NationStates Jolt Archive

Honoured delegates, we bring to you this thought inspired by some of the less well considered remarks made recently, in the hope that you will consider it plausible and assist in rendering it a proposal fit for voting upon.

Category: Social Justice
Strength: Mild

PROPOSED:

NOTING that the gulf between rich and poor nations can be fully as great as that between rich and poor individuals,

UNDERSTANDING that the richer a nation is, the more it is likely to contribute to international trade,

BELIEVING that increased international trade in turn contributes to the increased wealth of all,

DESIRING therefore to encourage industry and commerce in all member nations,

The United Nations

1. ESTABLISHES the United Nations Economic Development Fund (hereinafter UNEDF),

2. MANDATES the UNEDF to collect charitable donations from those member nations minded to give, and to provide grants from this fund to member nations minded to apply for the development of their economic infrastructure,

3. REQUIRES the UNEDF to monitor the use of all grant money provided, to ensure that it is only used for economic development,

3a. MANDATES therefore that all grant proposals be accompanied by a written agreement fully describing of the intended use of the money, to be negotiated between the UNEDF and the recipient nation, so that adequate monitoring can take place,

3b. REQUIRES grant-aided member nations to cooperate fully in the abovementioned monitoring,

3c. EMPOWERS the UNEDF to demand the return of any grant money it determines has not been spent in accordance with the abovementioned agreement,

4. CHARGES the UNEDF to prioritise member nations whose economic infrastructures are most in need of aid when considering grant applications,

5. CHARGES further that the UNEDF supply expert economic advice to nations applying for grants, carefully considering the specific circumstances of each nation, both in order to most effectively use any monies received and for the general improvement of their economies,

6. URGES applicant nations to seriously consider the advice given by the UNEDF,

7. EMPOWERS the UNEDF to collect examples of good practice in economic development at all levels, and to distribute such examples as may be relevant to member governments and industries,

8. ENCOURAGES all member nations to provide what aid they can to the UNEDF, whether financial or informational, for the enrichment of all.

I'm afraid that the Empire cannot support such a measure, even though it is predicated on donations only. It is precisely the fact that this is based on donations that it is doomed to fail, though this is not the only reason.

Economically speaking, this is just asking for trouble. We make no bones about being staunch free-market capitalists in the Empire, and this sort of legislation makes us nervous, because it fails to address the root causes of economic underdevelopment- namely, mismanagement and poor economic policy.

We do applaud the delegates from Gobbanium for their effort in this draft, and in other circumstances we would be happy to help you fix the draft. Unfortunately, the root idea would not change, and that is the heart of our dsagreement.

Shakk Dr. Amin Al-Satal
Economic Advisor
Allech-Atreus

We of the Palentine are cautiosly optimistic about your efforts. I think after reading over this, I'd say the strength would be mild. I'll try to give some thought on this.

We like the idea of furthering the development of other nations. That would only lead to greater international stability, in our mind. Altanar would support this. We would ask, however, if this clause can be removed:

3b. EMPOWERS the UNEDF to demand the return of any grant money it determines through its monitoring has not been spent on economic development

Any nation needing the assistance in the first place wouldn't likely be in a position to repay it, and this clause is a little vague about how the UNEDF will determine the need to repay, or what circumstances might trigger a repayment demand. Perhaps this could be changed to something mandating that misuse of funds will bar the misusing nation from any further UNEDF assistance.

- Jinella Agaranth, Acting Ambassador

One or two suggestions.

3a. REQUESTS grant-aided member nations to cooperate fully in the abovementioned monitoring,

Make that a requirement. If they want the money, they have to cooperate.

To help deal with the concern brought up by the esteemed representative from Allech-Atreus, you might consider requiring that the UNEDF examine and/or analyze the causes of economic underdevelopment within requesting nations and offer recommendations to receiving nations on how to best utilize the funds to stimulate and/or develop their economy. Obviously, that would have to be on a case by case basis. What works for one won't necessarily work for others.

You've got that almost covered with clause 5, but it could be made more clear and forceful by attaching those recommendations as conditions to the money.

We make no bones about being staunch free-market capitalists in the Empire, and this sort of legislation makes us nervous, because it fails to address the root causes of economic underdevelopment- namely, mismanagement and poor economic policy.
We readily confess that capitalism is not the forte of Gobbannaen politics, except in a purely theoretical sense, but we had hoped this point would be somewhat addressed by clause 5. We shall work on strengthening this in line with the suggestions from the representative from Kivisto, to whom go our thanks.

