NationStates Jolt Archive

-------------------------------------
Ultimate National Soverignty

A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.


Category: Human Rights


Strength: Strong


Proposed by: Jey

Description: NOTING that numerous nations are in support of repealing "Gay Rights"

DECIDING "Why stop there?"

OBSERVING that many nations want their national soverignty protected and still remain in the UN

DECIDING "Why not change the mandate of the UN to please the national soverigntists?"

HEREBY DECLARES:

1) The rights and priveliges of all women will be left up to consideration of all member nations

2)The rights and priveliges of all homosexuals will be left up to consideration of all member nations

3)The rights and priveliges of all blacks and other cultural minoritites will be left up to consideration of all member nations

4) The rights and priveliges of all heterosexuals will be left up to consideration of all member nations

5) The rights and priveliges of all (INSERT any religion/political group/idealology/gender/minority/majority etc) will be left up to consideration of all member nations

GRANTS all member nations to do whatever they want whenever they want to whomever they want

GRANTS 100% National Soverignty to everyone.

Approvals: 0

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
We might as well do this if Repeal Gay Rights passes, eh?

Needlessly wordy. I (naturally) prefer my version. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10082276&postcount=100) ;)

Needlessly wordy. I (naturally) prefer my version. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10082276&postcount=100) ;)

As do I. ;)

That proposal contradicts a bunch of other ones. You need to pass this first:


Repeal "Scientific Freedom" through "Right to Divorce"

Category: Repeal

Resolutions: 2 - 136

Description: Resolutions 2 - 136 (Categories: Almost All, Strength: Varies) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: NOTING that all these resolutions are a waste of time and resources to enforce;

NOTING that it would take way too long to go through one by one and repeal each of them by themselves;

REPEALS all resolutions.

NOTING WITH REGRET that if I submit this, it'll be deleted.

NOTING WITH REGRET that if I submit this, it'll be deleted.

Outstanding! :D

This is a shameful waste of UN time! Everybody should know that NOTING WITH REGRET is preambulatory, it needs to come before REPEAL. Other than that, perfect! ;)

This is a shameful waste of UN time! Everybody should know that NOTING WITH REGRET is preambulatory, it needs to come before REPEAL. Other than that, perfect! ;)

It's a postambulatory footnote! Stop flaming my repeal for untrue things! :sniper: ;)

Proposal: The U.N. Is A Waste Of Time

A resolution to waste forum time

Category: Whatever

Strength: 17.4% proof

Proposed by: Compadria

Description: NOTING that so many nations have lots of proposals and ideas.

DECIDING that most of them do this just to justify their monthly expenses claims and drinks tabs.

BELIEVING that there really should be a more constructive and cheaper way of performing international diplomacy.

RESOLVING that everyone should now pay their way at the bar's, thus leading to a mass exodus of diplomats and the collapse of the U.N.

NOTING that most girls (and boys) just want to have fun.

HEREBY DECLARES:

1) No expenses claims to be made by diplomats whilst "on duty" at the U.N.

2) If they don't like this: Tough luck.

3) That all diplomats shall avoid coming up with proposals which may in some way help or aid the cause of the unprivileged, dispossessed, opressed and economically frail nations of the world.

4) That as far as internal and international conduct should be done, an "anything goes" philosophy should be mandated.

PROHIBITS the use of funded expenditures for diplomats at the U.N.

<inserts extreme sarcasm disclaimer>

May the blessings of our otters be upon you all.

Anthony Holt
Deputy Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

<inserts extreme sarcasm disclaimer>

I don't get it. Are you...
inserting a disclaimer for extreme sarcasm?
inserting an extreme version of a sarcasm disclaimer?
disclaiming your habit of inserting extreme sarcasm?
disclaiming your sarcasm about your habit of inserting extremes?

Thank you for reading through this complete waste of time. And now for something completely different. *stomp*

I don't get it. Are you...
inserting a disclaimer for extreme sarcasm?
inserting an extreme version of a sarcasm disclaimer?
disclaiming your habit of inserting extreme sarcasm?
disclaiming your sarcasm about your habit of inserting extremes?

All of them:)

Thank you for reading through this complete waste of time. And now for something completely different. *stomp*

A U.N. delegate with three bottoms!

I know, what a hilarious concept, guys! National Sovereignty in the United Nations? I chuckle at the stupidity!

I know, what a hilarious concept, guys! National Sovereignty in the United Nations? I chuckle at the stupidity!
Funny, because that's the only purpose that the UN is designed to do, as far as Nationstates is concerned.

It's designed to take power away from the individual nations and give it to whoever can do the most convincing. That's the name of the game, and if you're not a fan of the rules, you can always quit.

Funny, because that's the only purpose that the UN is designed to do, as far as Nationstates is concerned.

It's designed to take power away from the individual nations and give it to whoever can do the most convincing. That's the name of the game, and if you're not a fan of the rules, you can always quit.

Um...no.

The UN is designed to 'improve the world one resolution at a time'. That's it. There's no charter, no mandate. And the UN absolutely does not have the 'design' or 'obligation' to take power away from individual nations (and I don't even understand what you mean by who it gives it to). Some of the best resolutions this body has produced have been respected the principle of national sovereignty. The UN can trample all over sovereignty: doesn't mean it has to, or that we think it's a good idea for it to.

Um...no.

The UN is designed to 'improve the world one resolution at a time'. That's it. There's no charter, no mandate. And the UN absolutely does not have the 'design' or 'obligation' to take power away from individual nations (and I don't even understand what you mean by who it gives it to). Some of the best resolutions this body has produced have been respected the principle of national sovereignty. The UN can trample all over sovereignty: doesn't mean it has to, or that we think it's a good idea for it to.
Are you that ignorant?

Whose definition of "improve" are we to use? Whose ideas are improvements, and whose are the opposite? The UN, as part of NationStates, is designed as a venue for power struggles. Those who can control other nations with their ideals through international legislation have the power.

The UN can only take away national sovereignty, it cannot give it.

Are you that ignorant?

Yes.

Whose definition of "improve" are we to use? Whose ideas are improvements, and whose are the opposite? The UN, as part of NationStates, is designed as a venue for power struggles. Those who can control other nations with their ideals through international legislation have the power.

You see, we're not disagreeing here. I agree: there are some people who have been able to spread their ideals more widely than others. I'm not disputing what has happened: I'm disputing what should happen. Gruenberg does not recognise any universal morality, and as such, we really don't see why nations should try to enforce such on others.

The UN can only take away national sovereignty, it cannot give it.

The UN can do lots of things that have no significant effect on sovereignty. But, in any case, the UN can - and has - granted sovereignty. UNSA?

Yes.



You see, we're not disagreeing here. I agree: there are some people who have been able to spread their ideals more widely than others. I'm not disputing what has happened: I'm disputing what should happen. Gruenberg does not recognise any universal morality, and as such, we really don't see why nations should try to enforce such on others.



The UN can do lots of things that have no significant effect on sovereignty. But, in any case, the UN can - and has - granted sovereignty. UNSA?
In passing legislation, the UN infringes on national sovereignty.

And just so we're clear (I'm still looking through the past resolutions) UNSA = United Nations Security Act? It doesn't really do anything. It says, "It's okay if you make an army." Was there any point where the UN said it wasn't?

UNSA doesn't give nations national sovereignty, it fails to take it away. I never said that it wasn't possible for the UN to waste time passing resolutions that do nothing... we all know it can do that.

And, my apologies for the somewhat rude tone in my previous post.

In passing legislation, the UN infringes on national sovereignty.

And just so we're clear (I'm still looking through the past resolutions) UNSA = United Nations Security Act? It doesn't really do anything. It says, "It's okay if you make an army." Was there any point where the UN said it wasn't?

UNSA doesn't give nations national sovereignty, it fails to take it away. I never said that it wasn't possible for the UN to waste time passing resolutions that do nothing... we all know it can do that.

And, my apologies for the somewhat rude tone in my previous post.

Ok, this is getting...tangled.

Nations have complete sovereignty in all affairs. The UN may legislate in all affairs, and where it does, it overrides that sovereignty. So, in a sense, no, the UN cannot 'give' sovereignty, in that we already have it. However, I was talking about *respecting* sovereignty, or choosing not to infringe on it.

The UNSA (yep, Security Act) means that only weapons which are demonstrated to be 'not necessary for national defence' can be banned. This doesn't grant any new sovereignty, really: but it affirms it. Nonetheless, I admit it wasn't the best example.

