The economic crisis brings with it uncertainty and heightened tensions. There are no theories or models that can predict how it will develop - nobody knows how deep the bottom of the recession lies or what effect the measures adopted by one country will have on its neighbours. What we do know, however, is that the slump and the growth of unemployment will last for some time; and that after the crisis the global economy will be different from what it is today.

The forthcoming G20 meeting raises the expectations of politicians and economists as well as the public. The key players must be in tune with each other if the global economy is to recover as quickly and with as little damage as possible. This means sharing experiences, both good and bad, of ways to tackle the crisis. It also means bearing in mind that each country has a different starting point and potential to cushion the impact of the recession; and adopting a clear set of common rules that gives countries leeway to act but without undermining the firm foundations of the global market.

At the spring summit chaired by the Czech presidency, the EU adopted the €400 billion economic recovery plan, which accounts for 3.3 per cent of the EU's GDP, and agreed to provide an €75 billion loan to the International Monetary Fund to help countries with a shaky balance of payments.

We also approved the resumption of talks under the World Trade Organisation and further liberalisation of global trade. I expect a similar approach from the G20 summit, which will give us a platform to speak openly with a common goal in mind about ways to harmonise national measures so as not to raise new barriers to the globalised economy.

To achieve this will require leaders to show great responsibility and to recognise that a prescription for recovery in one country can be toxic for other countries. Let me remind you that the ancient Greek word pharmacon for a medicinal potion can also mean a dangerous poison. Even high-quality medicine, if administered in excessive doses, can be harmful or, if used permanently, cause unhealthy addiction.

That's why I have been repeatedly calling on countries, within as well as outside the EU, to be prudent. I used the rather hyperbolic simile of the “road to hell” in my speech to the European Parliament last week to warn against the danger of temporary measures - such as excessively increasing public borrowing, nationalising or subsidising banks and industries, putting up protectionist barriers or enforcing “buy American” clauses - becoming permanent. It was in this context that I referred to the adverse experience of protectionism and state intervention in the US in the 1930s.

I expected that this strong expression would not go unnoticed. But I did not expect that this legitimate warning, which comes to me as naturally as telling a friend walking next to me on an uneven path that he may stumble, would be rejected in principle and interpreted by some as criticism of the US Administration.

I believe that I do not need to explain that my country has been a long-standing partner of the US. And I also believe that as a conservative politician I do not need to explain that the welfare states of Europe act as “automatic stabilisers”, sustaining consumer spending even in a slump. This means that Europe does not need such a large fiscal stimulus compared with the US, which does not have such a system of social support.

I also believe that as the President of the European Council I do not need to explain that the situation in the EU is different from that in the US in a further way - the EU cannot choose to apply a wide-scale financial stimulus. Even though the Czech Republic is not a member of the eurozone, I do not need to explain the vital importance of the rules of the Stability and Growth Pact that restrict the size of a country's budget deficit and national debt. Or do I?

Although those in favour of racking up public deficits keep calling for new “rescue packages”, I am happy that the US President has refused to build on the perilous and erroneous concepts of economic protectionism. If the EU and the US find common ground in spite of our economic and social differences, we will be able to raise our voices to call on other global players to adopt a co-ordinated approach.

The involvement of large economies such as China, Russia, India and other economies, where the differences are even greater, is as important for the stabilisation of the global economy as is the role of the EU and the US. Moreover, we must be more active and attentive in our approach to developing countries where the crisis may provoke a backlash against globalisation.

The crisis is of an unprecedented nature and so, accordingly, our discussion must be unprecedented - that debate will not only decide the extent of our co-operation in finding solutions, but also the future shape of the global market.

Mirek Topolánek is the Prime Minister of the Czech Republic and the President of the European Council

Times Recommends

• The ghost of Robin Cook haunts Chilcot’s feast
• The truth shouldn’t need oaths
• Violence: let’s separate the men from the boys