But this line of cleavage is not structural

Nicolas Sarkozy is the path of the United States to launch his presidency at the head of the g-20. One of the issues of his trip will be to understand the relationship between G2 (United States-China) and the g-20. Are we dealing with two competing or complementary structures Will term the G2 displace the g-20 at giving birth to a new Yalta between Washington and Beijing would suffer the rest of the world

The G2 combines the two dominant powers in the world system with three common characteristics: to be major demographic masses, have a potential for growth and considerable, have an instinct to power innovation, i.e. a propensity for projecting their look and their interests throughout the world, which is an extremely rare feature in the world. But the G2 has strictly nothing to do with a new Yalta for at least three reasons.

China is no carrier of a political alternative economic or ideological and its economic and financial interdependence with the United States is absolutely vital to its rise. In this context, that actually means the G2 Basically, that any global issue cannot find solution without prior agreement between the United States and China. This does not mean that these two countries can only find a solution to all problems. This simply means that no solution contrary to their interests can actually be implemented: reform of the international monetary system, future commercial or climate negotiations, the fight against nuclear proliferation, settlement of regional conflicts in Asia, but not in the Middle East where the United States remain the masters of the game. The G2 is a subtle mixture of cooperation, competition and confrontation. The cooperation itself takes many forms. For example, the United States as China can find interest to agree to exclude the global game of third-party actors who might want to impose pipes which are hardly willing to follow, even if their motives are very different (blocking of climate negotiation). The United States have also absolutely need to involve China in the World game and seek support to achieve effective and legitimate solutions International (sanctions against the Iran, the Korea containment). But at the same time, they desire to curb China in Asia, where it faces many territorial conflicts with its neighbours (Viet Nam, Japan, Philippines). The Chinese side, the ambivalence towards the United States is also implementation. The involvement of China in the regulation of an increasing number of problems is a source of strengthening of its international status to Beijing. At the same time, China must at the same time ensure that its involvement on the side of the United States does locked it not in international respectability, whose terms have been defined by Washington. It must also ensure that the United States does not stand in the settlement of the conflict between it and its regional neighbors.

Yet, if G2 is essential to understand the dynamics of the global system, it does looks way a new Yalta, because neither China nor the US can now claim dictate their act to the rest of the world, become much more complex and autonomous. Hence the importance of the g-20, who plays the role of an instance of legitimation decisions or ABB, which reflects the fluidity of reports of force around the world. Because the g-20 is itself crossed by complex fracture lines. On a number of issues, such as the financial regulation, for example, there is a clear one side Western countries in the G7 and the other emerging countries. But this line of cleavage is not structural. At the Seoul Summit, last November, the Chinese and the Germans made common cause against the Americans who wanted to restrict the balance of current accounts. At the G20, Europeans or emerging countries do not constitute a homogeneous block. From this point of view, is overstated to say that the constantly used to talk about the emerging BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India, China) term is no homogeneous geopolitical reality.

To understand the complexity of the World game, so one should not seek to oppose the G2 G20, but understand instead how they fit in the other in a world which more resembles fluid mixing more or less well to billiard balls which collide.