What I'm really talking about is something like The Microcredit Bazaar. If nations do not want to enter into the project, then they don't. They preserve sovereignty. Those who do contribute do so as a sovereign decision.

Ok, this is getting...tangled.

Nations have complete sovereignty in all affairs. The UN may legislate in all affairs, and where it does, it overrides that sovereignty. So, in a sense, no, the UN cannot 'give' sovereignty, in that we already have it. However, I was talking about *respecting* sovereignty, or choosing not to infringe on it.

The UNSA (yep, Security Act) means that only weapons which are demonstrated to be 'not necessary for national defence' can be banned. This doesn't grant any new sovereignty, really: but it affirms it. Nonetheless, I admit it wasn't the best example.

What I'm really talking about is something like The Microcredit Bazaar. If nations do not want to enter into the project, then they don't. They preserve sovereignty. Those who do contribute do so as a sovereign decision.
That's exactly what I'm saying. The UN can ONLY take away national sovereignty. Anything else is a non-action. Of course, it could prevent some loss, but that's not a gain. Repeals are a gain, but only of something already lost. The only way the UN could restore all national sovereignty would be to dissolve itself.

I'm not familiar with the Microcredit Bazaar, was it a resolution?

That's exactly what I'm saying. The UN can ONLY take away national sovereignty. Anything else is a non-action. Of course, it could prevent some loss, but that's not a gain. Repeals are a gain, but only of something already lost. The only way the UN could restore all national sovereignty would be to dissolve itself.

I'm not familiar with the Microcredit Bazaar, was it a resolution?

Yes: The Microcredit Bazaar (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=116)

The UN cannot 'ONLY take away national sovereignty'. It can perform actions which do not infringe on national sovereignty, and still perform an action. It can establish agencies, into which nations voluntarily enter, or establish projects, which depend on consentual participation. It does not have to infringe on sovereignty, and can do much good by choosing not to, and instead trusting its members for five minutes.

Yes: The Microcredit Bazaar (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=116)

The UN cannot 'ONLY take away national sovereignty'. It can perform actions which do not infringe on national sovereignty, and still perform an action. It can establish agencies, into which nations voluntarily enter, or establish projects, which depend on consentual participation. It does not have to infringe on sovereignty, and can do much good by choosing not to, and instead trusting its members for five minutes.
I don't quite understand. It looks like the UN created a world bank. This does not give any amount of national sovereignty, it creates a means for international lending.

So I misspoke. The UN can do things that don't take away from national sovereignty. So let me amend my statement. The UN can only take away or maintain existing levels of national sovereignty.

So I misspoke. The UN can do things that don't take away from national sovereignty. So let me amend my statement. The UN can only take away or maintain existing levels of national sovereignty.

I agree.

I agree.
Though, you have to admit... There's nowhere really to go but down, when it comes to national sovereignty. The Microcredit Bazaar was a relative non-issue; it did no legislating at all, and if all the UN did was sit on its ass and say, "Well, this would be nice," there wouldn't be much of a game.

Though, you have to admit... There's nowhere really to go but down, when it comes to national sovereignty. The Microcredit Bazaar was a relative non-issue; it did no legislating at all, and if all the UN did was sit on its ass and say, "Well, this would be nice," there wouldn't be much of a game.

Yeah, sure: it is a game. If we all allowed people to pass everything, it wouldn't be much of one either. Sovereigntists are undoubtedly obstructionists. But, isn't it more fun to actually have someone to argue against? How do you oppose the FGM resolution without arguing sovereignty, for example? Most people in the UN find debating fun. But it's only fun if you have someone to debate with - or rather, against. That's the case here.

Further, The Microcredit Bazaar is genuinely a good resolution, and a good approach. I'm not saying, ultimately, every resolution should be like that - I support some 'sweeping' resolutions - but that I have no problem with something which uses the immense resources of the UN to actually accomplish something, whilst acknowledging that such propopals might not be suitable for everyone.

Yeah, sure: it is a game. If we all allowed people to pass everything, it wouldn't be much of one either. Sovereigntists are undoubtedly obstructionists. But, isn't it more fun to actually have someone to argue against? How do you oppose the FGM resolution without arguing sovereignty, for example? Most people in the UN find debating fun. But it's only fun if you have someone to debate with - or rather, against. That's the case here.

Further, The Microcredit Bazaar is genuinely a good resolution, and a good approach. I'm not saying, ultimately, every resolution should be like that - I support some 'sweeping' resolutions - but that I have no problem with something which uses the immense resources of the UN to actually accomplish something, whilst acknowledging that such propopals might not be suitable for everyone.
I don't know where you got the notion that I believe there should be no opposition. I'm looking for people to debate things with. Do I want everything to pass? Ideally, yes. Because the only reason something fails is because it wasn't discussed enough before it was proposed.

The Microcredit Bazaar is a fantastic resolution that does absolutely nothing.

I don't know where you got the notion that I believe there should be no opposition. I'm looking for people to debate things with. Do I want everything to pass? Ideally, yes. Because the only reason something fails is because it wasn't discussed enough before it was proposed.

The Microcredit Bazaar is a fantastic resolution that does absolutely nothing.

The Microcredit Bazaar does not do nothing (gah). It establishes a very productive agency, into which many nations and many many citizens would undoubtedly invest. I know of one - Gruenberg - and plenty of citizens - Gruenbergers - who have done just that. It is a financial exchange which would not be possible on this scale of organization unless some mechanism for serivcing it was established: who better to support this than the UN? If your nation has chosen not to invest in The Microcredit Bazaar, then I honestly think it's a shame: but I respect your sovereign right to make that decision.

The Microcredit Bazaar does not do nothing (gah). It establishes a very productive agency, into which many nations and many many citizens would undoubtedly invest. I know of one - Gruenberg - and plenty of citizens - Gruenbergers - who have done just that. It is a financial exchange which would not be possible on this scale of organization unless some mechanism for serivcing it was established: who better to support this than the UN? If your nation has chosen not to invest in The Microcredit Bazaar, then I honestly think it's a shame: but I respect your sovereign right to make that decision.
What does it accomplish? It is non-compulsory (which I was under the impression is contradictory to the basic rules of UN membership), so for all you know you're the only one to use it. I twas a very nice idea, and probably a very good one. It was safe.

It's so safe that it has absolutely no impact.

What does it accomplish? It is non-compulsory (which I was under the impression is contradictory to the basic rules of UN membership), so for all you know you're the only one to use it. I twas a very nice idea, and probably a very good one. It was safe.

It's so safe that it has absolutely no impact.

This is the sort of discussion that just can't have an answer, though. We don't know that the UNCoESB will set responsible targets. We don't know that TPP will reach reasonable verdicts. The moderators turned committees over to the gnomes: as such, they are beyond our control, and we must trust them. The Microcredit Bazaar was passed: thousands of nations voted for it. I do not think it unreasonable to assume many of them will invest in it. I can't state how many have, but as a question of realism, I would argue that the resolution does sufficient to allow for the distinct possibility that it would have many investors.

This is the sort of discussion that just can't have an answer, though. We don't know that the UNCoESB will set responsible targets. We don't know that TPP will reach reasonable verdicts. The moderators turned committees over to the gnomes: as such, they are beyond our control, and we must trust them. The Microcredit Bazaar was passed: thousands of nations voted for it. I do not think it unreasonable to assume many of them will invest in it. I can't state how many have, but as a question of realism, I would argue that the resolution does sufficient to allow for the distinct possibility that it would have many investors.But what does it do for those nations that invest in it? What does not investing get for those that don't? How much of an impact does it really make?

Yeah, sure: it is a game. If we all allowed people to pass everything, it wouldn't be much of one either. Sovereigntists are undoubtedly obstructionists. But, isn't it more fun to actually have someone to argue against? How do you oppose the FGM resolution without arguing sovereignty, for example? Most people in the UN find debating fun. But it's only fun if you have someone to debate with - or rather, against. That's the case here.

You right it's a game and it’s fun to debate even when it’s only for debating.
But personally, I tend to approach NSUN as a construction game.

I’m myself far from being exempt from reproaches on this matter, but I think sometimes the drafting stages are poor because we are more interested by debating just for debating than being constructive.

You right it's a game and it’s fun to debate even when it’s only for debating.
But personally, I tend to approach NSUN as a construction game.

