NationStates Jolt Archive

After a suggestion in this forum...

Indebted Nations' Recovery Act

Category: The Furtherment of Democracy
Strength: Mild

RECOGNIZING that many nations are crippled by international debt due to corruption, bad management of education systems, bad monetary policy, reckless spending and borrowing, and other factors,

The United Nations:

1. CREATES the United Nations Government Reform Commission (UNGRC) for the purpose of assisting in reform of bad policy in struggling nations;

2. CHARGES UNGRC with assisting nations with reforming or adjusting their economic policies to stimulate economic growth, especially in the area of corruption reduction;

3. ENCOURAGES nations or corporations, including non-governmental organizations and private individuals (hereafter referred to as "forgiving nations") to cancel, partially cancel, or increase interest or due dates on debts owed to them by economically struggling nations on the condition that the struggling nation agrees to utilize the services of UNGRC (as detailed in clause 4) to avoid a recurrence;

4. REQUIRES that nations who agree to the terms of clause 3 cooperate fully with UNGRC, the forgiving nation, and regional powers to reduce corruption and create solid economic policy to foster positive economic growth;

5. URGES forgiving nations to include terms to not cancel debts again unless significant reforms have been made since the second crisis.

This is the first place I've posted it, and it's a rough draft. Comments, including "this is stupid" if applicable, would be appreciated.

If you're even vaguely familiar with the horrendous record of the IMF, which has a similar agenda to that espoused in this proposal, you might begin to sense why this is a terrible idea. This basically sounds like our very own version of the organisation which fuxxored Indonesia, Argentina, et. al.

IC:

4. REQUIRES that nations who agree to the terms of clause 3 cooperate fully with UNGRC, the forgiving nation, and regional powers to reduce corruption and create solid economic policy to foster positive economic growth;

Reduce corruption? How exactly, pray tell? Corruption is a complex socioeconomic issue and you don't just get rid of it that easily. Why the focus on growth exclusively? For a poor country isn't development equally, if not more important? Is "solid economic policy" going to be "open up your country so the rich capitalist nations can rape your resources to and even richer while your population continues to live in a state of poverty"?

5. URGES forgiving nations to include terms to not cancel debts again unless significant reforms have been made since the second crisis.

*retching sounds*

1. CREATES the United Nations Government Reform Commission (UNGRC) for the purpose of assisting in reform of bad policy in struggling nations;

2. CHARGES UNGRC with assisting nations with reforming or adjusting their economic policies to stimulate economic growth, especially in the area of corruption reduction;

Could this be compressed a bit? Basically, I would think that these two clauses are effectively creating an organization and charging it with eliminating corruption. If I'm wrong, please let me know.

Also, would it be possible to specifically single out administrative inefficiency? That is probably just as large a factor as outright corruption.

3. ENCOURAGES nations or corporations, including non-governmental organizations and private individuals (hereafter referred to as "forgiving nations") to cancel, partially cancel, or increase interest or due dates on debts owed to them by economically struggling nations on the condition that the struggling nation agrees to utilize the services of UNGRC (as detailed in clause 4) to avoid a recurrence;

The part in bold text says something I don't think that you meant to say. If anything, I would think that interest rates on debt should be reduced to fit with the spirit of this resolution. As for due dates, maybe say something like, "allow payments to be deferred"?

4. REQUIRES that nations who agree to the terms of clause 3 cooperate fully with UNGRC, the forgiving nation, and regional powers to reduce corruption and create solid economic policy to foster positive economic growth;

Not bad, though I think the text could be tightened up a bit. I'll try to see what I can come up with in a bit.

5. URGES forgiving nations to include terms to not cancel debts again unless significant reforms have been made since the second crisis.

I can only presume that "second crisis" refers to an indebted nation's failure to comply with the UNGRC?

