[PASSED] WA Development Foundation

[Linux and the X]

Opposed.

[Auralia]

Opposed.

Care to tell us why?

[Linux and the X]

Opposed.

Care to tell us why?

Nope.

[Libraria and Ausitoria]

There is one further small thing we noted in Article III, may we make a suggestion?

[*]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 it's influence on the Foundation's loan policy shall be proportional to the size of its contributions to the Foundation.

Basically, by using the wording we've suggested above, it can't be interpreted that member nations may influence the Foundation's loan policy on loan payments, i.e. this way round it isn't possible for a majority of investors to run away with all the profits, which would be very mean.

Otherwise, we stand very much in favour of this proposal to enhance free trade.

[Cowardly Pacifists]

We remain opposed to the insurance provisions as we do not think it's the World Assembly's role to insure capital investment projects as if it were a private insurance company. The WA does not have a profit incentive and will actually drive down private enterprise by stepping into this arena itself.

That said, I largely approve of the other changes to this Act. While my government will vote against this proposal if the insurance provisions remain, I will be much less vocal about my opposition going forward.

As a final(ish) note, I just want to have a conversation about the strength. Auralia recently passed a "mild" resolution that actually put mandatory obligations on member nations. This proposal merely creates a framework that members may use or avoid at their leisure. Nations may use the Foundation's loan and insurance services, but they are not obliged to; I suspect many nations will forgo Foundation investment in favor of their private or national foreign aid organizations. It's a stretch to say a resolution that creates a committee function which member nations need not use at all is anything more than a "mild" proposal.

Best Regards,

[Libraria and Ausitoria]

In response to Cowardly Pacifist's comments, we would like to state that our support for the insurance based agency is based on the principle of allowing a larger spread of risk to be underwritten by an organization with such vast reserves as to be able to cope with enormous quantities of defaults that an unlucky local insurer would succumb to. This would allow less risky investment. However we are equally in agreement that we would not want to do insurers out of their jobs.

As a compromise, we suggest that either the WADF be required to offer to insure loans at a premium higher than that set by the private market with an aim towards ensuring private enterprise may continue to grow at present trends. Then it would be likely that investment entities will partially insure under the WADF but also by the private market.
Alternatively (and this is our preference), the WADF could freely provide insurance for development projects against 'catastrophic' defaults that other private and public sectors are unable to safely insure (which is fairly similar to the premise already present within Article IV).

As a final(ish) note, I just want to have a conversation about the strength. Auralia recently passed a "mild" resolution that actually put mandatory obligations on member nations. This proposal merely creates a framework that members may use or avoid at their leisure. Nations may use the Foundation's loan and insurance services, but they are not obliged to; I suspect many nations will forgo Foundation investment in favor of their private or national foreign aid organizations. It's a stretch to say a resolution that creates a committee function which member nations need not use at all is anything more than a "mild" proposal.

We would like to draw attention to the possibility that member nations such as Libraria and Ausitoria will raise money for the purpose of lending it under the WADF by special bond instruments raising investment from domestic and international entities, and will subsequently pass on profits and voting control to those private investors. Therefore we would say it is likely that the loans will attract significant private interest. Subsequently in our minds a 'significant' strength is appropriate, since despite the absence of mandatory provisions, these loans and development strategies should shake up private markets considerably.

[Auralia]

There is one further small thing we noted in Article III, may we make a suggestion?

[*]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 it's influence on the Foundation's loan policy shall be proportional to the size of its contributions to the Foundation.

Basically, by using the wording we've suggested above, it can't be interpreted that member nations may influence the Foundation's loan policy on loan payments, i.e. this way round it isn't possible for a majority of investors to run away with all the profits, which would be very mean.

Otherwise, we stand very much in favour of this proposal to enhance free trade.

Done.

[Auralia]

The WA does not have a profit incentive and will actually drive down private enterprise by stepping into this arena itself.

The issue is that private insurance companies are often insufficient when it comes to insuring investments in developing nations.

