British Civil Servant

Callahan glanced at Harold Wilson, who shrugged indifferently, these words? It is indeed not suitable for an elected minister to speak out. Although the underlying logic of the international community is like this, speaking out at an international conference that attracts the attention of the world will still have a great impact.

Now that the global economy is becoming more and more integrated, and Japan is not a small country that is insignificant, the two countries must have a chance to sit down. Callahan really cannot say such words.

"In fact, the unity and stability of Europe and the United States is the foundation of the prosperity of the free world. Of course, we do not deny that Japan is a country of strategic significance. However, its role in the international economic system needs to be more widely recognized. There is no industrial scale. No, it also requires diplomatic influence, military capabilities, etc.”

Alan Wilson was about to talk about white supremacy. Although he didn't say it, he meant it inside and out. First Japan was not a normal country. Does Japan have an army? No! But the Federal Republic of Germany has an army. Although both countries are defeated countries, their status is different. Germany is far more important than Japan.

"The British can't take responsibility, so they pushed out the cabinet secretary." Kissinger whispered to Rockefeller, "Actually, we should pay attention to this secretary."

"It's worth noting that it's his wife, not him." Rockefeller replied with a smile, "From the bottom-up logic of the system, what Sir Allen said doesn't count. This is what the British Cabinet meant."

Is that so? Kissinger always felt that things were not so simple, but he really had no evidence to prove his judgment. Rockefeller said that the cabinet secretary was brought out to say that politicians are hard to say, and there are certain reasons, and the logic is completely reasonable.

Except for Japan, the representatives of all countries actually agreed to make nonsense in their hearts, and they looked down on the British Cabinet Secretary-General in countries other than Europe and the United States.

But for the Japanese side, this really seems like a humiliation, or to say that the image is removed. This is an arrogant old white man, immersed in his own world.

In the 21st century, even if Alan Wilson can't be a king, why can't he hire the governor of a crimson state to work? It's a pity, now they talk about unity and diversity. The consequences of diversification have certainly not been seen in all countries, except for an unnamed authority figure in the UK.

"I think European countries are very much looking forward to a more constructive international monetary system. There is no doubt about this. Not only the United Kingdom, but all European countries think so."

It's like a master peddling successful studies on the main stage, and when he was about to come down, he said, "Understand, applause." He walked down smugly, with a demeanor that he had never succeeded except to lie to you.

The sovereign monetary system is definitely better for the United States than the Bretton Woods system. Although theoretically everyone can take the initiative of the currency back and control it with equal opportunities, it is obvious that the national strength of the United States far exceeds that of any of the countries present, which is equivalent to There is no maintenance cost, and the United States is of course happy.

If the United States is happy, other countries may not be happy. Otherwise, in 1944, why did the United States oppose the British plan?

The positions of delegations from various countries are different, but they are basically divided into two camps, namely, the United States and Japan, the follower of the United States, and European countries. Although European countries have pushed the United Kingdom to talk to the United States, the countries that criticize the US dollar the most are still. It's not the UK, Chirac said in a tough stance that if the system this time fails to satisfy France, the European Community may establish its own gold standard system.

"The veto power of the United States should not exist. This is very unreasonable." Chirac's words made the faces of the American attendees look bad.

The United States has a one-vote veto in the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, and these two organizations theoretically will not pass resolutions against the United States.

After the war, America’s economic hegemony awakened so many years earlier than its military hegemony. With 6% of the world’s population and 50% of the wealth, the United States must formulate a passable rule to protect it this wealth.

The reason Americans set financial rules is to keep their wealth status and save their country from war. The only way is to make rules that are beneficial to the United States and let other countries play by the rules.

As long as it is within the framework of this rule, the United States can achieve its goals.

The headquarters of the World Bank and the IMF are both in Washington. Although the two organizations have many foreign representative offices around the world, the center of power is undoubtedly the headquarters in Washington, and the foreign offices are only auxiliary information collection and project supervision.

At the beginning of the establishment of the World Bank and the IMF, the United States and European countries reached a tacit agreement on the selection of leaders of the two organizations. The president of the IMF was nominated by European countries, and the president of the World Bank was nominated by the United States.

"Are the French going to dig up the American president's mountain?" Alan Wilson heard Chirac's suggestion and felt that it would be softer to attack Japan, at least not as fearless as the French.