We of the Palentine are cautiosly optimistic about your efforts. I think after reading over this, I'd say the strength would be mild. I'll try to give some thought on this.
Regretably the "Advancement of Industry" category appears to be subcategorised by area of effect of the proposal rather than strength, as seems to be the case elsewhere. Therein lies our uncertainty that we have even settled upon the correct category. As we intimated earlier, all advice on this practical matter is welcome, and we thank the Senator for his judgement of the strength of the proposition.

Any nation needing the assistance in the first place wouldn't likely be in a position to repay it, and this clause is a little vague about how the UNEDF will determine the need to repay, or what circumstances might trigger a repayment demand. Perhaps this could be changed to something mandating that misuse of funds will bar the misusing nation from any further UNEDF assistance.
We did initially consider drafting the proposal on such lines, but it seemed inadequate. Once grant money has been embezzled, the damage is done and the 'threat' of refusing further applications is clearly merely a denial of future opportunity, something which offending nations may well feel costs them nothing. An active threat to require reparation -- immediate consequent damage, if you will -- appears to us more likely to succeed. Of course Gobbannium would be entirely willing to offer use of our extensive counselling services to individual malefactors, but that would be inappropriate to add to a resolution per se.

Would it satisfy your concerns if we were to require grant applications to be concluded with a formal written agreement as to the use of the money, thereby allowing greater precision in formulating clause 3b?

3a. REQUESTS grant-aided member nations to cooperate fully in the abovementioned monitoring,
Make that a requirement. If they want the money, they have to cooperate.
We would agree in principle, but fought shy of including it in our first draft given the arguments being generated by the similar clause in the proposal currently at the vote. Perhaps the second draft should be more forthright.

This looks much more like Social Justice than Advancement of Industry.

I like the idea, however I think the definition of "economic development" is a bit vague. I'm thinking instead, take the idea of a UN organization for charitable donation, and make it multi purpose. What I mean is, have a organization that collects and distributed donations for use in general national development. Not just economic infrastructure, but civil infrastructure and institutions and food aid. Stuff like roads, schools, food distribution, electricity, water, etc... and then set the organization to insure the money is spent properly. So the money isn't used on military armament, or a 50" plasma TV for the local governor or king .

We agree with the representative of Allech-Atreus on the point of mismanagement and bad policy being possible causes of the financial difficulties. But let's not throw the baby out with the bath water. How about this? The UNEDF negotiates with the receiving nations to set specific uses for the funds. The UNEDF economic experts help the national authorities, while this is going on, to figure out really worthwhile ways of using the money. The funds are provided, conditional on being spent for those uses. In other words, the funds are "fenced." Any money not spent in those specific ways is forfeited back to the UNEDF. The money gets spent properly and, if the nation defaults, it's in no worse shape than before.

As for the suggestion that this get expanded to cover everything from roads to schools.... For heaven's sake, let's not turn a good idea into a jumble of garbage that tries to solve all the world's problems at one fell swoop! We'd advise the author to stick to the subject and stick to his guns.

Travilia E. Thwerdock
Ambassador to the United Nations

If I may say something on the behalf of Liubenia, which is a state that does not appreciate capitalism, there is NO way the free willed people of my country can abide by this. Even if this motion is passed, miraculously, the economic powerhouse of a nation is determined by the will of people to succeed and operate without corruption.

If this new UN division were to force feed money into the pockets of privateers, it would only lead the country into poverty. True success is derived from strong willed entrepreneurs who understand how to operate their business effectively.

Secondly, how can one ask people for donations to give to people who might not even want it? What about our socialist brothers, those who fight for an equally divided economy every day?

But then you ask those you helped to return the favor by monitoring the funds you just gave us so they do not go to waste? I thought this was a charitable donation, not a shady and lucrative dealing.

I will mention this to my superiors. But I can assure you, the leadership of Liubenia will not stand for capitalism and corruption.

We from the FDN aplaud this work done. We also agree with the honourable member from Dancing Bananland that the terms 'Economic Development" and "Economic Infrastructure" is very vague. If a country uses the money to build new factories to produce high teck goods, but they don not have the schools ad Technical Colleges to train workers for these factories, it is doomed to fail, so does schools fall under these terms?

