Does this mean that we can leave international monetary agreements as they are? I need dementia. First, the official convertibility of the dollar remains suspended. In a sense, this means that the United States can pay its debts with money that it has created itself, which has a direct impact on foreign exchange agreements that tend towards a system that is entirely dollar-based. The U.S. defense of the agreement is that the U.S. power to push for the renewal of the non-pegging agreement will, in two years, be as strong as it was at the same time; and secondly, that it would be very risky anyway for some European central banks to flood the price of gold in the face of strong opposition from the United States. Indeed, a low-priced commitment could soon put the new price under speculative market pressure, while a high-priced commitment could see the United States gradually sell its gold to European central banks on the most advantageous terms. Moreover, it has always been understood that an interim agreement on certain issues depends on the establishment of a balanced package acceptable to all, but other measures have been considered so urgent that they have been implemented within the broader framework of the negotiations. Indeed, some of these measures – such as the establishment of the Fund`s «oil facility» to help members cope with payment difficulties resulting from rising oil prices; Mid-term evaluation of SDRs; and «Guidelines for Floating» – is in fact the result of the final phase of the work of the Committee of Twenty or the work of the Executive Directors. I will ignore these differences in time and origin by describing the main features of the measures that have been adopted today. Nevertheless, it should not be forgotten that opinions on the future system are still very and fundamentally divergent and that even de facto experiments on managed floating are not possible for a longer period without reaching an agreement between the monetary authorities on the settlement of debts and debts.
As we shall see now, no agreement has been reached on this issue. During the implementation, an unpleasant dispute developed. Everyone agreed that restitution, gold sales by the trust fund and the freedom of central banks to buy gold at market prices are linked and should be implemented simultaneously. However, some wanted to implement these measures only after the amended sections, which clearly permitted these powers, became effective, the avoidant of what can be considered to be the use of questionable legal techniques. In Rome, in January 1974, ministers decided to focus on immediate measures to support the functioning of the international monetary system during an «interval». It was not until the Jamaican meeting in January 1976 that a final agreement was reached on a set of interim measures. As far as exchange rates were concerned, divergences were increasingly threatening to become a Franco-American quarrel. The United States wanted to fully regulate the float and not have any obligation or moral pressure to return to face value in the future. Since the U.S.
authorities did not intend to restore as much as possible a face value for the dollar, they were right to persist when they refused to accept any commitment in this regard. On the other hand, the French were not prepared to accept the removal of future commitments on respect for the values to which they remain strongly and fundamentally bound by the Articles of the Fund, and they continue to hope to return to them. The prospect of an agreement was marked by an episode at a dinner on the sidelines of the interim committee meeting in Paris in June 1975.
- Posted by wbase
- On 21 diciembre, 2020
- 0 Comments