The relative decline in American power and the dissatisfaction of Europe and Japan with the system were reinforced by the continued decline of the dollar – the basis that had underpinned the world trading system after 1945. The Vietnam War and the refusal of the government of U.S. President Lyndon B. Johnson to pay him and his Great Society programs led to an increase in the outflow of dollars to pay for military spending and widespread inflation, which led to a deterioration in the U.S. trade position. In the late 1960s, the dollar was overvalued by its current trading position, while the German mark and yen were undervalued; And of course, the Germans and Japanese did not want to upgrade their exports and make them more expensive, while the United States tried to maintain its international credibility by avoiding a devaluation.  Meanwhile, the pressure on public reserves was accentuated by the new international money markets, whose huge reserves of speculative capital were in search of rapid profits.  Meanwhile, US President Donald Trump`s “America First” policy and trade measures are seen as a rejection of the spirit of multilateralism and international cooperation that defined Bretton Woods. Many fear that this will ultimately lead to instability and conflict. Civil society organizations are also concerned that the World Bank has not yet developed a framework for assessing the impact of its financing on climate. CSO studies have shown that, in some cases, they contain “pre-measures” that benefit the fossil fuel and feedstock industry. Finally, in recent years, the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency (MIGA) has provided the Bank with a number of guarantees that have supported fossil fuel projects. According to the CSO studies, MIGA did not support a single renewable energy project in the GJ16: “[its] energy guarantees were worth $1.9 billion.
$0.9 billion went to fossil fuel projects,” the rest to projects such as hydroelectric dams, often harmful to the environment and human rights. The conception of the Bretton Woods system was that nations could only impose the convertibility of gold on the anchor currency – the US dollar. The application of convertibility into gold was not necessary, it was allowed. Nations could give up turning dollars into gold and hold dollars. Instead of a full conversion, it provided for a fixed price for sales between central banks. However, there was still an open gold market. To remain viable, the Bretton Woods system would have to either change the dollar`s attachment to gold or keep the free market price of gold close to the official price of $35 per ounce. The greater the gap between free market gold prices and central bank gold prices, the greater the temptation to tackle internal economic problems by buying gold at the Bretton Woods price and selling it on the open market. Now that the bank and the fund – and others – are being challenged by “populists” and far-right groups about the continued relevance of multilateralism in the midst of a changing world order, BHZ continues to deny their role in creating the social, political and economic conditions that have led to the frustration and disenfranchisment that have brought us here. In March 2010, Greek Prime Minister Papandreou wrote a comment in the International Herald Tribune, in which he stated: “Democratic governments around the world must create a new global financial architecture as bold in their own way as Bretton Woods, as courageous as the creation of the European Community and the European Monetary Union.
. . .