As a final(ish) note, I just want to have a conversation about the strength. Auralia recently passed a "mild" resolution that actually put mandatory obligations on member nations. This proposal merely creates a framework that members may use or avoid at their leisure. Nations may use the Foundation's loan and insurance services, but they are not obliged to; I suspect many nations will forgo Foundation investment in favor of their private or national foreign aid organizations. It's a stretch to say a resolution that creates a committee function which member nations need not use at all is anything more than a "mild" proposal.

It is true that there are no mandatory obligations, but the fact remains that nations who choose to participate in this program will most definitely undergo radical changes in economic development, good governance and openness to foreign investment and international trade. As such, I think this proposal deserves a Significant strength.

[MCALS]

While the Confederacy welcomes the aims of helping developing countries, I must raise certain issues that would prohibit us from granting our vote. While my nation would gladly welcome a loan or other such foreign aid to help improve our economy and thusly the standard of living of our citizens, we are also staunchly socialist. Strategies such as privatisation go against the aims of our parliament and also public sentiment. So to be clear; would a nation adopting this and asking for a loan, be required to follow the Foundation's 'strategies' such as privatisation?

If so we must regretfully remain opposed.

[Moronist Decisions]

Opposed for the following reasons:

- A strategy needs to be developed by this foundation for EVERY nation? Even if it is wildly successful and has a clear, home-grown roadmap, it still has to develop this "strategy" which you don't have to read. What a waste of time.
- Even though participation in the roadmap by stakeholders is expected, what if the one developed by the foundation is not accepted by the populace?
- Are reforms always necessary? It appears that loans are only given if the mandated reforms are implemented - or at least a good-faith attempt in doing so is done. This smells too top-down for me.
- Loans only for maintaining financial stability and implementing reforms? Note that, as written, it cannot be used for e.g. disaster relief (assuming it's not in the strategy).

Overall, this doesn't seem very sound at all. OPPOSED.

[Libraria and Ausitoria]

- A strategy needs to be developed by this foundation for EVERY nation? Even if it is wildly successful and has a clear, home-grown roadmap, it still has to develop this "strategy" which you don't have to read. What a waste of time.

Surely they can develop the same strategy if it's perfect, and another if it isn't?

- Even though participation in the roadmap by stakeholders is expected, what if the one developed by the foundation is not accepted by the populace?

Force it upon 'em or don't give 'em the money.

- Are reforms always necessary? It appears that loans are only given if the mandated reforms are implemented - or at least a good-faith attempt in doing so is done. This smells too top-down for me.

Gives us an example of a perfect nation that doesn't need some reforms.

- Loans only for maintaining financial stability and implementing reforms? Note that, as written, it cannot be used for e.g. disaster relief (assuming it's not in the strategy).

We don't want to provide loans for disaster relief in this proposal. We want to provide loans to help economically sound governments.

[Auralia]

A strategy needs to be developed by this foundation for EVERY nation? Even if it is wildly successful and has a clear, home-grown roadmap, it still has to develop this "strategy" which you don't have to read. What a waste of time.

The proposal could be amended to limit strategy creation to nations which have expressed an interest in the Foundation's loans program.

Since the Foundation can offer loans during national emergencies and economic crises, it is conceivable that a developing nation who otherwise would not have participated in the Foundation's program would suddenly need to do so during an emergency. In such a case, it would be useful if the Foundation had a development strategy to help determine an appropriate size and scope for their loan. Accordingly, a strategy should be produced for all developing nations, to be safe.

In addition, the strategy would help in determining the risk of any foreign investment in that nation for investment insurance purposes.

Even though participation in the roadmap by stakeholders is expected, what if the one developed by the foundation is not accepted by the populace?

Exactly what Libraria and Ausitoria said. Whoever is providing the money can dictate how it is used.

Are reforms always necessary? It appears that loans are only given if the mandated reforms are implemented - or at least a good-faith attempt in doing so is done. This smells too top-down for me.

I am strongly opposed to simply giving developing nations money to spend however they like. I believe that many nations will use loan money irresponsibly, given the option. If they don't like Foundation's level of control, they don't have to use the program.

Loans only for maintaining financial stability and implementing reforms? Note that, as written, it cannot be used for e.g. disaster relief (assuming it's not in the strategy).

