During the height of the 2009 financial crisis, when there was a real and present danger of banks seizing up due to a lack of liquidity, the then-British Prime Minister Gordon Brown altered the geopolitical architecture. Brown moved with a sense of urgency to formalize the Group of 20 nations. The strategy was sound. He wanted to bring countries representing 80 % of GDP under one umbrella, bridge the gap between the developed and the developing world and, most importantly, tap the $4 trillion of surplus funds that still exist within the BRICS economies. In the context of a financial crisis, the strategy worked. Four years later, however, geopolitics is trumping economics. The G20 has become an unwieldy group of countries with different priorities, and without political backing from Washington. According to Brown, who I interviewed earlier this year, America should actually be more alert to the possibilities of international cooperation in both trade and agreements for growth. A global trade agreement, the much-talked about pivot to Asia, and even serious concerns around capital flight out of emerging markets and their currencies will be overshadowed at this G20. Syria will be top of the agenda when the leaders convene in Russia's western outpost of St. Petersburg. Focus is on the tensions between host Vladimir Putin and his U.S. counterpart Barack Obama. Their verbal jousting