We are also happy to see that finally there is a proposal that does not include giving the donar or lendinggroup powers of the economy of the country receiving money. We maintain that many of the economical problems that exsist is not due to mismangement on the side of the poorer nations, but because of groups like the IMF forcing Neo-Liberal economic policies on nations where it just will not, and did not work.

We do, however, agree that experts shouls be send with the money to assist the governments in the correct use of it, and that certain fences could be put in place, as long as it is reasonable, and agreed to by all parties.

Thank you for this oppertunity to write to you

Federal Minister A. Lituhli
Ministry of Trade and Industry

We from the FDN aplaud this work done. We also agree with the honourable member from Dancing Bananland that the terms 'Economic Development" and "Economic Infrastructure" is very vague. If a country uses the money to build new factories to produce high teck goods, but they don not have the schools ad Technical Colleges to train workers for these factories, it is doomed to fail, so does schools fall under these terms?

I would think that this would fall under the rubric of "economic mismanagement" as described by the Lord Doctor Al-Satal previously. I, and my government, must presume that any nation truly bent on improving its economic situation is going to either possess the sense to go about investing wisely or will retain the services of one who will be able to guide their choices effectively.

We are also happy to see that finally there is a proposal that does not include giving the donar or lendinggroup powers of the economy of the country receiving money. We maintain that many of the economical problems that exsist is not due to mismangement on the side of the poorer nations, but because of groups like the IMF forcing Neo-Liberal economic policies on nations where it just will not, and did not work.

Our government feels that some strings need to be attached to any monies disbursed in the name of economic development. If this scheme is to be restricted to private donors, I would imagine that they would stipulate under which conditions their donations could be allocated. Of course, this carries with it its own problems, but I can imagine the crises that would result when ideological enemies of a given donor are to receive his or her funding.

We do, however, agree that experts shouls be send with the money to assist the governments in the correct use of it, and that certain fences could be put in place, as long as it is reasonable, and agreed to by all parties.

I presume that, by "fences", Your Excellency is referring to funding restrictions. In that case, I find your position to be reasonable, though I have my doubts as to the general effectiveness of a donor-funded program.

Thank you for this oppertunity to write to you

Federal Minister A. Lituhli
Ministry of Trade and Industry

Thank you for taking your time to explain Your Excellency's position in an intelligent and civilized manner.

Ambassador Jevo Telovar-kan
Free Lands of Krioval

This looks much more like Social Justice than Advancement of Industry.

Agreed, and as participation in the workings of the fund is voluntary, it'd have to be mild, I should think.

It's been a while since we ran across a representative who managed to pack so much nonsensical polemic in a single posting.

If I may say something on the behalf of Liubenia, which is a state that does not appreciate capitalism, there is NO way the free willed people of my country can abide by this. Even if this motion is passed, miraculously, the economic powerhouse of a nation is determined by the will of people to succeed and operate without corruption.

No, it's determined by that, plus a whole host of other factors, including natural resources, occurrence or absence of natural disasters, ability of the government to manage the economy effectively, international economic conditions, etc.

If this new UN division were to force feed money into the pockets of privateers, it would only lead the country into poverty. True success is derived from strong willed entrepreneurs who understand how to operate their business effectively.

See above. And who's force-feeding anything?

Secondly, how can one ask people for donations to give to people who might not even want it? What about our socialist brothers, those who fight for an equally divided economy every day?

Your socialist brothers wouldn't apply for the program. You did bother to read the resolution before you started to rant about it, didn't you?

But then you ask those you helped to return the favor by monitoring the funds you just gave us so they do not go to waste? I thought this was a charitable donation, not a shady and lucrative dealing.

So making sure money isn't wasted is a "shady and lucrative dealing?" Nonsense.

I will mention this to my superiors. But I can assure you, the leadership of Liubenia will not stand for capitalism and corruption.

"True success is derived from strong willed entrepreneurs who understand how to operate their business effectively", yet you won't stand for capitalism? I think I need an aspirin.

Travilia E. Thwerdock
Ambassador to the United Nations

"True success is derived from strong willed entrepreneurs who understand how to operate their business effectively", yet you won't stand for capitalism? I think I need an aspirin.