I suppose the criteria could be broadened to include disaster relief during national emergencies, at the Foundation's discretion.

[Auralia]

Proposal was submitted a day ago without campaigning in order to gauge support for it and to increase its publicity.

[Discoveria]

"Hmm...

I am starting to see this as a means of tying development loans to ideologically-motivated change in the receiving nations. This is potentially something the Utopian Commonwealth might be interested in.

It still seems unlikely that Discoveria would risk contributing enough funds to have much say over a particular nation, unless the other 'stakeholders' in said nation also share our principles.

As a result, the Discoverian government will not oppose this resolution."

[Frisbeeteria]

Proposal was submitted a day ago without campaigning in order to gauge support for it and to increase its publicity.

As a final(ish) note, I just want to have a conversation about the strength. Auralia recently passed a "mild" resolution that actually put mandatory obligations on member nations. This proposal merely creates a framework that members may use or avoid at their leisure. Nations may use the Foundation's loan and insurance services, but they are not obliged to; I suspect many nations will forgo Foundation investment in favor of their private or national foreign aid organizations. It's a stretch to say a resolution that creates a committee function which member nations need not use at all is anything more than a "mild" proposal.

The Secretariat would also request that proposal strength be discussed before this gets submitted again. We had concerns about the choice of "Significant", but decided to see if it came close to queue before acting. Since it didn't, we'd like the strength discussion to be open to ambassadorial feedback, so that relevant arguments can be heard on all interested sides.

[Glen-Rhodes]

As a final(ish) note, I just want to have a conversation about the strength. Auralia recently passed a "mild" resolution that actually put mandatory obligations on member nations. This proposal merely creates a framework that members may use or avoid at their leisure. Nations may use the Foundation's loan and insurance services, but they are not obliged to; I suspect many nations will forgo Foundation investment in favor of their private or national foreign aid organizations. It's a stretch to say a resolution that creates a committee function which member nations need not use at all is anything more than a "mild" proposal.

Strengths aren't dictated by how onerous resolutions are. The strength of a resolution is dictated by how much of an impact it will have on the relevant variables. In this case, the "Mild" resolution you are referring to required member states to gather for non-binding trade talks. This proposal seeks to establish an international financial institution. One is about soft diplomacy. The other is about real, quantifiable and large financial transactions that aim to reduce poverty and aid the development of worldwide economies. Which one will have a more significant impact on free trade and commerce?

Regardless, your entire analysis is predicated on the totally subjective assumption that "many nations will forgo Foundation investment." This assumption is based on nothing but your own opposition to the proposal.

[Mousebumples]

Regardless, your entire analysis is predicated on the totally subjective assumption that "many nations will forgo Foundation investment." This assumption is based on nothing but your own opposition to the proposal.

Or, you know, the fact that it doesn't actually require nations to do ANYTHING. The clauses in this proposal are similar to proposals that use "RECOMMENDS" and "URGES." There are no "REQUIRES" or "DEMANDS" verbiage that would merit a significant (or strong) strength. If someone wrote a Human Rights res where the only action clause was "RECOMMENDS nations outlaw human slavery" ... that would be a mild, at best, resolution. This foundation will be coming up with development plans, sure, but other than a monetary incentive, there's no mandate of any sort.

Anyhow, add me to the pile of people that will be submitting a GHR should this be submitted, again, with a Significant strength. It is NOT significant as currently written.

Yours,
Adele Hale
Interim Ambassador from the Doctoral Monkey Feet of Mousebumples
WA Delegate for Monkey Island

[Cowardly Pacifists]

Strengths aren't dictated by how onerous resolutions are. The strength of a resolution is dictated by how much of an impact it will have on the relevant variables.

(At least from in IC perspective) That's not quite true, is it Dr. Castro - if that is your real name:

Strong - Proposals that affect a very broad area of policy and/or use very strong language and possibly detailed clauses to affect a policy area in a dramatic way.

Significant - Proposals that affect a fair-sized area of policy and/or use fairly strong language to affect a policy area.

Mild - Proposals that affect a very limited area of policy and/or use fairly mild language to affect only that policy area, or broader policy areas in a very minor way.

