All eyes on 20-ring circus

The G20 multi-ring circus reaches Russia this week for six months of no doubt bizarre performances, culminating in September in the grandest summit on earth in St Petersburg. Given that Russia excels in circus and that President Vladimir Putin is something of a showman-in-chief, it promises to be an exciting time.

But whether the Russian chairmanship of the Group of 20 actually helps solve any of the myriad issues battering fragile planet earth is less likely. The trouble is that for each dangerous question there is a multitude of conflicting answers and as many vested interests clamouring for attention.

The world's woes include slow economic growth and high government debt and deficits in most developed countries. This is fuelling unemployment in a fragile financial system and fostering political uncertainty, violence and threats of terrorism, adding to environmental crises that could bring catastrophic damage to air, water and food supplies.

Some well-intentioned commentators say the G20 has spread itself too widely and should concentrate on just a few central issues, such as the need to get global growth going again and reduce unemployment or to cut high debt levels.

But on such key economic issues there is widespread disagreement even within countries not only about what are the right policies but also over the order to introduce the steps.

To take just the single most-burning issue - austerity measures to trim government spending and get on top of debt - most developing countries - quite rightly - complain that the financial crisis in the US and Europe brought about the mess that the world is in, and the rich countries should get their houses in order. But how, how deeply and how quickly should they cut spending?

If the rich West tries the painful short, sharp shock of austerity, more jobs will be lost and growth will fall, along with demand for imports, sending shock waves around the world. Repercussions of austerity in Britain, with the fear of a dreaded triple-dip recession, have caused the International Monetary Fund, traditionally regarded as the dispenser of painful medicine, to suggest that London should consider a plan B, with less austerity.