Travilia E. Thwerdock
Ambassador to the United Nations

Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich surreptitiously passes a bottle of pills to the ambassador from Ausserland.

Larebil left these behind. I think they'll do the trick. You're going to need something a lot stronger than aspirin, my friend.

OOC:

My response to the comments from Liubenia, particularly that last bit Auss quoted:

http://members.shaw.ca/alvandyk/HeadExplode.gif

We must respectfully disagree with Ambassador Thwerdock regarding the response from the representative for Luibenia. We distinctly recall hearing a similarly bone-headed deposition last week.

If I may say something on the behalf of Liubenia, which is a state that does not appreciate capitalism, there is NO way the free willed people of my country can abide by this.
The Gobbannaen Principalities could hardly be called a capitalist state either. That alone should indicate some of the intent of this proposal. Further, if your free populous cannot abide with the choice of donating money, applying to receive money, or ignoring the whole business, then may I respectfully suggest that your educational system most urgently requires attention.

If this new UN division were to force feed money into the pockets of privateers, it would only lead the country into poverty. True success is derived from strong willed entrepreneurs who understand how to operate their business effectively.
A curiously capitalist approach from a nation which disavows such intent, we feel. Further, the UNEDF invites applications for grants for specific purposes, which will be validated for their intent for economic development. In what way precisely does that constitute force-feeding money into the pockets of privateers?

Secondly, how can one ask people for donations to give to people who might not even want it? What about our socialist brothers, those who fight for an equally divided economy every day?
One can ask with remarkable ease, just as if one were soliciting donations for the protection of the feather-bellied mole, which has little personal opinion on the matter. The words simply seem to fall out of our mouth.

[Mutters of "So no change there," from the Prince's secretary.]

As to our socialist brethren, one might hope that they, reading the signs that no true proposal for the international equalisation of wealth is ever likely to be passed in these hallowed halls, would take what redistribution might be gained from this proposal. Or not, if they consider investing in economic infrastructure to be an evil, but that truly would be their loss.

But then you ask those you helped to return the favor by monitoring the funds you just gave us so they do not go to waste? I thought this was a charitable donation, not a shady and lucrative dealing.
We are frankly at a loss to understand how the honoured representative could conceivably have read that into the proposal. Recipient states are not requested to monitor the funds, they are instead enjoined to cooperate with the monitoring to be done by the UNEDF. Clearly the recipient nation itself could not perform the monitoring without an entirely unreasonable conflict of interest being placed upon it.

I will mention this to my superiors. But I can assure you, the leadership of Liubenia will not stand for capitalism and corruption.
Delighted as we are to hear such words, we can only hope that the leadership of Luibenia are more perspicacious than their representative.

Our government feels that some strings need to be attached to any monies disbursed in the name of economic development. If this scheme is to be restricted to private donors, I would imagine that they would stipulate under which conditions their donations could be allocated. Of course, this carries with it its own problems, but I can imagine the crises that would result when ideological enemies of a given donor are to receive his or her funding.
The scheme is not to be restricted to private donors; we would hope in particular that some nations would see the advantages of benificence. In addition, the whole purpose of brokering this charity through the offices of the UN is to break any possible connection between donor and recipient; as with the World Food Bank proposals, this strategem renders such stipulations meaningless.

[OOC: I seem to be spamming the thread at the moment. This is what I get for reading while I have regression tests running.]

I have updated the proposal to incorporate the matters debated thus far. I hope I have correctly interpreted and rendered into the document what has been suggested; as ever, my poor words remain open to correction.

Would it satisfy your concerns if we were to require grant applications to be concluded with a formal written agreement as to the use of the money, thereby allowing greater precision in formulating clause 3b?

I think we could live with that. We also agree with Kivisto that monitoring should be a requirement. We like this draft, and with those two changes, we'd enthusiastically support it.

- Jinella Agaranth, Acting Ambassador

We must respectfully disagree with Ambassador Thwerdock regarding the response from the representative for Luibenia. We distinctly recall hearing a similarly bone-headed deposition last week.

I stand corrected. ;)

The changes incorporated in the draft are quite acceptable. We do have one minor suggestion for revision, indicated in bold type:

3a. MANDATES therefore that all grant proposals be accompanied by a written agreement fully describing of the intended use of the money, to be negotiated between the UNEDF and the recipient nation, so that adequate monitoring can take place,

We will have some wordsmithing suggestions (our normal grammar and wording nitpicks) as the proposal nears submission. But, unless something significant changes, Ausserland will support the proposal.