Anyway, here's my attempt, keeping as close to the spirit of the original:



Revised Indebted Nations' Recovery Act
Category: Furtherment of Democracy (or Social Justice?)
Strength: Mild

RECOGNIZING that many nations are crippled by international debt due to corruption, bad management of education systems, bad monetary policy, reckless spending and borrowing, and other factors,

The United Nations:

1. CREATES the United Nations Government Reform Commission (UNGRC) for the purpose of assisting in political reform in economically struggling nations;

2. CHARGES UNGRC with assisting economically struggling nations with reforming their political and economic policies to stimulate economic growth, with a specific focus on administrative corruption and inefficiency;

3. ENCOURAGES involved international lenders, including national governments, corporations, non-governmental organizations, and private individuals, to cancel, reduce, or decrease interest rates on, or allow for deferred payments on debts owed to them by economically struggling nations on the following conditions:

a. The economically struggling nation permits the the UNGRC to fully investigate their political and economic policies;

b. The economically struggling nation cooperates fully with theUNGRC, involved international lenders, and involved regional powers to eliminate corruption, reduce administrative inefficiency, and to create solid economic policies likely to foster positive economic growth;

4. ALLOWS economically struggling nations to terminate their involvement with the UNGRC, whereupon the original terms of their debt repayment will be restored.

5. ALLOWS involved international lenders to reinstate the original terms of debt repayment should the economically struggling nation do any of the following:

a. Decline the services of the UNGRC.

b. Violate the terms set forth in 3a or 3b.

c. Repudiate reforms made in concert with 3b after the involvement with the UNGRC is concluded.

d. Violate the terms of a new debt repayment plan, should one exist.



My changes are in italicized text, and I've tried to add a bit more detail to some parts, for better or worse. Really, the first draft was quite good, so many of my suggestions are more stylistic than anything else.

EDIT: Deleted the quote box - all text would be italic otherwise.

What's with the current vogue of setting up endless committees to lecture developing nations? Maybe the devotion to mindless copycatting is as much the reason for the staggering lack of activity in current UN activities as the Snip and Sneer Brigade (my membership application's still processing).

I remember a little while ago, someone mentioning the possibility of an anti-corruption proposal. If that's your aim here, then this needs to be significantly more comprehensive. For a start, defining corruption might not be out of the realm of possibility. You might also want to point out why it's bad: corruption doesn't tend to be a cause of debt, as you claim, because corruption requires the existence of some money.

Furthermore, I can see some nations using this as a means to grant limited aid in return for opening up markets in developing nations. Before you hit me with the hippie stick, no, I don't hate rich people, and yes, Quintessence of Dust supports free trade: but it's not unknown for developed nations to deliberately manipulate these kind of arrangements to their own advantage. We'd make this point more strongly if we weren't equally disgusted by the typical knee-jerk reactionism displayed by the representative of Kelssek.

And the brevity of the preamble is telling. What is this proposal actually trying to do? All I can see is yet another committee that's going to tell us how to run our economies in exchange for...well, not a lot.

This is stupid.

-- George Madison
Legislative Director
Quintessence of Dust Department of UN Affairs

This may sound strange given the proposal we are currently developing, but we find this attempt at reducing debt, and particularly the representative from Krovial's redraft, highly unnerving. The proposed involvement of the lender is far too intrusive for our tastes, and far too mandatory.

The revised clause 5 makes a mockery of the whole intent to equalise by leaving a "forgiven" debt forever hanging over the head of the debtor, threatening to be reinvoked should particular policies be altered, however inappropriate those policies may have become in a future socio-economic climate. While we appreciate that the member for Krovial is simply attempting to ensure that the changes in policy required for debt cancellation are not mere words, this iteration is open to gross abuse by the lenders.

We would, however, concur that Social Justice is a more apt category. We simply differ as to which way it tips the balance.

What's with the current vogue of setting up endless committees to lecture developing nations?

Your Excellency must be referring to items in draft only, as only one of the past five passed resolutions comes close to doing this, that being "Healthcare Certification", and I would not consider that to be "lecturing" any nations - not that I imply that Your Excellency is doing so either. But I wonder from where this attitude that the UN is committee-happy originates. Very few new committees have been created by successful resolutions in recent memory, and the last passed resolution eliminated one that sorely needed to be eliminated.

Furthermore, I can see some nations using this as a means to grant limited aid in return for opening up markets in developing nations. Before you hit me with the hippie stick, no, I don't hate rich people, and yes, Quintessence of Dust supports free trade: but it's not unknown for developed nations to deliberately manipulate these kind of arrangements to their own advantage.