I’m not myself far from being exempt from reproaches on this matter, but I think sometimes the drafting stages are poor because we are more interested by debating just for debating than being constructive.

Too often that's the case, I agree, and it's a shame. According to Forgottenlands, I 'raped' your first draft of "Right to Divorce". I think, ultimately though, I still tried to productive feedback where possible - changing 'case' to 'proceedings', for example, (and also mentioning polygamy, which went unreplied to - but that's old news). I ended up agreeing with it. It wasn't until the resolution debate where I realized the major problem, thanks to Ausserland's comments.

So, I agree we should be more constructive, but I'm not entirely surprised we're not always. What I find more annoying is people who don't even contribute to drafting at all - however destructively - but then moan in the at vote threads.

Too often that's the case, I agree, and it's a shame. According to Forgottenlands, I 'raped' your first draft of "Right to Divorce". I think, ultimately though, I still tried to productive feedback where possible - changing 'case' to 'proceedings', for example, (and also mentioning polygamy, which went unreplied to - but that's old news). I ended up agreeing with it. It wasn't until the resolution debate where I realized the major problem, thanks to Ausserland's comments.

So, I agree we should be more constructive, but I'm not entirely surprised we're not always. What I find more annoying is people who don't even contribute to drafting at all - however destructively - but then moan in the at vote threads.

To be honest, i don't listen people arguing polygamy without mentionning polyandry (or vice versa);)

To be honest, i don't listen people arguing polygamy without mentionning polyandry (or vice versa)

Yeah, as demonstrated by your now repealed resolution, you consider both of them inferior.

Yeah, as demonstrated by your now repealed resolution, you consider both of them inferior.

Of course if only one of them is authorized alone

no, if they are both authorized
-case where both are legal together are rare in RL, if not inexistant, please let me know if you know some human society were polygamy and polyandry marriage are both authorized
-it's me that make you realize you have to deal with both, and then you used the argument i gave you:)

no, it's just that:
-case where both are legal together are rare in RL, if not inexistant, please let me know if you know some human society were polygamy and polyandry marriage are both legal
-it's me that make you realize you have to deal with both, and then you used the argument i gave you

Firstly, I genuinely thought 'polygamy' was an acceptable term for what is actually polgamy/polyandry. I didn't mean just polygamy. Furthermore, it's pretty pathetic for you to argue you have some sort of moral superiority here, given, to repeat, that you fucked them both.

Secondly, I don't especially care about RL: this is NS, so Gruenberg will suffice as an example. Nonetheless, I believe the Nuer had legal polygamy (not sure about polyandry).

Firstly, I genuinely thought 'polygamy' was an acceptable term for what is actually polgamy/polyandry. I didn't mean just polygamy. Furthermore, it's pretty pathetic for you to argue you have some sort of moral superiority here, given, to repeat, that you fucked them both.

Secondly, I don't especially care about RL: this is NS, so Gruenberg will suffice as an example. Nonetheless, I believe the Nuer had legal polygamy (not sure about polyandry).


Yes, i'm proud to think that monogamy is superior to polygamy or polyandry alone.

Polygamy or polyandry alone, are dramatic, are in many cases allowed without divorce or without divorce without faults, and yes it's an approaching form of slavery.

It's why we have to be prudent while dealing with them.

That said i have absolutly nothing against polygamy and polyandry, when thay are both authorized in the same time, it doesn't exist in RL, but it can be interesting, i suppose it's what happen in gruenberg:)

OK, just an important semantic clarification: polygamy does indeed deal with both cases. The word for multiple husbands is polyandry, the word for multiple wifes is polygyny. I am appalled that people have been discussing the issue for ages without bothering to check an online dictionary.

OK, just an important semantic clarification: polygamy does indeed deal with both cases. The word for multiple husbands is polyandry, the word for multiple wifes is polygyny. I am appalled that people have been discussing the issue for ages without bothering to check an online dictionary.

Ok I checked the definition, you right
But the problem is that the word is confusing and misused as there are no place in the world were polygamy is authorized.
Those nations or societies who allow "polygyny" doesn't allow polyandry.
And polyandry is pretty rare (Tibet and India) and disappearing.

But the problem is that the word is confusing and misused as there are no place in the world were polygamy is authorized.
Have you not been to The Black New World?