Travilia E. Thwerdock
Ambassador to the United Nations

I must say, there is a fair amount of misunderstanding and counterpointing going on in regards to my opinion on the matter. I suggest you read exactly what I mentioned before, but for peace of mind I will most certainly explain myself.

No, it's determined by that, plus a whole host of other factors, including natural resources, occurrence or absence of natural disasters, ability of the government to manage the economy effectively, international economic conditions, etc.

Those other factors you have mentioned are nothing without the proper management and willpower to mantain those industries. And let us not forget, when corporation is founded, there is only one goal in mind: Maximum Capital. While that in itself is not an evil thing, it is at the cost of whatever stands in the corporations path, and we believe this to be especially true in civilian organizations. It is not an ideal we propogate ourselves, it is simply a fact we acknowledge to be true.

That is something Liubenia will not support. If this funding is being used (And it most inevitably will) to tear down forests and natural habitats, it is a rat race in which we are content with finishing last.

See above. And who's force-feeding anything?

We sincerely apologize for the comment this is aimed at. It was a misunderstanding on our part.

Your socialist brothers wouldn't apply for the program. You did bother to read the resolution before you started to rant about it, didn't you??

Apologies, representative. I spoke out of line.

While it is true they do not have to vote for this, or donate anything at all, there is a line you must draw when it comes to making your money as opposed to earning your money. We are not all interested in becoming economic powerhouses, though some of us may be.

Again, we apologize for the outburst for which the quoted comment was made. It seems I tend to skim documents such as this, but I assure you in the future this will not happen again.

So making sure money isn't wasted is a "shady and lucrative dealing?" Nonsense.

Please re-read section 3 of the drafted article. If money was ever donated to Liubenia, we have trust in our people. How can one donate money to the needy, and then say "Hey, we're not content with this nonsense business of selling monkeys, we demand it back". Well, what if they can't pay it back?

It is a fuss we are not prepared to deal with. But as you said, we are not forced to apply for the program. However, this may be an issue not all nations have considered before applying.

Of course, until it becomes apparent this money is being used in instances as mentioned earlier, we are willing to donate to this fund if it comes to life.

The Gobbannaen Principalities could hardly be called a capitalist state either.

We did not mean to assert such a claim, and we apologize for calling any nation here capitalist, as that was not our intent. But if further clarification is needed, we wish no ill will your nation, so please feel free to ask.

A curiously capitalist approach from a nation which disavows such intent, we feel. Further, the UNEDF invites applications for grants for specific purposes, which will be validated for their intent for economic development. In what way precisely does that constitute force-feeding money into the pockets of privateers?

We do not mean to imply we are capitalist by that remark. Furthermore, we humbly request that little remark on "Specific Purposes" should be added to the draft to avoid further confusion on the topic.

As to our socialist brethren, one might hope that they, reading the signs that no true proposal for the international equalisation of wealth is ever likely to be passed in these hallowed halls, would take what redistribution might be gained from this proposal. Or not, if they consider investing in economic infrastructure to be an evil, but that truly would be their loss.

As representative, I must apologize for that particular comment. I was under some personal pressure which, quite honestly, affected the way I wanted to say what I did. Liubenia sincerely hopes the good peoples of your nation and Ausserland are not completely offended, as are others who may be.

But for clarification purposes, I meant to assert that other socialist parties in power may not feel the same as other nations do in respect to economic strength. Duly noted, the idea is a great one and would benefit them entirely, but as I mentioned to the representative of Ausserland, at what cost is another thing entirely.

We are frankly at a loss to understand how the honoured representative could conceivably have read that into the proposal. Recipient states are not requested to monitor the funds, they are instead enjoined to cooperate with the monitoring to be done by the UNEDF. Clearly the recipient nation itself could not perform the monitoring without an entirely unreasonable conflict of interest being placed upon it.

We simply acknowledge that it is a fine "web to weave", so to speak, by attaching these strings to the deal. You say you will donate to us, but for specific reasons and be placed under observation by both the UNEDF and the government, which no doubt will happen in many instances out of good will towards the UNEDF. This in itself creates a conflict of interest, as the opinion of the government may differ entirely from the UNEDF.