Which they can do anyway. This proposal does not enhance the means by which an economically strong nation can "take advantage" of an economically weaker nation. The program outlined here is entirely voluntary. Also, I do not see the reason to assume that every economically struggling nation is "developing" or that a "developed" nation is going to automatically be economically strong. I can think of several scenarios wherein an industrial powerhouse is indebted to other nations, possibly due to a scarcity of raw materials or due to equipping too large an army, or even because of, say, corruption and inefficiency.

I remember a little while ago, someone mentioning the possibility of an anti-corruption proposal. If that's your aim here, then this needs to be significantly more comprehensive. For a start, defining corruption might not be out of the realm of possibility. You might also want to point out why it's bad: corruption doesn't tend to be a cause of debt, as you claim, because corruption requires the existence of some money.

I would say that corruption can lead to failed economic policy, which can lead to debt. I agree, however, that a more comprehensive proposal to combat corruption would begin with many of your suggestions. If the author's intent was to create such a proposal, I appear to have misread those intentions fully. It would not be the first time I have done so.

Ambassador Jevo Telovar-kan
Free Lands of Krioval

This may sound strange given the proposal we are currently developing, but we find this attempt at reducing debt, and particularly the representative from Krovial's redraft, highly unnerving. The proposed involvement of the lender is far too intrusive for our tastes, and far too mandatory.

Well, the lender is a bit important in the proceedings, yes? Would Your Excellency bind the lender into the agreement regardless of the UNGRC's findings or the economically struggling nation's compliance? The agreement between the two, involving the UNGRC, would be entirely voluntary. I can't imagine any international lender who would unilaterally void a debt - some binding conditions would need to apply. Clause five merely spells out under which circumstances the lender could cancel the agreement. Is it really that bothersome that a lender would demand either repayment of the debt or else some other concession from the borrower?

The revised clause 5 makes a mockery of the whole intent to equalise by leaving a "forgiven" debt forever hanging over the head of the debtor, threatening to be reinvoked should particular policies be altered, however inappropriate those policies may have become in a future socio-economic climate. While we appreciate that the member for Krovial is simply attempting to ensure that the changes in policy required for debt cancellation are not mere words, this iteration is open to gross abuse by the lenders.

...who could otherwise back out for whatever reason they chose. Clause five actually restricts the lenders' abilities to retract their agreement, focusing only on issues of compliance with reform on the part of the borrower, who, if this proposal is to be believed, would have requested participation in this program. Canceled debt would remain canceled so long as the reforms remained in effect. I suppose that some language could be inserted that allows the borrower to adjust reforms after a set period of time as socioeconomic conditions dictate, but without those protections, a canceled debt might embolden the borrower to undo all the changes undertaken to get that debt canceled.

We would, however, concur that Social Justice is a more apt category. We simply differ as to which way it tips the balance.

I hardly consider my draft comprehensive. Suggestions are most definitely welcome, though they should more appropriately be directed to this proposal's author, whose future insight as to the intended purpose and scope of this proposal will be invaluable.

Ambassador Jevo Telovar-kan
Free Lands of Krioval

Is "solid economic policy" going to be "open up your country so the rich capitalist nations can rape your resources to [get] even richer while your population continues to live in a state of poverty"?You say that like it's a bad thing.


-David Ericson
Hack Council For Third World "Economic Development"

One of the junior delegation members stood up. "Of COURSE it's a bad thing! The relentless international war on the proletariat is going just as Marx predicted!..."

"Sit down, you fool." snarled Eric Lattener.

I can't imagine any international lender who would unilaterally void a debt - some binding conditions would need to apply. Clause five merely spells out under which circumstances the lender could cancel the agreement. Is it really that bothersome that a lender would demand either repayment of the debt or else some other concession from the borrower?

Why not? These are called "bad debts" and financial institutions deal with them all the time. If people can declare bankruptcy to escape their debts whole countries should get the opportunity too, particularly if, for instance, the debt was accumulated by a previous government which was overthrown. The responsibility, and blame, should lie with the lenders. Countries would not get into bad debts if the lenders didn't make bad loans. Why should they get to escape their responsibilities? We should be pushing for unconditional debt cancellation.