Proposal strength is determined by 1. the breadth of the policy area affected (limited, fair-sized, or very broad), and 2. the strength of the language used to affect that area (fairly mild, fairly strong, and very strong). The rules give some guidance about how to resolve cases where the breadth and the language point to two different strengths. A proposal that affects only a limited policy area but does so with very strong language to affect the area in a "dramatic" way is a "Strong" proposal, notwithstanding the limited policy breadth. Likewise, a proposal that affects broad policy areas but uses fairly mild language to affect those areas in "a very minor way" is a "Mild" proposal, notwithstanding the broad policy breadth. So ultimately the strength of the language is a more important concern than the breadth (at least, for the purposes of determining strength).

In the case of this proposal, both "strength factors"^TM point to "mild." The proposal deals with a very limited area of development-strategy-based foreign investment that the proposal itself creates. Foreign investment in general is not touched by this proposal. Moreover, the language used to affect that area is decidedly mild. Nations are not compelled to support or participate in the foundation's loan and insurance functions - those things are simply there if nations want to use them. While my belief that nations will forgo using this proposal is indeed based on the opposition I've observed (both my own and others), the fact that we can freely ignore the proposal is what makes it mild.

In addition, there is one more rule that sheds light on this issue:

GA Proposals are not optional. Don't try to make one that is. Many 'Mild' Proposals will have phrases such as "RECOMMENDS" or "URGES", which is just fine. The optionality ban refers to language such as "Nations can ignore this Resolution if they want," which is right out.

While the proponents did not include any language stating directly that "nations can ignore this proposal if they want," it has been made abundantly clear that participation is not mandatory and that, ultimately, a nation has no obligation to invest in Foundation loans, buy insurance (which may or may not be available, depending on private markets), or otherwise support the WA banking establishment in any way. This proposal is already dangerously close to the line between an optional proposal and a mild "encourages" proposal. It's no shame to admit that. But it's disingenuous to argue that a proposal which is effectively and openly optional is anything but a "mild" proposal.

[Libraria and Ausitoria]

While the proponents did not include any language stating directly that "nations can ignore this proposal if they want," it has been made abundantly clear that participation is not mandatory and that, ultimately, a nation has no obligation to invest in Foundation loans, buy insurance (which may or may not be available, depending on private markets), or otherwise support the WA banking establishment in any way. This proposal is already dangerously close to the line between an optional proposal and a mild "encourages" proposal. It's no shame to admit that. But it's disingenuous to argue that a proposal which is effectively and openly optional is anything but a "mild" proposal.

Our opinion is that given that only one member nation could set up a mechanism whereby international private investors can partake in this program; it is highly likely that while nations have no obligation to take part their private markets will almost certainly be able to make use of this proposal. Hence we cannot see how this proposal can possibly be considered likely to have only the affect of a new option upon member nations. This proposal will almost certainly free the private sector much more than nations.

[Glen-Rhodes]

(At least from in IC perspective) That's not quite true, is it Dr. Castro - if that is your real name:

(From any perspective) you are wrong. Strength has never been dictated by how onerous a resolution is. It's always been dictated by the impact, which your quote from the Rules thread only further proves. It's about the affect on policy, not how many legal mandates it uses. Significant resolutions affect policy areas using fairly strong language. How establishing an international financial institution with a fairly large mandate not strong language?

So ultimately the strength of the language is a more important concern than the breadth (at least, for the purposes of determining strength).

"Strength of language" is not always synonymous with "multitudes of legal impositions on member states." You have basically been arguing for a single-variable test, which is: how many legal mandates are imposed upon member states? You can dress your argument up with how narrow or broad the policy areas are, but the core of your argument has not changed. The World Assembly has never worked that way.

Ask yourself what the strength variable is for. If you hadn't figured it out yet, the strength variable dictates how much impact the resolution will have on nation stats. If a resolution creates an international financial institution, and that institution can be expected to open up markets and develop economies, how can you honestly argue that the economic effects it would have on the world are 'mild'? Do you think the Washington Consensus only had a 'mild' effect on the real world?

In the case of this proposal, both "strength factors"^TM point to "mild."