In short, we do not believe section three is a well through through proposal. Though we do understand why it is in the draft, we do not support it for reasons mentioned above.

Delighted as we are to hear such words, we can only hope that the leadership of Luibenia are more perspicacious than their representative.

Though I, the representative in question, was out of line, the leadership of Liubenia insists it holds the same opinion. They did, however, very nicely ask me to "uncomplicate" the issue for my comments. :)

Again, to all those offended by my previous comments, we ask for your forgiveness. The emotion put into those remarks are not shared by the actual leadership, and they assert that such an incident will not happen again. We have our opinion, and believe the UNEDF to be a "Fair and mostly honest" proposal. If it was voted in, it is with great consideration and thought we would support it for the greater good of all nations.

Those other factors you have mentioned are nothing without the proper management and willpower to mantain those industries.

So, I could live in the middle of the most blighted landscape known to a sentient being, deprived of anything resembling natural resources, and still achieve economic greatness? Perhaps, but you know, all willpower and management skill aside, I think that if I lived in a place like that, it would be very very very very very very very very very hard to do so. To say the least. Very.

Please re-read section 3 of the drafted article. If money was ever donated to Liubenia, we have trust in our people. How can one donate money to the needy, and then say "Hey, we're not content with this nonsense business of selling monkeys, we demand it back". Well, what if they can't pay it back?

We were actually concerned about that as well. However, the goal here is to prevent nations from willfully misusing these funds. You have to draw the line somewhere.

However, this may be an issue not all nations have considered before applying.

That may be true, but anyone who doesn't read a contract before signing it is just asking for trouble. You can only prevent someone from shooting themselves in the foot so much. Again, you have to draw the line somewhere.

- Jinella Agaranth, Acting Ambassador

So, I could live in the middle of the most blighted landscape known to a sentient being, deprived of anything resembling natural resources, and still achieve economic greatness? Perhaps, but you know, all willpower and management skill aside, I think that if I lived in a place like that, it would be very very very very very very very very very hard to do so. To say the least. Very.

This is my rifle.
There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Without me, it is nothing.
Without it, I am nothing.

That should clarify what I meant. However, as to the rest of your post, I do not believe some people read it in detail (Such as I, the representative, at first glance) or fully understand it.

We thank the representative from Ausserland for better expressing the course we had envisioned that process following, and will incorporate that change in the next edit.

This is my rifle.
There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Without me, it is nothing.
Without it, I am nothing.

That should clarify what I meant.
We fear this depressing philosophy has clarified nothing to us, and indeed left us more confused. Particularly since unless some highly uncommon steps have been taken, your rifle remains an entirely usable weapon in the hands of another. Clearly there is some considerably philosophical divide between us that I fail to comprehend.

If this funding is being used (And it most inevitably will) to tear down forests and natural habitats, it is a rat race in which we are content with finishing last.
Whilst this is an interesting reinterpretation of the Ambassador's previous position, it too fails to find relevance with the proposal in our eyes. If the government of Luibenia does not wish to disturb its forests, a worthy cause, it can still take advantage of possible grant aiding by arriving at an agreement with the UNEDF which does not involve deforestation. Such an agreement may or may not be of limited utility, but that is true of any circumstance in which preconditions are in place.

While it is true they do not have to vote for this, or donate anything at all, there is a line you must draw when it comes to making your money as opposed to earning your money. We are not all interested in becoming economic powerhouses, though some of us may be.
You are quite at liberty to not become an economic powerhouse, if I have interpreted you correctly. This proposal would not cause that to happen in any case, as the size of grants is unlikely to be of the enormous nature required. Smaller, better directed grants may however be of disproportionate assistance in easing the subsequent earning of money, if that is your qualm.

Please re-read section 3 of the drafted article. If money was ever donated to Liubenia, we have trust in our people. How can one donate money to the needy, and then say "Hey, we're not content with this nonsense business of selling monkeys, we demand it back". Well, what if they can't pay it back?
We think we follow your argument here, but must urge you in turn to re-read the redrafted clause 3. We have attempted to tighten it so that the misconception you refer to does not arise, by insisting that (in this hypothetical instance) both the UNEDF and the government of Liubenia agree in writing beforehand the details of how the grant funding will be used to aid in your simian sales business. Since the details would be negotiated, even habitual skim-readers would find themselves informed.