(OOC: This also makes me think of the book "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man", which asserts that governments have been giving bad loans to third-world countries so as to have a kind of imperialistic power over them.)

Canceled debt would remain canceled so long as the reforms remained in effect. I suppose that some language could be inserted that allows the borrower to adjust reforms after a set period of time as socioeconomic conditions dictate, but without those protections, a canceled debt might embolden the borrower to undo all the changes undertaken to get that debt canceled.

This really is quite dubious. Cancelled should mean cancelled, not suspended, and such a provision holds sovereignty hostage. The economic policy becomes dictated to countries by foreigners working and living very far from the conditions and realities on the ground, and it's doubtful that they are the best-equipped to make adjustments. If the reforms are being undone, perhaps it means something's wrong with them, instead of the "government is corrupt, bad policy" catch-all.

And since I know you'll bring this up:

focusing only on issues of compliance with reform on the part of the borrower, who, if this proposal is to be believed, would have requested participation in this program.

Just how voluntary is very much in question in these circumstances, as well. It seems as though this system will become the only way for a nation to escape debt. How can it be said that entering this system will be entirely voluntary?

Why not? These are called "bad debts" and financial institutions deal with them all the time. If people can declare bankruptcy to escape their debts whole countries should get the opportunity too, particularly if, for instance, the debt was accumulated by a previous government which was overthrown. The responsibility, and blame, should lie with the lenders. Countries would not get into bad debts if the lenders didn't make bad loans. Why should they get to escape their responsibilities? We should be pushing for unconditional debt cancellation.

I can concede the point regarding nations whose governments are changed. As for "bad debts", it is my government's finding that risk factors cannot be determined with perfect accuracy in every circumstance. Unconditional debt cancellation is one tool to address this issue, but hardly the sole, or even best, one in every case. I further disagree with Your Excellency's position that the sole responsibility for "bad loans" is with the lender, especially if the borrower is concealing key facts from the lender.

This really is quite dubious. Cancelled should mean cancelled, not suspended, and such a provision holds sovereignty hostage. The economic policy becomes dictated to countries by foreigners working and living very far from the conditions and realities on the ground, and it's doubtful that they are the best-equipped to make adjustments. If the reforms are being undone, perhaps it means something's wrong with them, instead of the "government is corrupt, bad policy" catch-all.

Agreed - canceled should mean exactly that. And for unconditional cancellation, that works perfectly. But if a condition is attached, and agreed to, it needs to be followed. It is not my position that a lender should attach a permanent condition, but perhaps something that expires in a few months' or a year's time, and that those conditions should be set by this proposal's organization, which is designed to observe conditions "on the ground" and to make realistic suggestions based on their observations.

Just how voluntary is very much in question in these circumstances, as well. It seems as though this system will become the only way for a nation to escape debt. How can it be said that entering this system will be entirely voluntary?

There is nothing to prevent an international lender from canceling a debt without invoking the framework outlined in this proposal. This proposal does not forbid such arrangements. Thus, there are avenues outside of this proposal that must currently exist to allow for debt restructuring and cancellation, and as this proposal does not preclude the use of those avenues, any arrangement made under this proposal is voluntary.

Ambassador Jevo Telovar-kan
Free Lands of Krioval

Dear Nations


Let me begin by saying that the Forgiving of Debt is a very important issue for our newly formed Federation. The reason is very clear. When ourFederation was formed, we inherited the combined debt of our member nations,. Much of this money was borrowed, not be democratic repesentatives of the people, but by dictators, who used it for their own advantage.

Also, in many circumstances, many of these loans where given by powerful nations to buy support in the cold war. When this war ended, the these governments turned on the Developing World, demanding this money back!

This having been said, we are very worried about this draft. We want to thank the Honourable member and his wonderfull, compasionate nation for this attempt. I will forthwith now say what about this draft worries us:

It is the interference in the economical affairs of a nation. It has been said in this debate that this has been done before, most notably by the IMF and World Bank. Neo-Liberal economic policies where forced on developing nations of this world, policies that work well in richer nations, but is not suitable for nations standing up. They where forced to privitise important industries like water and electricity, making these things too expensive for the people, leading to more problems and poverty. These nations where forced to open up markets, leading to the dumping of low quility goods from richer nations, leading to unemployment and other such problems.