Which is entirely absurd, even under your own interpretation of the rules. There is no way an unbiased reading of this proposal would come away from it thinking it affects its policy area in only very mild ways. Your opposition is clouding your judgement.

[Cowardly Pacifists]

*snip*

Dr. Castro's insistence that my interpretation must be the result of fuzzy opposition thinking only serves to confirm that I must be on to something. It's quite reassuring to see such blatantly fallacious argument. Oh, but I'm sure it's justified in the name of "maintaining a modicum of decorum" and "promoting more moderated debate;" isn't that right, Dr. Castro? As long as we're lobbing personal attacks, I accuse Dr. Castro of hypocrisy.

I understand what the strength variable is for (but, hey, thanks for insulting my intelligence): just like "category" it helps the mods figure out how a resolution will impact national stats. That's kinda my point. How the hell does a resolution which member nations can freely ignore justify a "significant" adjustment to their stats?

I get that the proponents believe this proposal will have a grand impact and will be widely utilized. We opponents believe that the effects will be minimal and localized, and in any case don't expect any impact on our national stats because we don't plan on participating. Which, by the way, is firmly in our rights under the proposal - this isn't even a loophole, it's how the law is supposed to work.

In this debate (and in any other) both sides are going to have a valid argument for why the legislation will have such-and-such affect. It all depends on whose premises you accept as true. If you believe that nations will willingly and in large numbers take advantage of the new WA Insurance and Loan company, then you can rationalize that it will have a "significant" affect on the stats of member nations. If, on the other hand, you believe that many nations will completely ignore the new foundation (mine is certainly not the only nation to oppose this proposal), you can just as readily rationalize why "mild" is the more appropriate category. Hell, you could even say this is "strong" because, you know, nearly everyone will use it, and the competition will force private counterparts completely out of business, and developing nations will all be like super developed within two years!!!1!. Again, it all depends on whose premises you accept.

That's why (for strength purposes) we need to look past what the professed aftermath might be (since both sides have something valid to say about that) and focus on the language of the act and what it actually does. And there's simply no way to justify a "significant" affect on my nation's stats when the proposal, by language and design, doesn't require my nation to do a damn thing. At most, it "encourages" us to invest by providing investment and insurance services at cost (i.e. without the added expense associated with private sector profit). That impact cannot be said to be "significant" on my nation or any of the many others who have expressed their opposition to this proposal (and can be counted on to ignore it).

[Flibbleites]

(At least from in IC perspective) That's not quite true, is it Dr. Castro - if that is your real name:

(From any perspective) you are wrong. Strength has never been dictated by how onerous a resolution is. It's always been dictated by the impact, which your quote from the Rules thread only further proves. It's about the affect on policy, not how many legal mandates it uses. Significant resolutions affect policy areas using fairly strong language. How establishing an international financial institution with a fairly large mandate not strong language?

Because nobody is required to participate in it. Hence it is optional and should be Mild.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

[Tanular]

(From any perspective) you are wrong. Strength has never been dictated by how onerous a resolution is. It's always been dictated by the impact, which your quote from the Rules thread only further proves. It's about the affect on policy, not how many legal mandates it uses. Significant resolutions affect policy areas using fairly strong language. How establishing an international financial institution with a fairly large mandate not strong language?

Because nobody is required to participate in it. Hence it is optional and should be Mild.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

Isn't optionality an illegality for proposals?

[Discoveria]

Because nobody is required to participate in it. Hence it is optional and should be Mild.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

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.

[Glen-Rhodes]

Because nobody is required to participate in it. Hence it is optional and should be Mild.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

What does the strength level represent? What is the game mechanics difference between a mild and a significant resolution? Does the game know what the language of the resolution is, and thus how many legal mandates there are? Or does it use the strength solely as a variable in determining how much of an impact the resolution has on game stats?

What you guys are saying is that a resolution mandating free trade in, say, fish stock, is a stronger resolution than one that creates an international financial institution that invests broadly in developing economies. That a resolution that would have an effect on fish trading is stronger than a resolution that would literally help develop entire national and regional economies. ... Because the fish resolution contains more universal mandates than the financial development resolution.

That makes perfect sense.