Talk:Millennium Challenge Account

Rwanda is also on this system —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.156.164.150 (talk) 17:14, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Section
The "imperialism" discussion is non-neutral. That is a rather fringe view that is not espoused by any mainstream member of the political or economic community. There also is not much of a description of the criteria or a reasoning behind it presented. The combination of those two points makes this article rather skewed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bkwillwm (talk • contribs)

Failed GA
This article is full of sources, but it reads more like an essay in favor for the subject than an encyclopaedic collection of information. [YES, IT SURE DOES! HOLY MOLEY! Mare Nostrum 13:24, 3 March 2009 (UTC)] As a previous editor noted, it is presented from a particular view, violating WP:NPOV. Further evaluation of other criteria not considered (though at first glance I'm comfortable in saying this article is start class, possibly B-Class at best). /Blaxthos 09:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Additional GA review
Per a request that was made on 20 November, 2006 on Good Article Review, I have taken a look at the article, and I also think it needs quite a bit more work before being considered for GA:
 * NPOV issues found. The article reads like a press release.  Examples:
 * The program uses a fully transparent method of choosing the recipient countries
 * Through this open process, the administration hopes to keep the MCA away from political influence
 * Also, Freedom House, an organization that monitors the level of freedom in the world, released subcategories for the first time since it was being used as part of the MCC's measurements and more detail was welcome
 * The article badly needs a copyedit and spellcheck. Just a couple examples:
 * The funding of Tanzanias compact has been pushed foreword from May 2007 to an earlier date to accelerate reform
 * Implimentation has been difficult in Armenia, with concern about effectiveness is currently being discussed
 * In April 2005, the United States Government Accountability Office issued a favorable report about the work of the MCA and its work up till that point
 * Opposition MP's in Uganda hailed their countries rejection from full compact status, demanding instead a stronger effort in stopping corruption
 * Also, the days it takes to start a business in both low and low-middle income countries has increased significently since 2002, which is one of the factors the accounts measure. What does that mean?  Is that a good thing or a bad thing?
 * Problems with the introduction:
 * The lead section should summarize the rest of the article, it should not introduce information that is not discussed elsewhere. Example:
 * The Bush administration has stated their belief that development aid works better in countries with good economic policies, such as free markets and low corruption.. Uncited, only hinted at in other sections.
 * No citations in the lead section.
 * Not comprehensive:
 * Countries are selected on a competitive basis through a set of 16 indicators designed to measure a country’s effectiveness at ruling justly, investing in people, and fostering enterprise and entrepreneurship. What are the 16 indicators?  Don't just tell the reader to go to the MCA website to find them
 * Congress has consistently provided less funding for the program than the president requested. In Fiscal Year 2004, 650 million USD were provided for the program, with an increase up to 1.5 billion the next year. Why not?
 * Inconsistent:
 * Through this program, the administration proposed to permanently increase United States foreign aid funding by $5 billion by 2005 (in the introduction), and For Fiscal Year 2007, 2 billion dollars were provided, a 14% increase over the previous year but still under the 3 billion target (in the history section). What's the targeted funding level?

There may be more issues, but this gives you something to start with. In summary, if I was the reviewer, I would decline to promote this article to GA. Hope that helps. Good luck. Neil916 (Talk) 17:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Also -- I don't know how to fix it myself so I'll just let it be known (sorry to nitpick): the map has Cote D'Ivoire colored red where as it should not be, and Ghana is not colored. Someone mixed them up. 70.108.125.101 02:48, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Failed "good article" nomination
This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of March 30, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:


 * 1. Well written?: Not particularly. Several of the issues above have not been addressed. Much of the prose is difficult to understand, e.g., what "corporation" is referred to in paragraph 2? The entries in the list of criteria are practically word salad, e.g. "Rule of Law Ruling Justly World Bank Institute". Some of the typos highlighted above persist in varied form, e.g. "Opposition MP's in Ugandan MP's from the opposition party" (it should be MPs), or "The funding of Tanzanias compact has been pushed foreword" (it should be Tanzania's).
 * 2. Factually accurate?: No immediately apparent problems here.
 * 3. Broad in coverage?: To provide an example, the sentence "Congress has consistently provided less funding for the program than the president requested. In Fiscal Year 2004, 650 million USD were provided for the program, with an increase up to 1.5 billion the next year." criticised above has remained unchanged. I don't understand the context. What, why, how?
 * 4. Neutral point of view?: Needs more expansion of criticism: who are the critics, and what in particular are their objections?
 * 5. Article stability? Yes.
 * 6. Images?: Adequate, but where are the references for the map?