So, even if we are all for the total forgiveness of debts, having this clause in there, makes it impossible for us to support such a draft.

We have a suggestion to make, since we want to make a positive contribution. We maintain interferencce in economic policies is dangerous, but we will suggest that this plan to forgve debt should only be extened to REspnsible nations. With this we mean that any nation shouls open itself up for review by the UN, and that governence should be invesitgated. Only governments that proof themselves to be fully democratic and responsible will then quilify for this program.

Also, we will agree that a study should be done on corruption, and that any nation that apply for this program, should comply to an investgation on corruption from the outside, and take clear measures to fight corruption.

These are our main thoughst at this time. Again, we thank the honourable members for this draft, as we believe this to be an important step in the right direction.

Let's together take this final step to free the nations of the world from colonialism and oppresion.


I thank you


Dr. Chief A L Bertus
Ambbasdor to the UN
Federation of Developing Nations

The problem is that by encouraging conditionality, this resolution also by implication discourages unconditional debt cancellation. The issue I am having is with conditionality itself and I would like my honourable friend to elaborate on the circumstances in which unconditional debt cancellation is "not the best solution", as the impression I am getting is that he advocates holding nations hostage with debt in order to demand they make certain changes, which to us smacks of an arrogant sense of paternalism. While we will not disagree that many regimes are incompetent or corrupt, nonetheless, to state that some nations need "discipline" in this regard would insult the dignity of one's fellow member states and is alarmingly open to the abuse of the powerless by the powerful.

Eric Lattener
Ambassador to the UN

I am sorry, may I ask whom the Honourable Representative from Kellsek is addressing?

OOC: To Krioval. I must've been typing when you clicked the submit button.

What's with the current vogue of setting up endless committees to lecture developing nations? Maybe the devotion to mindless copycatting is as much the reason for the staggering lack of activity in current UN activities as the Snip and Sneer Brigade (my membership application's still processing).

Mr. Madison asked the question before I could. It seems as though a majority of the proposals being drafted lately simply set up yet another committee, participation in which is voluntary, that does nothing but look down its nose at developing countries. It's typical of the arrogance of this body that it believes its petty little committees need to hold the hands of developing nations and lead them to salvation. Enough already.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN


P.S. Mr. Madison, you, my friend, never even needed to apply for membership. ;)

You say that like it's a bad thing.

Of course it's a bad thing. Opening up "your" nation for that is clearly a bad thing. Opening up "their" nation for that it is not. Of course if you get agood kickback from it, it's not all that bad, but then it's probably treason to your government. So you better be in such power that no one is going to drag your sorry ass to a mock trial until you pay back every penny.

Normally Altanar is in favor of helping developing countries, but we cannot support this resolution. We feel that this resolution creates a committee to do something that individual lenders can already do on their own, and we're no fan of simply throwing bureaucracy at a problem to solve it. We also find this resolution to be undesirably intrusive, and even a touch paternalistic.

More to the point, we just don't like the idea of forgiving debts. Call us coldhearted, but Altanari have always believed that you don't ask for money you can't pay back, and you don't try to avoid your responsibility to pay that debt back. Encouraging nations to keep doing that is, in our opinion, irresponsible, and doesn't benefit either the nations or the lenders involved. We're not horribly sympathetic to lenders who make bad loans to nations they should know fully well can't repay them, either. If a lender is incapable of exercising sound judgement when making loans, they should be responsible for that as well.

Instead of forgiving debts, we should look at ways that the UN can encourage nations to live within their means and spend their money responsibly - without having to set up an entire committee for it. We also feel that there are better ways to address the problems developing nations have than throwing money at them, and locking them into a cycle of constantly taking out loans they cannot afford.

- Jinella Agaranth, Acting Ambassador

After lengthy consideration, the delegation from Krioval finds the position of the delegation of Altanar to be the most convincing. We thank Her Excellency for framing the issue in a way that the average Kriovaller can understand.