We simply acknowledge that it is a fine "web to weave", so to speak, by attaching these strings to the deal. You say you will donate to us, but for specific reasons and be placed under observation by both the UNEDF and the government, which no doubt will happen in many instances out of good will towards the UNEDF. This in itself creates a conflict of interest, as the opinion of the government may differ entirely from the UNEDF.
We regret to say that we failed utterly to follow the logic of your second sentence, the latter part of which simply defies analysis. We do feel bounden to point out that conflicts of interest, in this legal context, are contrary tensions within a single individual or body. No organisation can offer meaningful reports on the legality of its own operations, for instance; no matter how accurate such reports might be in reality, no reasonable person having no other source of information could safely regard them as anything but biased.

UNDERSTANDING that the richer a nation is, the more it is likely to contribute to international trade,

BELIEVING that increased international trade in turn contributes to the increased wealth of all,

I understand that this is probably because I am communist filth, but I'd suggest these two lines to be reconsidered, because the proposal itself doesn't seem to have much to do with trade.

As it stands, I don't have a problem, in fact I think it's good. But not so if some of the other suggested amendments, especially dictating strings attached to the aid money, are put in.

The people's republic of Euphromen wholeheartedly supports this proposal

I understand that this is probably because I am communist filth, but I'd suggest these two lines to be reconsidered, because the proposal itself doesn't seem to have much to do with trade.

As it stands, I don't have a problem, in fact I think it's good. But not so if some of the other suggested amendments, especially dictating strings attached to the aid money, are put in.

We're wondering which "strings" our honorable colleague finds objectionable. Some specificity would help us consider his concerns properly.

Travilia E. Thwerdock
Ambassador to the United Nations

As we understand it, as soon as this resolution operational we will be subject to the following conditions:

1) We are urged to donate to this fund. This is voluntary, of course.

2) If we donate, we do not know what is going to happen to our money we granted. Even if we specifically request not to support deforestation or poaching of endandered species, we have no idea what kind of things a civilian company or governmental agency may be doing under the cloak.

3) If we do not appease the mind of the UNEDF in how we, the beneficiaries of the grants, conduct business or do not not meet their expectations then they will demand the money back.

4) We, those who request money will be subject to monitoring from outside of our borders, and do it voluntarily?

If it appears we have misinterpreted all that has been said, do not hesitate to let us know. This is how Liubenia feels on the topic.

We're wondering which "strings" our honorable colleague finds objectionable. Some specificity would help us consider his concerns properly.

Travilia E. Thwerdock
Ambassador to the United Nations

While Your Excellency's request is not directed at our delegation directly, I believe that our delegation raised a similar question earlier. To give an example, then, Kriovalian money cannot be contributed to a nation whose granting of civil rights is not at a sufficient level. As it stands, our government would be unable to stipulate that funding the economic development of a nation that bans free speech.

Second, and an albeit minor point, is that two nations could be in a state of war, and one or both receiving grants by way of this resolution. What would the response of the grant-conferring organization be in such a scenario? I submit that this question is not meant to be rhetorical, but instead it is one to which I cannot resolve.

Ambassador Jevo Telovar-kan
Free Lands of Krioval

2) If we donate, we do not know what is going to happen to our money we granted. Even if we specifically request not to support deforestation or poaching of endandered species, we have no idea what kind of things a civilian company or governmental agency may be doing under the cloak.
The two parts of this second point's second sentence are in fact separate concerns, if we understand you correctly. We strongly resist the first of these, your desire to attach conditions to your donation. If you wish to do such things, a private arrangement with some needy nation, company, organisation or indeed individual may be possible; but that would be your own business. When it comes to the UN, and this fund in particular, we feel that the economically mighty must not have temptation thrust into their path, and should not be given any power to insist on interfering in any way in the government of others.

Your second point would be addressed by insisting that all completed agreements between the UNEDF and recipient nations (note: we are talking about governments, not any other form of organisation here!) should be public documents. We are agnostic on this point, seeing arguments both for and against.

3) If we do not appease the mind of the UNEDF in how we, the beneficiaries of the grants, conduct business or do not not meet their expectations then they will demand the money back.
Incorrect. If you break the terms of the agreement you negotiated beforehand with the UNEDF, then and only then can (and should) they demand the money to be returned.