When these issues are addressed, the article can be resubmitted for consideration. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a GA review. Thank you for your work so far. — Sandstein 06:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Good article nomination failed
I think the strongest point of this article is the referencing, but unfortunately the article as a whole comes nowhere near Good Article status. A better structure, and better English expression, would help to overcome some basic problems with confused content. Much of the article needs to be re-written.

Confusion evident
Much of what is being said in the article is quite unclear, as the following quote illustrates:
 * "Studies by groups such as the Heritage Foundation have shown that many developing countries that have received foreign aid have seen their per capita income fall or stagnate over the last 40 years, and the Heritage Foundation has consistently supported the MCA's approach, which has also utilized their trade measure from the Index of Economic Freedom.[21] In April 2005, the United States Government Accountability Office issued a favorable report about the work of the MCA and its work thus far.[22] The Program Assessment Rating Tool, or PART, which reviews the efficiency and results produced by US government programs, will be reviewed in 2007.[23] A study in 2006 looking at the "MCC effect" estimated that potential recipient countries improved 25% more on MCA's criteria than other countries, after controlling for time-trends.[24] The World Policy Council (WPC) of Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity recognizes the MCA as the most recent and most promising program in its area. The WPC recommended in 2006 that the Bush administration and the Congressional Black Caucus focus on full funding and an accelerated pace of spending.[25] Doing Business 2007 cited the Millennium Challenge Accounts as a catalyst for reforms underway in 13 countries.[26] Also, Freedom House, an organization that monitors the level of freedom in the world, released subcategories for the first time since it was being used as part of the MCC's measurements to allow for finer distinctions in their ratings.[27] Also, the number of days it takes to start a business in both low and low-middle income countries has decreased significantly since 2002, which is one of the factors the accounts measure since rapid business registration is thought to increase economic activity.[28]"

Starting with a long and confusing sentence, this long and confusing paragraph illustrates the problems which are evident in this article. Too much information is being provided in a relatively unstructured way, and too many agencies and acronyms are being introduced at once. The time period discussed in the paragraph ranges over five years, between 2002 and 2007. The last two sentences of the paragraph start with "Also" as if to cram as much content into one paragraph as possible. There just is no need for all of this muddle.

Better structure needed
There is a need for a better structure for the article, with section topics that have clear boundaries. There is a need for more context about development aid at the beginning, and more basic discussion about some of the key agencies involved, before the large "Criteria" Table is introduced. Moreover, this Table needs to be explicitly discussed and explained in the text. Even more importantly, the article needs to move beyond the issue of eligibility to more discussion of actual programs funded, and whether or not they have been successful.

Better English expression needed
Much of the text of this article is stilted and does not flow from one sentence to the next. This is clearly evident in the Origin section, which needs to be totally re-written. Some sentences, such as this one, have no real meaning:


 * "Congress declined to re-authorize the program, which technically was not needed since the program had been authorized already, but also since there was argument over the authorization language.[20]"


 * -- Johnfos 08:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Angola must act as friend regarding Irak to secure Millennium Funds, says President G.W. Bush
I added this where they talk about how they give and keep the funds, and some uses the funds have for the US rulers (corrupting other rulers actions):

To keep the funding, countries' leaders are also pressured to help the U.S. on their international military politics, as President George W. Bush told former spanish president Aznar in a discussion held on february 22nd, 2003, in Crawford, Texas talking about the announcing of the coalition to invade Irak, and how Angola could see this funds removed if it posed problems in the United Nations' Security Council.

The statement in the reference is:

"President G.W. Bush: Países como México, Chile, Angola y Camerún deben saber que lo que está en juego es la seguridad de los EE UU y actuar con un sentido de amistad hacia nosotros.

[El presidente Ricardo] Lagos debe saber que el Acuerdo de Libre Comercio con Chile está pendiente de confirmación en el Senado y que una actitud negativa en este tema podría poner en peligro esa ratificación. Angola está recibiendo fondos del Millenium Account y también podrían quedar comprometidos si no se muestran positivos. Y Putin debe saber que con su actitud está poniendo en peligro las relaciones de Rusia con los Estados Unidos."

Translation of referenced text:

"President G.W. Bush: Countries like Mexico, Chile, Angola and Cameroon must know that what is in stake is U.S. security and acting with a sense of friendship towards us.

[President Ricardo] Lagos must know the Treaty of Free Commerce with Chile is still to be authorised by the Senate, and that a negative atitude could endanger its approval. Angola is receiving funds from the Millennium Account and could also be compromised if they don't show up positively. And Putin should know that with his attitude he is putting in danger Russian relationships with the U.S."

Bush on Angola's condicional support for Iraq invasion
Text relating to this section was removed from the article with comments saying that it was a lie and the source didn't support the claim. The following section from the cited source does seem to indicate that Angola's MCA funds where used as leverage to get support for invading Iraq.

''PA. No te pido que tengas una paciencia infinita. Simplemente que hagas lo posible para que todo cuadre.''