Ambassador Jevo Telovar-kan
Free Lands of Krioval

The thing is, nations aren't people. They don't have just one conscience and one brain. If one corrupt leader comes in and screws up a country for his own benefit, and this cripples the nation, and then the leader is thrown out, compassionate nations ought to give aid or relief on interest or whatever to help the nation recover and cleanse its government.

The thing is, nations aren't people. They don't have just one conscience and one brain. If one corrupt leader comes in and screws up a country for his own benefit, and this cripples the nation, and then the leader is thrown out, compassionate nations ought to give aid or relief on interest or whatever to help the nation recover and cleanse its government.

Of course, we say we ought to give them the chance to stand on their own two feet, excise corruption, and fix the problems themselves.

Give a man a fish, and that man will eat for a day. Teach a man to fish, and he will never be hungry. It's the same principle.

Further, the example you give is flawed. In most cases, the power structure is still corrupt and debased after a strongman leaves power, and giving them money would be akin to flushing money down the toilet- it goes somewhere else, isn't used for any good purpose, and is covered in shit.

Rang Erman
Advisor
Ambassador Pro Tempore

However, you are ignoring the fact that unconditional debt cancellation isn't the same as giving them money. Many of these debts are so huge they can't even pay the interest, let alone even think of paying down the principal, and the expectation that they would ever be repaid anyway is thus unrealistic. Lenders should indeed take some responsibility for granting and offering bad loans, recognise they made a bad decision, and write off these debts which will in all likelihood not be repaid anyway. If the debtors are at fault so are the lenders.

What the representatives of Krioval, Altanar and Allech-Atreus appear to be adovcating is the punishment of peoples for mistakes made by governments which are typically unrepresentative. Let us not forget that the real victims in all this are the people of developing countries, who usually have little to do with the debts racked up by their governments. This is accompanied by the condescending idea that you know what's best for a whole other country and should have the right to dictate socioeconomic policy to them just because you have lent them money they cannot repay. These inherently complex matters cannot be compared to the simple matter of teaching a man to fish.

We do not oppose trying to impart ideas of incorrupt and competent governance (although exactly what kinds of policies and approaches this implies is ripe for a completely seperate debate) to nations where this is clearly lacking. But it is unjust and unproductive, even counter-productive, because of the resentment it would generate, to be holding nations and peoples over a barrel and forcibly imposing it on them.

Eric Lattener
Ambassador to the UN

Give a man a fish, and that man will eat for a day. Teach a man to fish, and he will never be hungry....until he overfishes the oceans, pollutes the world, causes global warming, and blows a hole in the ozone layer!

AIEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!11


-Dargan Zaraad
Office of Unofficial Official Statements
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack

Of course, we say we ought to give them the chance to stand on their own two feet, excise corruption, and fix the problems themselves.
Which isn't happening when they have a mountain of debt on their shoulders.

Further, the example you give is flawed. In most cases, the power structure is still corrupt and debased after a strongman leaves power, and giving them money would be akin to flushing money down the toilet- it goes somewhere else, isn't used for any good purpose, and is covered in shit.
Hence the commission.

This is accompanied by the condescending idea that you know what's best for a whole other country and should have the right to dictate socioeconomic policy to them just because you have lent them money they cannot repay. These inherently complex matters cannot be compared to the simple matter of teaching a man to fish.

If you study it for a while, maybe send some investigators to live over there for a while, you probably do.

If a nation is deeply in debt, they are already over a barrel. You can either unconditionally repay that (in which case you'd do the same thing with this resolution) or you can keep demanding it (in which case you might seek the advise of the commission).

Would it be a good idea to change the commission into a sort of mediator, to facilitate negotiations as well as act as a resource and (potential) director for reforms?

Dear Representatives

Imagine this scenario: There is a family, a father, mother, and three children. The father has no work, he drinks, and frequently attacks his own children. He owns many banks and shops money, and he lies to the social services to get more money that he uses on alcohol for himself.

Then, after many years of misuse, his children decide it is enough. they kick him out of the house, and take control of the family themselves. And then the banks and the shops come to them, and demand thi money from them. Social Services come, and lock the eldest child away for the cirruption of the father. And the family is stuck in the same cycle as before, just to survive.

