No, read very carefully the way they worded the sentence. What is "inherent to the sovereignty of nations" is not "monetary power" but "no private entities having control of monetary power".

They are not saying governments should have control of this power. They are just saying no private entities should have control.

I don't think you are right.

From the article:

> In a joint statement, the two governments affirmed that “no private entity can claim monetary power, which is inherent to the sovereignty of nations”

I parse that as: monetary power is inherent to the sovereignty of nations; thus, no private entity can claim it.

It's like saying: "No dog should be allowed to eat chocolate, which is toxic to animals."

It would be helpful to have the actual original statement, but I wasn't able to find it very quickly and gave up.

Since I am getting downvoted: Is this a Continental English vs. American English thing? Because as a native American English speaker, there is no doubt at all what the sentence means in American English.

It's a pretty obvious term. Obvious in the way that it includes Libra (where Facebook is a private entity), and excludes something like Bitcoin which is not directly controlled by any such entity.

No, it's not obvious what it means.

In everyday English, it would be obvious, but regulators and politicians are not bound by that.

"It's obvious" is rarely a good argument on this particular site. If it were obvious we wouldn't be talking about it.

"Private entity" is more of a legal term than anything else (than common english). That's is exactly why it's obvious, because it is used in an official document, which is not likely to use the common english definitions and use more legal ones.

Please stop calling me dumb. I'm not dumb. This is my second time asking.

I don't think it's being used in a legal sense in the statement quotes in this article. If it is, I'm not sure how "private entity" is defined in the EU, France, and Germany.

"Private entity" actually is clear in common English, but my experience is that governments tend to take words from common English and use them differently.

If you have specific legal experience with this term in a particular legal jurisdiction---and you very well might---it would be helpful to say so.