Let me tell you something about us. We take equal rights and domestic abuse very seriously even though we allow polygamous marriages. Kindly take your moral superiority elsewhere.

Rose,
Acting Senior UN representative,
The Black New World

Have you not been to The Black New World?

Let me tell you something about us. We take equal rights and domestic abuse very seriously even though we allow polygamous marriages. Kindly take your moral superiority elsewhere.

Rose,
Acting Senior UN representative,
The Black New World

As I have said many times, if polygamous marriages are both allowed for men and women, of course i have no problem with it and will be amazed to meet some of those people.

But you have to recognize that the word "polygamy" is a very confusing word, as it it most of times used to mean "polygyny" and as many times it's authorized where divorce without faults is not alowed. Polyginy and polyandry alone are discrimination and in many times in practice an approaching form of slavery

I'm not in the mood to ban or condemn something based on the word causing confusion.

Let's play a game though. This is one Des used to play. We take what you wrote that would be

as it it most of times used to mean "polygyny" and as many times it's authorized where divorce without faults is not alowed. Polyginy and polyandry alone are discrimination and in many times in practice an approaching form of slavery

and we'll use the find and replace function, like this;

as it it most of times used to mean "marriage" and as many times it's authorized where divorce without faults is not alowed. Marriage alone is discrimination and in many times in practice an approaching form of slavery

Fun that, ain't it?

And to make a third point; how would outlawing or condemning - as you were in your resolution - polygamy, polyandry, and polygyny protect people in that type of relationship? Do tell, because it seems like you are punishing the good to… well, not improve the bad.

Rose,
Acting Senior UN representative,
The Black New World

Gah. Gruenberg, what have you done? I leave for one night and the thread switches to polygamy? I don't even know where to begin!

And to make a third point; how would outlawing or condemning - as you were in your resolution - polygamy, polyandry, and polygyny protect people in that type of relationship? Do tell, because it seems like you are punishing the good to… well, not improve the bad.

Rose,
Acting Senior UN representative,
The Black New World

1st: I only condemned polygamy, polyandry, and polygyny when it's only allowed in 1 way, as almost if not all nowadays RL situations. It's really different. I tend to think you agree with me there as you never argumented it.

2nd: I proposed a resolution, which protected most polygame people, as most polygame are covered by the definition of marriage #81, by granting them a right to divorce without fault
http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=80
UN RESOLUTION #81 Definition of Marriage

The only people who were not concerned by the divorce resolution were "group mariage" or "group civil union" (divorce for "non-group polygame civil union" was allowed by #135)

I recognized my resolution would have been better if it allowed divorce for "group marriage", but my resolution never condemned or outlawed it, and group marriage doesn't exist nowadays in RL.

Thank you for hosting this card:
http://test256.free.fr/UN%20Cards/thenotthesamecard.jpg

1. THIS IS NOT RL.
2. Polygamy is not protected by Definition of Marriage.
3. Your resolution did not protect polygamy.

Now, as Bresnia has pointed out, this has become slightly unhinged. We were discussing the impact, or lack of, of The Microcredit Bazaar, and 'what it does'.

TMB sets out to raise awareness and opportunity for microcredit investment, in the belief this will raise the extent of that investment, and that this will help alleviate poverty and suffering. It raises awareness and opportunity for microcredit investment. Follow that through, and we see its effect. In short, it fully does all it aims to do. Microcredit has, IRL, been seen to be a productive method of aid, and I do not see why that would be different in NS. TMB has an effect: when we vote in a few days time on the best resolution of 2005, I would hope it would rank highly.

1. THIS IS NOT RL.
2. Polygamy is not protected by Definition of Marriage.
3. Your resolution did not protect polygamy.

Now, as Bresnia has pointed out, this has become slightly unhinged. We were discussing the impact, or lack of, of The Microcredit Bazaar, and 'what it does'.

TMB sets out to raise awareness and opportunity for microcredit investment, in the belief this will raise the extent of that investment, and that this will help alleviate poverty and suffering. It raises awareness and opportunity for microcredit investment. Follow that through, and we see its effect. In short, it fully does all it aims to do. Microcredit has, IRL, been seen to be a productive method of aid, and I do not see why that would be different in NS. TMB has an effect: when we vote in a few days time on the best resolution of 2005, I would hope it would rank highly.
Thank you for clearing that up.