This is what is happening. Many developing nations are trying to get up on their own two feet, to help themselves move forward in this world. But because of the mistakes of leaders they did not vote for, in many circumstances, this is not an option available to them.


That being said, we still have our worries about this draft. We also think it is a bit long, gives the Ujn power over Socio-economical dicisions, and creates yet another UNJ office.

Here is a suggestion:

Indebted Nations' Recovery Act

Category: Social Justice
Strength: Mild

RECOGNIZING that many nations are crippled by international debt due to historical factors like undemocratic governance, corruption, bad management of education systems, bad monetary policy, reckless spending and borrowing, and other factors,

The United Nations:

1. All agree to forgive all debt owned by developing nations that open themselves to investigation, and meet the following requirements:

a. The debtor nation shall have a democratically elected government
b. The debtor nation shall have an acceptable recent human rights record
c. The debtor nation shall have a workable plan in place to fight corruption

Only nations who meet these requirements will qualify for this resolution.

2. A central office for the co-ordination financial aid will be established. All developing nations who are in need of loans for economical growth and\or social development, will apply with this office, who will investigate to make sure the nation applying for loans meet the above mentioned requirements, and co-ordinate between this nation and nations willing to loan money for certain projects. This office, nor the lender nations will have the power to interfere in the socio-economic polocies of the lending nation



Now, this is a very very rough draft, but sort of gives our rough idea.

With many thanks

A L Bertus
Ambassador to the UN
Developing Nations

Imagine this scenario: There is a family, a father, mother, and three children. The father has no work, he drinks, and frequently attacks his own children. He owns many banks and shops money, and he lies to the social services to get more money that he uses on alcohol for himself.

Then, after many years of misuse, his children decide it is enough. they kick him out of the house, and take control of the family themselves. And then the banks and the shops come to them, and demand thi money from them. Social Services come, and lock the eldest child away for the cirruption of the father. And the family is stuck in the same cycle as before, just to survive.
Playing a rusty violin isn't going to convince people to support your proposal. You have to ground legislation on common sense, legislative effectiveness and international concern, not sob stories. After all - to throw my own little fallacy into the works, the scenario you've just painted in tear-moistened watercolour is almost exactly the one on which a rather different economic solution was supposed (bottom of {26} (http://www.adolfhitler.ws/lib/mk/vol1chap02.html)). That something bad is happening does not automatically admit that what you desire should happen next.

-- George Madison
Legislative Director
Quintessence of Dust Department of UN Affairs

OoC: I've always been a fan of what the UK did in Egypt in 1882 to help out there economy!

1. All agree to forgive all debt owned by developing nations that open themselves to investigation, and meet the following requirements:

I don't care what requirements you tack onto it, any mandate by the UN for ALL to forgive debt is not going to fly. That would include developing nations being forced to cancel out debt that is owed to them as well.

a. The debtor nation shall have a democratically elected government

DENIED! Enforcing a single form of government on anyone will not help their economic situation. There are a great many pure monarchies and dictatorships of various sorts who do not elect their government and have thriving economies.

b. The debtor nation shall have an acceptable recent human rights record

Why? We're looking to improve their economy. Perhaps we should restrict this effort to the economy.

c. The debtor nation shall have a workable plan in place to fight corruption


And if they can't figure out how to do that? What if the workable plan they have is simply in place to confound the efforts of the UN at reducing corruption. They just want the money anyways, right? If there is concern about the government being corrupt and misusing the money, you're going to need better safeguards than them having a workable plan.

While we understand that many developing nations are not fortunate enough to have a government they want or desire, we do not feel that refusing to forgive their debts is punishing the people of those nations. Their governments already did that, through their irresponsible practices. Simply forgiving nations from fulfilling their fiduciary responsibilities to their debtors is not going to turn the clock back on what those governments already did to their people. What it will do, in our opinion, is encourage further financial irresponsibility.

Furthermore, we still do not feel our major concern has been adequately addressed: why do we need an entire new committee for this? Individual lenders can, and do, forgive debts all the time. Shouldn't that choice be left up to them, without creating yet another UN bureaucracy?

- Jinella Agaranth, Acting Ambassador