NationStates

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.

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.

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

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.

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

I voted against, the insurance policy is a bit blurry

Malland wrote:I can see this hitting 50-50 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.

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

Who's going to fund this absurd nonsense!

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.

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.

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).

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.

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

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".

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.

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!!

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.