We must learn the lessons from the past, as we build for the future. We must modernize multilateralism and markets for a changing world economy.

I am a mechanic in multilateralism. For over 20 years, I have been involved in trying to make the international system work.

The engagement of rising powers with the global economy has made them "stakeholders" in the global system. China is now the world's third-largest trading entity.

We need a Facebook for multilateral economic diplomacy.

As the middle class grows in Asia, these savers will become important investors in corporate equities in developed countries, further strengthening global links.

These rising powers want to be heard. They want to know what their role in making the new rules for the global economy will be.

Having demonstrated their competitive success, these rising powers are suspicious that the more established stakeholders will hold them back, whether through old rules of trade and finance or new rules for climate change and the environment.

Even as the United States and the world dig out of the present hole, we need to look further ahead: We will need a new multilateral network for a new global economy.

The Bretton Woods generation left two legacies: first, international institutions and regimes — in various states of service and repair.

Second, and more important, that generation left an intellectual, policy and political commitment to act multilaterally to turn the problems of an era into opportunities.

Some are calling for a 21st century approach, but many are falling back to mid-20th century models.

The new multilateralism, suiting our times, will need to be a flexible network,

The new multilateralism will need to be a flexible network, not a fixed nor unitary system.

not a fixed nor unitary system. It needs to maximize the strengths of interconnecting and overlapping actors and institutions, public and private.

We have seen that the more adaptable national economies handle the inevitable shocks and changes most effectively. Applying that experience, the multilateral system needs to build in flexibility.

It also needs to use markets and incentives for private sector organizations and individuals, profit-making and civil society nongovernment organizations.

The new multilateralism should be respectful of state sovereignty while at the same time recognizing that many issues do not respect state borders.

This new multilateral network needs to be pragmatic. Its baseline work is to foster cooperation by encouraging exchanges of perspectives on interests, both domestic and international. Often just sharing information is a start.

Then we should encourage a search for mutual interests. Sometimes mutual interests can be fostered with incentives — and international institutions can become catalysts for action. Practical problem-solving builds a culture of cooperation.

Our new multilateralism must build toward a sense of shared responsibility for the health of the global political economy.

We need this mechanism so that countries are not left to fail — with all the human, economic and political consequences this entails.

This means — chiefly and critically — that it must involve those with a major stake in that economy, those willing to share in the responsibilities along with the benefits of maintaining it.

We must redefine economic multilateralism beyond the traditional focus on finance and trade. The changing world economy demands that we think more broadly.

Today, energy, climate change and stabilizing fragile and post-conflict states are economic issues. They are already part of the international security and environmental dialogue. They must be the concern of economic multilateralism as well.

The new multilateralism will still depend principally on national leadership and cooperation. Countries matter.

The G-7 is not working. We need a better group for a different time. The G-20, though valuable, is too unwieldy in moving from discussion to action.

We need a core group of finance ministers who will assume responsibility for anticipating issues, sharing information and insights, exploring mutual interests, mobilizing efforts to solve problems — and at least managing differences.

For financial and economic cooperation, we should consider a new

Today, energy, climate change and stabilizing fragile and post-conflict states are economic issues.

Steering Group including Brazil, China, India, Mexico, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa and the current G-7.

Such a Steering Group would bring together over 70% of the world's GDP, 56% of world population, 62% of its energy production, the major carbon emitters, the principal development donors, large regional actors — and the primary players in global capital, commodity and exchange rate markets.

But this Steering Group would not be a G-14. We will not create a new world simply by remaking the old. It should be numberless, flexible and over time, it could evolve. Others may be added, especially if their rising influence is matched by a willingness to help shoulder responsibilities.

This new Steering Group should meet and videoconference regularly to foster group responsibility. The deputies should have frequent and informal discussions.

An active network of bilateral consultations within and beyond the group will support it. We need a Facebook for multilateral economic diplomacy.

The IMF and World Bank Group, perhaps with the WTO, can help support this Steering Group.

Some are calling for a 21st century approach, but many are falling back to mid-20th century models.

We can identify emerging problems, supply analysis, suggest solutions and draw on our own broader membership to propose coalitions to address issues.

The Steering Group members will still need to work through established international institutions and regimes, which include other states.

Sovereignties will be respected. But the core group would increase the likelihood that countries draw together to address problems that are larger than any one state.

We need this mechanism so that countries are not left to fail — with all the human, economic and political consequences this entails for both them and their neighbors.

We need it so that global problems are not just mopped up after the fact but anticipated.

We

We need a core group of finance ministers who will assume responsibility for anticipating issues, exploring mutual interests and at least managing differences.

need it to develop the habit of dialogue and the necessary relationships of trust before the crisis hits. We need it to shape multilateral solutions.

The new multilateralism must put global development on a par with international finance. Until we build a more inclusive globalization, the world will remain unstable, no matter how big the financial rescue packages.

Economic multipolarity offers stability and opportunity, just like a diversified portfolio of investments.

The new multilateral network must also interconnect energy and climate change.

World energy markets are a mess. Producers, fearful of collapsing prices, are wary of new investments.

Consuming countries want lower prices for consumers, but prices high enough to encourage conservation, efficiencies, alternative supplies and new technologies.

And the most vulnerable countries and people are victimized by the whole confusion — as they are hit by high prices, price volatility and climate change.