''PB. Países como México, Chile, Angola y Camerún deben saber que lo que está en juego es la seguridad de los EE UU y actuar con un sentido de amistad hacia nosotros.''

''[El presidente Ricardo] Lagos debe saber que el Acuerdo de Libre Comercio con Chile está pendiente de confirmación en el Senado y que una actitud negativa en este tema podría poner en peligro esa ratificación. Angola está recibiendo fondos del Millenium Account y también podrían quedar comprometidos si no se muestran positivos. Y Putin debe saber que con su actitud está poniendo en peligro las relaciones de Rusia con los Estados Unidos.'' --Bkwillwm 01:23, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for clearly demonstrating that Bush did NOT say what you allege, but President Ricardo stated that threat. As Bush didn't say it, BUSH DIDN'T SAY IT. Judgesurreal777 02:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * No, Bush was referring to Ricardo Lagos, then-president of Chile. There are three people involved in the transcript: Aznar, Bush, and Rice. The transcript online uses the initials, after the mention of the name, in bold to represent who is talking (PA being Anzar and PB being Bush). The first paragraph above is Anzar speaking and the second and third are Bush. The first sentence translates as "President Ricardo Lagos must understand that the Free Trade Agreement with Chile is pending confirmation in the Senate and that a negative act in this matter could put its ratification into peril."  Obviously this isn't Lagos speaking. While we're on translations, Google translate (so you know I'm not inserting meaning) translates the sentence on Angola as "Angola is receiving bottoms of the Millennium Account and also they could be it jeopardize if are not positives."  Google replaced "funds" with "bottoms," but the rest makes the meaning pretty clear. Do you understand Spanish? I looked at your user page, and you don't have an Spanish language user box. You should be careful when removing a citation saying it does not support what is referenced when you don't understand the language being cited. I was skeptical at first because I didn't think Bush would saying something like that, but El Pais is a mainstream Spanish paper and its documented there. Feel free to have someone else who speaks Spanish look at this or break out a Spanish dictionary, but don't edit war over something you don't understand. (Maybe you do understand, but you also thought Lagos was involved in the conversation, so you either don't understand it or you haven't looked at it closely.)--Bkwillwm 03:50, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * NOTE: I've added bolding to my earlier posting to clarify who the speaker was. This is the same bolding used on the El Pais page. --Bkwillwm 03:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC)Insert text
 * Too true I don't know spanish, and I thought it was being alleged that president ricardo said what Bush is supposed to have said. Is there an official translation somewhere? I would like to double check this, to avoid any pro- or anti-bush point of view in the article. :) Judgesurreal777 05:25, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * So I did some more digging, apparently the transcript was just released 26 September in El Pais as a leaked, Spanish government transcript. The Washington Post, at least, considers it real.--Bkwillwm 06:06, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok good, much better though totally not required, to have an english language source so us non-spanish speakers can check it out. Judgesurreal777 14:03, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * To make sure there is NO controversy left, would you please label the mention of this in the article as where the transcript came from and how the US government doesn't want to comment? :) Great work so far. Judgesurreal777 14:03, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Fantastic, great addition to the article. :) Judgesurreal777 00:35, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Tanzania as "best" country -- proclaimed by visitors George W. & Laura Bush
from WHITEHOUSE press release (transcript of toast to leader Kikwete)

Monday Feb. 18, 2008

. . .our trip here has exceeded my expectations. I knew you were an accomplished government. After all, you've dramatically reduced malaria. You're in the process of dramatically reducing HIV/AIDS. My country has awarded you the largest Millennium Challenge Grant ever in the history of our nation, all because your government is committed to honest, decent government for the people.

I have been extremely touched, as has Laura, by the outpouring of support by the great people of Tanzania. And so, Mr. President, I too would like to propose a toast: To you and your family, to the people of Tanzania, and to our friendship, may it be long lasting.

4.225.246.172 (talk) 12:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)timothyjshaw

Chomsky criticism
I wanted to talk about removing a section at the very bottom regarding Chomsky's criticism of the MCC. It seems to me that the author is mistaking the MCC with something else, as the MCC has never been budgeted 10 billion dollars, let alone not spent it. I would assume this refers to another project with millennium in the name, like maybe debt forgiveness. Regardless, the charge is factually incorrect and otherwise too vague to evaluate.

In addition, the citation it adds is to an entire 370 page book. I have not had the chance to read it, but I think giving a page reference to specific arguments would be more helpful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.226.155.133 (talk) 00:46, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Millennium Challenge Corporation
Why does Millennium Challenge Corporation redirect to the Millennium Challenge Account? It doesn't make sense. The name of this article should be the Millennium Challenge Corporation. Dumaka (talk) 16:41, 14 February 2011 (UTC)