Some of the leaders who are heading for Washington are surprisingly frank about the fun they are having. Nicolas Sarkozy, France's dynamic president, has congratulated himself on his “luck” in having the chance to remake the global financial system. Gordon Brown, Britain's prime minister, has visibly revelled in the idea that he is a global intellectual leader.

But like most sequels, Bretton Woods II is not going to be nearly as good as the original. The first conference gave birth to the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. Its successor will be duller and less consequential.

The first reason for this is that the global financial crisis – bad as it is – is hardly the second world war. The war destroyed the established order and so the statesmen who drew up the postwar institutions had a blank piece of paper on which to doodle.

Second, there is not enough time. The original Bretton Woods conference benefited from two years of preparation, not two weeks.

Third – and rather important – the countries that are meeting in Washington this weekend disagree. The Europeans, who adore all forms of international governance, are pushing for new global regulators for the international financial system. The Americans and Chinese – more jealous of their national sovereignty – are more cautious.

Finally, unlike at the original Bretton Woods, the US has neither the power nor the inclination to impose a new set of arrangements
on the rest of the world.

This last point is one that the Europeans, in particular, struggle to comprehend. Their general view is that there are two opposing ways to order the world. The first – associated with the dreaded President George W. Bush – was based on American power and “unilateralism”. The second – which they hope will be embraced by the sainted Barack Obama – is based on a chastened US working with others to build a multilateral world order. Part of the European excitement going into Bretton Woods II is based on the idea that the age of American primacy is over – and a new multilateral era is dawning.

But in 1944-45, multilateral institutions such as the IMF, World Bank and UN were born out of American strength, not American weakness. One of the reasons Bretton Woods worked was that the US was clearly the most powerful country at the table and so ultimately was able to impose its will on the others, including an often-dismayed Britain. At the time, one senior official at the Bank of England described the deal reached at Bretton Woods as “the greatest blow to Britain next to the war”, largely because it underlined the way in which financial power had moved from the UK to the US.

Next weekend's meeting also acknowledges shifts in global power. Fans of the G20 like the idea that it is not the tired old G8, which they see as made up mainly of clapped-out European countries bound for the knacker's yard of history. The G20 includes rising new powers such as China, India, Brazil and South Africa.

That is important. An international system that does not accommodate China, India and other new risers clearly cannot work in the long run. But bringing them into the system is no guarantee of success. The more voices around the table at Bretton Woods II – and the more equality there is between them – the harder it will be to reach agreement.

In fact, the emerging multilateral, multipolar world – long called for by those uncomfortable with American power – shows every sign of being highly dysfunctional.

The UN is increasingly deadlocked – beset by weak leadership and a blocked security council. In the
past year the Doha round at the World Trade Organisation has failed. And if the negotiations at the WTO cannot be brought to fruition, what chance will there be of achieving the much more difficult task of negotiating a global climate-change agreement next year?

Earlier trade rounds were brought to a successful conclusion partly because they were stitched up between Europe, America and Japan. But in the most recent trade round, developing countries – in particular, India – were too powerful to be ignored. This is certainly an advance for global justice and equity. But it makes it much harder to reach a deal. The same problem is likely to plague next year's climate change negotiations, in which China will play a central role.

Having lots of countries around the table is not in itself a deal killer. There were 44 nations at the original Bretton Woods. But what is needed is leadership. In 2008, as in 1944, the most plausible leader is the US. That makes it doubly unfortunate that the American president who will be acting as host in Washington is Mr Bush not Mr Obama.

Under President Bush, the US has found that it cannot lead the world through the exercise of raw power. President-elect Obama's task will be to see whether the US can now lead by persuasion. Sadly,
he will not be present at the re-creation this weekend.