause.

There are no possible fail-safes for bad investment decisions. The fail-safe you're looking for is already in the proposal, though: discretion as to which investments can be insured. Overly risky investments either will not be insured or will be insured at a high premium. Both of those routes make it incredibly unlikely that an insurance fund would be wiped out. You're not going to get 100% certainty in anything, though. That's just not how finance works.

- Dr. B. Castro

[Sanctaria]

If fail-safes cannot be written into the legislation and there remains even the slightest chance, regardless of how small, that this will backfire and blow up in our faces, then I simply cannot support this, no matter how valiant the cause.

There are no possible fail-safes for bad investment decisions. The fail-safe you're looking for is already in the proposal, though: discretion as to which investments can be insured. Overly risky investments either will not be insured or will be insured at a high premium. Both of those routes make it incredibly unlikely that an insurance fund would be wiped out. You're not going to get 100% certainty in anything, though. That's just not how finance works.

- Dr. B. Castro

Yes, there are no fail-safes, and yes, investment banking is never completely risk free. As such, if it's impossible to ensure the integrity of the World Assembly, then we shouldn't go down the avenue where the organisation acts as the middle-man for member-states who wish to gamble on other nations' development.

It's a good idea in theory. But there's never a 100% run of good decisions, and that's where my concerns are. There will be a bad decision made at some point, and the ramifications of such a decision are unknown.

If nations want to invest in other nations, that's laudable. But, yes, it's risky. And I don't think the World Assembly should be involved in risky, financial manoeuvres which will inevitably result in us with egg on our faces.

[Glen-Rhodes]

Yes, there are no fail-safes, and yes, investment banking is never completely risk free. As such, if it's impossible to ensure the integrity of the World Assembly, then we shouldn't go down the avenue where the organisation acts as the middle-man for member-states who wish to gamble on other nations' development.

In the absence of 100% guaranteed success, the World Assembly shouldn't engage in promoting development and economic growth? That is very backwards thinking. Should we also refrain from promoting democracy? Stopping wars? Nothing has a 100% success rate except death, so what is the point of any endeavor?

It's a good idea in theory. But there's never a 100% run of good decisions, and that's where my concerns are. There will be a bad decision made at some point, and the ramifications of such a decision are unknown.

The ramifications of our decisions are never known. We have no clue what will happen to the world in response to a World Assembly resolution. Nobody here is an oracle. It's the World Assembly Headquarters, not Delphi. The argument that we shouldn't establish an financial institution because somewhere along the line some money might be lost is absurd. Money is lost every day, but it's not always the end of the world. If the Development Foundation were to suddenly go bankrupt, it would be the result of a economic cataclysm, not the cause.

- Dr. B. Castro

[Sanctaria]

Yes, there are no fail-safes, and yes, investment banking is never completely risk free. As such, if it's impossible to ensure the integrity of the World Assembly, then we shouldn't go down the avenue where the organisation acts as the middle-man for member-states who wish to gamble on other nations' development.

In the absence of 100% guaranteed success, the World Assembly shouldn't engage in promoting development and economic growth? That is very backwards thinking. Should we also refrain from promoting democracy? Stopping wars? Nothing has a 100% success rate except death, so what is the point of any endeavor?

It's a good idea in theory. But there's never a 100% run of good decisions, and that's where my concerns are. There will be a bad decision made at some point, and the ramifications of such a decision are unknown.

The ramifications of our decisions are never known. We have no clue what will happen to the world in response to a World Assembly resolution. Nobody here is an oracle. It's the World Assembly Headquarters, not Delphi. The argument that we shouldn't establish an financial institution because somewhere along the line some money might be lost is absurd. Money is lost every day, but it's not always the end of the world. If the Development Foundation were to suddenly go bankrupt, it would be the result of a economic cataclysm, not the cause.

- Dr. B. Castro

I see, Dr. Castro, that you're being entirely disingenuous as always with your reply.

We have both accepted that nothing has a 100% success rate, excellent. So, with that logic, you're accepting that at some point a mistake will be made. My concern is that mistake could be economically disastrous and the integrity and reputation of the World Assembly would be damaged. And even in the event that it's not a total catastrophe, the World Assembly would, at the very least, have its credibility damaged.

Somewhere along the line some money will be lost, Dr. Castro, not just might. You know this, and you should know that this is my concern. I can only assume that your equating it to losses in war, which the World Assembly does not involve itself in, is an attempt at being facetious.

It is not in the nature of this Assembly to pass resolutions where we have no idea what the impact will be. There is always some form of certainty; it's not quite being an Oracle, but we do have a fair idea what the ramifications will be. Passing this, we accept that there is a risk, we accept that at some point it will fail, and we also accept that the failure could be anything between a slight hiccup or a major incident.

There's too much uncertainty and ambiguity here for my own liking. I just simply cannot support this furtherance of the World Assembly as a banking/investment institution.

[Libraria and Ausitoria]

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.