Seattle, Prague, Genoa, Melbourne. Over a decade ago, these cities were hosts to violent protests against a nebulous enemy: globalization.

The protests were aimed at high-level meetings of the international organizations - the World Trade Organization, the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, not to mention our own meetings at the World Economic Forum.

Inside the meetings, while condemnation of the violence was unanimous, the opinions on the protesters' grievances, and what to do about them, were not.

Many inside the meetings understood that as the world was becoming more tightly interconnected as it accelerated into the 21st century, it was also becoming more inequitable and volatile. Few were united about what to do. And so the kind of coordination and agreement that would be necessary to manage the complexity of the new world was elusive.

The world is paying the price for that indecision and disunity today.

Over the past few years, our meetings in Davos have often been dominated by a single major issue facing the global community, from the global financial crisis, the "Arab Spring" and the threatened collapse of the euro, leaders have often arrived with a dominant agenda and in response mode.

Today the situation is different.

From conflict in the Middle East, the US Federal Reserve's tapering program and the South China Sea issue, to the 75 million unemployed young people around the world, we face a situation where the number of potential flashpoints are many and are likely to grow.

I believe this situation is the result of a collective failure to manage and mitigate the consequences of globalization at the international level that stems back over the course of decades. In essence, the turn of the century anti-globalization protesters had a clear message that was right - global governance was not fit to manage the implications of the reshaping of the world that was already proceeding apace.

It remains unfit for purpose, and the challenges the world faces today are compounded in complexity.