4) We, those who request money will be subject to monitoring from outside of our borders, and do it voluntarily?
This seems both a sensible and necessary precaution against the abuse of grants, and is generally the case in other areas of concern to the UN. Only through independant monitoring can compliance be assured.

While Your Excellency's request is not directed at our delegation directly, I believe that our delegation raised a similar question earlier. To give an example, then, Kriovalian money cannot be contributed to a nation whose granting of civil rights is not at a sufficient level. As it stands, our government would be unable to stipulate that funding the economic development of a nation that bans free speech.
That is the intention, and much though we support free speech we feel it wholly improper to allow a primarily economic system to be abused for such a purpose. After all, while Krioval may have only the best intentions of the recipient populous at heart, other donor nations may stipulate that certain democratic freedoms that we approve of be curtailed in the best interests of the recipient. What is sauce for the goose is required also to be sauce for the gander. Better by far for donated monies to be pooled in a single fund before redistribution, to avoid even the concept of such strings arising.

Second, and an albeit minor point, is that two nations could be in a state of war, and one or both receiving grants by way of this resolution. What would the response of the grant-conferring organization be in such a scenario? I submit that this question is not meant to be rhetorical, but instead it is one to which I cannot resolve.
The resolution is simple; warfare is relevant only in as much as it impacts on a nation's economy. Particular grant applications may be determined to be ineffectual unless there is a cessation of hostilities, but that would be as far as the matter concerns the UNEDF. The UN as a whole may choose to say otherwise about any specific conflict, in which case the UNEDF would naturally comply with the UN's wishes, but beyond that we do not see warfare as an issue for this proposal any more than it is for the World Food Bank proposal.

Final redraft, changes underlined. Mostly these are Ausserland's rewording of 3b, and a couple of minor clarifications to plug ambiguities the lawyers spotted. His Wordiness will propose this on Wednesday night unless something major turns up.


Cerys Coch, Permanant Undersecretary.

Our concerns regarding "strings attached" have been resolved. We are still cautious as to the nature of the "expert" economic advice nations will receive, but as nothing is specified, there really isn't anything objectionable.

I would like to raise a point regarding 3c. While it is indeed a problem if money meant for building schools goes to building palaces, recalling the money could potentially place a nation in a horrendous debt crisis which will more than likely persist after the errant government is long gone. Perhaps a termination of aid would be more reasonable, and could avoid the potential counterproductiveness of such a situation.

We would refer the honoured delegate from Kelssek to our previous discussion (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12278442&postcount=6) of this point.

We have read the new changes to the resolution, and must say this clarifies alot of issues we had previously with it. However, though it is not strongly, we disagree with demanding the money back. You donated the money to the beneficiaries, the least they could do is make the most of it with your guidance.

We understand this is would make the UNEDF look like a hot spot for free money; However, we must trust our brother nations. It is not our place to decide this, but we merely believe this is right.

Liubenia feels it has no choice but to approve the resolution. It is very well put together, and will be a betterment for all nations.

Yes, I know you want it to have some coercive power, but the counterproductiveness of potentially miring nations in debt in a resolution meant to do the opposite is not addressed.

May I advise my fellow ambassadors that this resolution has now been formally proposed, and is in consequence seeking approval from the requisite number of regional delegates. This, as my secretary is fond of saying, is a hint.

We appear to have seriously underestimated the work needed to interest the average UN delegate in a proposal. Even being selective about which nations we send telegrams to, we have barely made it a third of the way through the list of regions, and there remains but one day before our proposal's time is up. Clearly we shall have to rethink our approach for a different occasion.

Trust me, nobody gets their first proposal to quorum on their first try, hell it took me six tries to get Nuclear Armaments to quorum. Heck, look at Habeus Corpus, would you believe that it took 15 tries before Enn got it to quorum. Just make sure you're keeping track of who's approved it this time and when you resubmit be sure to let them know that while it failed to reach quorum the first time, it's been resubmitted and you'd appreciate it if they reapproved it.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

We would like to thank Ambassador Flibble for his kind words.

Just make sure you're keeping track of who's approved it this time and when you resubmit be sure to let them know that while it failed to reach quorum the first time, it's been resubmitted and you'd appreciate it if they reapproved it.

That was indeed our intention. Sadly, we had believed that we had until the end of today to achieve quorum, so our notes on who approved it on this occasion are woefully inadequate.