This should be our ambition and that of the g20

Nicolas Sarkozy announced in Davos: "The G20 foreshadows the global governance of the 21st century." Beyond the braces of last September in Pittsburgh, the G20, then as a main forum of international economic cooperation, he actually succeeded It is too early to declare victory. If the President has big ambitions for the G20 in Cannes from 2011, calling a new Bretton Woods to his wishes, still need be prepared. While the Summit will be held just one year before the presidential elections, balance of Nicolas Sarkozy on the reform of global economic governance will be inevitably compared with that of Dominique Strauss-Kahn at the head of the international monetary Fund (IMF). Global issues will be added national issues, with a double obligation of results.

Cannes will be successful only under three conditions: the President and his counterparts will have to transform the recovery test, learn to "think multilateral", and empower his ambition at the G20.

Signs of recovery should not mislead our vigilance. According to economist Douglas Irwin, the g-20 countries were able to stem the crisis through measures that were not available in the 1930s while budgetary orthodoxy and the gold standard prevailed. Out deficits, debt and exchange rates, G20 countries have avoided massive recourse to protectionism which plunged the world into the great depression. To what extent were they, however, these margins of manoeuvre that differentiated 2009 1929 exhausted What reserves would be available today if the scenario of a crisis in W required Rescuing the Greece to save the euro, and under certain conditions of fiscal orthodoxy, not recreate we not in Europe the conditions prevailing in 1929

For the most pessimistic, the G20 countries have exhausted all the margins for manoeuvre, and a rebound from the crisis could be fatal to the global economy. Inevitable rebound for some fault of the root causes of the crisis, including remedies in finance: to quote the mathematician Benoît Mandelbrot, we would have "hidden explosives under the carpet." "Victory" of the g-20 would have also acquired at the price of an excessive public debt - trigger of the great depression, according to the Economist Irving Fisher. For the most optimistic, on the contrary, recovery will restore slack bungee of economic policy and restore our margins for manoeuvre.

In one or the other scenario, tensions on the international economic cooperation will remain, or even to increase, while the recovery is weak jobs in some countries, and unemployment continues to increase in others. In France, the first wave of the crisis from unemployed is rights. While the deficits and debt are increased, the temptation to resort to national preference to avoid "leakage" in economic stimuli will increase. With the resumption of trade, the global economic imbalances will intensify and contribute to the stress of the global economic system.

One of the main lessons of the crisis has been the importance of multilateral rules to contain the protectionist excesses: the g-20 countries played largely in compliance with the rules, focusing on legal safeguards such as anti-dumping measures. Protectionism has mainly appeared in the grey areas of the multilateral system. In other words, the "victory" of the g-20 has been allowed by the vision and the determination of the founders of Bretton Woods. But it was of remedies to the problems of the 20th century; It is up to the current leaders to restore the spirit of Bretton Woods and meet the needs of the 21st century. This seems to be acquired, however, so that reflected the mixed progress of the negotiations on climate change (Copenhagen) and international trade (Doha round). Similarly, in the modern maze of finance, the King is naked. It is urgent that our leaders learn to "think multilateral".

Could the g-20 be the instigator of this "revolution of mentalities" announced by the President The ambition of the mandate seems to contrast with its low means. Some have suggested to the staff of a secretariat, but bureaucratic inflation rarely translates into increased efficiency. Also, the IMF and the World Bank, among others, already have the resources and mandate to provide all the elements necessary for the consultation. The g-20 must remain a political body: for example, after ten years of negotiations at the WTO, there is little argument that international trade experts have mentioned. The conclusion of the Doha round, as any decision to global governance, will be dictated by political considerations more than technical. The g-20 could succeed where other international organizations have failed.

To attend the g-20, a high-level commission, composed of former political leaders, could be implemented. Its role would be to serve as organic link between sherpas, to work the political consensus and to make specific recommendations of the language for the statements of the group. To prepare the Cannes Summit, the President should also join a reflection mission whose objective would be to transform its vision into actions and tangible results for citizens.

The level of ambition of the Canada and the Korea of the South, which will host the g-20 in 2010, then the France in 2011, will be crucial for the future of global governance. Crisis amplified imbalances global, and thus even the need for global solutions. The increase in debt is a burden for the next generation. The least we can do is to pass to this generation the arms which will enable it to effectively combat the crises of the 21st century. This should be our ambition and that of the g-20.