Alan Wilson's words were not good, and he charged against the veto power of the United States before he came up, although he really wanted to do so.

However, considering the gap in power status, the United Kingdom has set a very realistic goal. The United States will not give up its veto power. It is much more realistic to strive for the total share of European countries and the proportion of voting rights.

Especially the voting rights. The United States will always give up one of the voting rights of the World Bank and the IMF. Otherwise, what else is there to talk about? What caused the oil crisis and the economic crisis is well known to all countries. Because of the overissue of the US dollar, it can be said that all countries in the world have already paid for the overissue of the US dollar.

"It would be great if the United States could face up to the opinions of the French." In fact, Callahan also hoped that Chirac's suggestion, or rather his criticism, would become a reality, so that Europe's autonomy would be expanded a lot.

At this time, the United Kingdom remembered that it was a member of Europe again. In normal times, British people would never think of themselves as a part of Europe.

"It's still not possible. But I believe that the United States is still not easy to attack. France still has considerable strength." Alan Wilson said, of course, the whole of Algeria and the French mainland together, how could there be no strength, old imperialism.

If it weren't for the support of the French-speaking countries in Africa, would France be able to establish an independent defense system with its own strength? How is that possible. However, this is not enough to shake the United States.

Unless the world is wide for a moment, the free world is only half of the whole world. Although it may be the larger one, there is another half of the world that is not affected by the United States.

If one day the other half of the world can be brought under his command, maybe it can be improved. Now it is better to define the goal more realistically.

Compared with Chirac's remarks, it seems reasonable that the British pound area, the voting rights, and the Japanese yen are not eligible to increase the share.

Both the IMF and the World Bank use a weighted voting system. What is a weighted voting system?

Just like the system of the same shares with different rights in a joint-stock company, two people also hold 10% of the shares, and one share has only one vote, that is, 10% of the voting rights; the other share has three votes, that is, Has thirty percent of the voting rights. This is not the case in the United Nations. Isn't the Soviet Union a typical example of one country, three votes?

In the IMF and the World Bank, it is clearly stipulated that different countries have different "shares", and the number of shares determines the amount of voting rights. country's voting power.

In the IMF, the voting rights of each member state are divided into two parts: basic voting rights and quota voting rights. What the UK wants to fight for is the quota voting rights in the IMF.

At this time, there are many European countries that cannot elect a president that satisfies us today, otherwise no one will want to go.

Although the UK's proposition hurts the US, it is still stronger than the French, who want to abolish the US's veto power. If it weren't for the Soviet Union's covetousness now, the United States would like to make the French feel the treatment of the Soviet Union in the world.

"Let the United Kingdom agree to the demonetization of gold~www.wuxiaspot.com~ only the United States can make concessions to a certain extent." When Callahan communicated with Kissinger, he expounded the basic position of European countries.

Amend the relevant provisions of the Special Drawing Rights, so that the Special Drawing Rights will gradually replace gold and the US dollar and become the main reserve fund of the international monetary system. The agreement stipulates that member states can freely conduct SDRs transactions without the consent of the IMF.

Transactions between the IMF and member states use SDRs instead of gold, and all assets held in the IMF's general account are expressed in SDRs. Expand the use of SDRs in the IMF's general business transactions, and try to expand the use of SDRs in other business transactions.

In addition, the IMF should monitor the SDRs system at any time and revise or increase or decrease relevant regulations in a timely manner.

"Of course, the voting rights in Europe, including Britain, France and Germany, should exceed half of the total voting rights, so that the relationship between Europe and the United States will be more fair. This is also a clause that European countries particularly advocate." Callahan said to Kissinger, "The over-issue of the U.S. currency has left a deep impression on Europe, especially France's remarks attacking the dollar in Europe."

Kissinger said as if you were thinking about your fart, "European countries hold fifty-five percent of the voting power? Thank you for being able to figure it out."

"Actually, compared to the French people's proposal to abolish the veto power of the United States, I think the idea of ​​dialogue is not so excessive." Callahan asked unmoved, "Maybe this meeting will not be able to come up with any consensus. There is no way for the old international monetary system to continue to be used for the time being.”

Please remember the first domain name of this book: . The fastest update website of Apex Novel Network mobile version: