Tag: Global Governance Initiative

Global Governance Initiative: Addressing longstanding governance gaps in the Global South

Posted on By Alan Collins Mpewo

On 01st September, 2025, His Excellency Xi Jinping, the President of the People’s Republic of China, during the Shanghai Cooperation Organization Plus meeting held in Tianjin, China proposed the Global Governance Initiative that took in mind a foundational basis of the 80th anniversary of the victory of the world anti-fascist war and the resultant birthing of the United Nations Organization. Eighty years seem to be little time, but its consequences, if being weighed, would give a balanced view and proper judgment that this is not a past that anyone today and the years to come, should look to. This historical perspective is important because if lost in time, errors are often bound to be made as we see the state affairs of the world today. The very first one being the hegemonism that has often been flaunted by certain superpowers in times when impartiality is most needed, and the protectionism that comes with it in protecting their allies.

The five propositions from the Global Governance Initiative laid forth include; first, being adherence to sovereign equality. The second was abiding by international rule of law. The third, practicing multilateralism. Fourth, advocating for a people-centered approach. And finally, was a focus on taking real action. At the center of the Global Governance Initiative is the abiding to International Law. And this has its foundational basis in the United Nations Charter that gives genesis of the operations framework by the countries that ascribe and assent to being members of the United Nations (UN). On protectionism, a look at Resolutions 242 and Resolution 338 by the UN, a sample of which called on Israel to withdraw from the occupied territories that belong to Palestine, to this day, remains a disturbing position for many UN members because severely, despite coming up to take a stand of the inadequacies that have seen loss of countless lives and property in the Gaza Strip, there is still not so much that can be done as implementation because of the right hand who at the end, has veto powers – Protectionism. The United States always folds and tilts towards Israel, rather than taking a stand of the majority – both permanent and non-permanent members to the UN Human Rights Council.

Today the world is facing global disruptions some of which are stimulated by geopolitical fragmentation. An increase in conflicts and alliances can be seen in the Middle East and the Southern China sea. Increasing economic decoupling and this is also seen in the United States and China trade wars that have led to serious effects to global economic stability. Sanctions have become a common practice. Climate crisis that has led to conversations about climate change and importantly a decline in the climate commitments such as was agreed by member states to the Paris Agreement, 2016. Technology – the world of science is taking a leap as is being seen by the Artificial Intelligence (AI) growth and adaptations which have a count on information access, misinformation and disinformation, cyber security threats and, the freedom of privacy and protection of personal data and security systems. Global health challenges that have led to modification in warfare and sovereign interruptions such as the COVID-19 outbreak that caused alarm, the current conversation on mental health that has become a raging topic globally, and the straining healthcare systems.

The economic inequality that has contributed to labor mobility and displacement of persons at all facets such as conflict, economic disability, and the broader questions of climate change that have an effect on the constantly changing border control dynamics while creating an imbalance on international humanitarian systems. There is also being seen to-date the birthing of empires that have been named ‘regional blocks’ but at the same time, an indictment to international institutions that are registering drastic decline in the majority of the world. Space remains a conflicting ground and as such militarization has spurred ever more conflict and a scramble for biotech in today’s growing age of genetic engineering.

The dynamism of the foregoing is not without question. The place of the Global South. Often neglected, but remembered at times of sourcing for alliance when global superpowers seek control over adversaries. The  Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) is rallying its members to take on Global Governance as a critical point of concern.The responses that were recommended in the Global Governance Framework have potential of attaining in the Global South because of the existent framework – The Forum on China-Africa Cooperation (FOCAC). China’s inclusive mutual benefit principle of diplomacy will enable guarantee closure of gaps observed in the UN Framework towards the Global South. The consensus of the SCO members to open cooperation across the globe is a welcome response to cover for the rigidity of Western commercial trading that has for decades closed export of a chunk of produce (raw and industrialised output) and hegemony. Access to credit has often been marred with harsh terms – a tale of IMF – and yet the Global South remains with minimal influence in the institution despite being the most recipients to the credit. And so goes for peace and security as dictated by the West. Shocking that the Global South has no permanent member on the UN Security Council? Such are some of the broader governance gaps that are in sight. The initiative will gain reception, in time.

 

The writer is a Senior Research Fellow, Development Watch Centre.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Patronage or Partnership: An African Perspective on the Global Governance Initiative

Posted on By Musiime George

The global governance initiative (GGI) is animated by two fundamental facts. First is that central to China’s remarkable achievements over the past half-century has been the Chinese communist party (CPC), while the other is that, in addition to visionary leadership the CPC has had the ability to continuously evolve and adapt [both] itself and its outlook to a changing world. Proposing the GGI for the first time during the Shanghai cooperation organization summit, President Xi rationalized the initiative by pointing out three drawbacks of the current global governance system i.e. its waning authority, disproportionate representation of the global south, and the imperative for greater effectiveness pointing to the urgently need for reforms in this system.

To address these deficiencies, the GGI proposes five action points, not to replace but increase inclusivity and relevance of the current global governance systems to emerging challenges. By focusing on sovereign equality, international rule of law, multilateralism, a people centered approach and real results, the GGI also converges on the principles laid out in the UN Chatter. Currently, the world is grappling with a chaotic geopolitical and geo-economic landscape; novel areas of space and cyber space regulation, climate change, political and economic conflicts for which lasting settlement remains elusive due to unilateralism and a lack of commitment from some actors holding critical leverage. In fact, some analysts contend that today, “the international community is synonymous with the West.” This position, highlights the extent of the power wielded by some actors under the current order, resulting into nascent unilateralism- undermining the principle of sovereign equality.

It is also important to clarify that, the spirit of the GGI from both the proposing authority and a multitudinous of independent analysts is not to replace the existing global governance system. Instead, it is proposed as a political defibrillator-  a device to expand agency in the existing global governance framework that has been, superseded by the world it was created to adjudicate while it slumbered off. This also leads me to the question of why the GGI should matter to the global south and Africa in particular.

Foremost, Africa’s population and economic weight has been growing steadily and fast. For instance, the continent now accounts for between 18-19 percent of global population, projected to soar to about 25-percent by 2050. Also, albeit its share of global trade remaining low, initiatives like the African continental free trade area (AfCFTA), the gradual removal of trade barriers, and connectivity enhancing initiatives such as the BRI are already increasing the continent’s role globally. Nevertheless, Africa’s representation on the United Nations security council, World trade organization, or even international monetary fund voting power have all stayed disproportionately weak. In a case where many decisions made by these bodies directly impact on Africa and its peoples let alone unilateral actions that sidesteps their authority, for Africa, the call for reforms has been a long standing one.

Regardless, efforts to shrink the rhetoric-reality gap have come up against the high wall of sovereign inequality. It has been commonplace for Africa to be presented as an equal partner at global governance forums such as COP, the UN or G20. However, as majority decisions are made in Western capitals, predominantly by Western industrialized and economically powerful nations, African agency has not been felt and not just that, but also the continent’s most pressing challenges have often not received due attention. For instance, being most vulnerable to the adversities of climate change aside, a report by Action Aid international revealed that rich polluting countries still owe the continent US$36 trillion in climate debt. Conversely, this runs parallel with recent virulent wave of aid cuts to Africa in the West. In fact, this is no different for the UN security council which, despite 70-percent of its resolutions over the past 30 years concerning Africa has had no permanent seat for the continent. Moreover, only less than half of the continent’s 54 states have occupied the council’s rotating seats during the same time.

The legacy of patronage networks rather than genuine partnership. China’s efforts to offer alternatives the status quo notwithstanding, development aid, loans, even climate financing have oftentimes been structured in ways that reinforce historical dependency. To this, there is no better example than the reaction to Washington’s aid cuts that left everyone from HIV/AIDs programs in south Africa to internally displaced persons in Nigeria in disarray. Furthermore, the funneling of aid directly through large NGOs, has often bypassed and sometimes substituted in some sense state authority with international entities. Over all, whether it’s conditions that allow donors to set priorities for recipient governments, aid that dampens state capacity to mobilize domestic resources or elevates large NGOs over state authority, the one irrefutable upshot is weakening state sovereignty.

Similarly, in a world where the voice of a state is determined to a large extent by its economic power and military might, African states have found themselves caught in the crossfire of rivalries between the West and China or other emerging economies. The tariff war waged unilaterally by the US for example triggered sudden dips in commodity prices destabilizing the economies of resource intensive African countries. Likewise, as the continent looked to leverage South Africa’s leadership of the G20, both Marco Rubio and Trump conveniently chose to skipped the summit over supposed “problems with the country and very bad policies.” These some observers have opined include, alignment with BRICS and China, land reforms, and its position on the Gaza conflict. Whereas experts show that the absence of the US could not affect the success of the summit, Washington still took from this year’s summit and the African audience, a major stakeholder in global governance.

Despite being an undeniable fact that   regional blocs and treaties like the African Union and AfCFTA might be critical in circumventing the patronage trap, Africa still struggles to transcend a thickness of historical challenges related to the structure of current global governance and its colonial past. Therefore, the global governance initiative looks to actualize the existing multilateral system’s capacity for action towards its vision for the world at conception; a world animated by the principles of sovereign equality cooperation and fairness.

The GGI is proposed as a vehicle for reforms in global governance while to Africa and the global south, the initiative represents an apparatus for redefining engagement in international relations. By advocating for fairness, equality and consensus born of extensive consultation, the GGI not only reimagines the shared aspirations of all nations as envisaged in the UN chatter, but it also serves as an inroad to the community with a shared future for mankind. And for Africa, it highlights a pathway to increased African Agency, –proposes a way to transition from illusory partnership, into an Africa capable of actively partaking and influencing global governance decisions.

The writer is a research fellow at the Development Watch Centre.

The Place of the Global Governance Initiative in a Rapidly Changing International Political Space

Posted on By Joshua Kingdom

Moments following his inauguration eight months ago, President Trump announced that the United States would be withdrawing from the Paris Agreement, the World Health Organization, and the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. If that was not shocking enough, the assault on other international bodies in the intervening time not least, the International Criminal Court, the UN Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization, and the UN Human Rights Council has certainly been.

This tendency is representative of several different waves that the United Nations system has had to go against in the last couple of years. Eighty years after the two catastrophic wars that were the immediate motivation for the inception of global cooperation, it is incumbent on the international community to seriously reflect on the course of things moving forward.

Presiding over the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) plus meeting late last month hence, President Xi Jinping of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) proposed the Global Governance Initiative (GGI) as one way to mitigate this crisis.

GGI is driven by five core principles each speaking to a specific fracture in the present state of relations between countries. For the issue diagnosed in the first paragraph of this OP-ED for instance, it is principle two (a commitment to uphold international law) that carries the antidote.

According to the PRC leader, this should be arrived at by adhering to the said norms unwaveringly through among other things applying them fairly across the board. And when forging out new tenets, participation of all nations should be ensured. The latter attribute especially answers to the disillusionment that has increasingly arose in the Global South and Prof. Wang Dong the Executive Director of the Institute for Global Cooperation and Understanding at Peking University agrees.

Another of the current US administration bulwarks i.e. trade tariffs is addressed by the GGI in calling for multilateralism. Rather than discriminate their counterparts in some cases while isolating themselves in others, the Global Governance Initiative suggests that nations aim to harness resources for the common benefit of all humanity. This it argues, best allows for the realization of the intentions of the UN Charter.

State sovereignty is also at the heart of GGI. The details here are that regardless of a state’s size or economic capacity, her counterparts should do not intervene in its internal governance– political, social, and economic. This notion certainly goes far back in the history of diplomacy but given that it has faced real threats in recent times, China’s call serves to remind the world of how significant it is for political stability.

The other two GGI themes (people-centeredness and effectiveness) go hand in hand. If the global order is not effective, then the individuals to whom its policies are aimed will see no benefits. The concept paper which explains the full GGI picture rightly points out that as it stands, an example of where the status quo can be improved is fast tracking the implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals.

But it is not enough that the proposal sounds nice, it must be attainable too. For China, this question is answered by the fact that it has already been extensively involved with different players for years in efforts that will no doubt augment GGI. The signing of the Tianjin Declaration at the recently concluded SCO summit for instance, showed that the super power already has several strategic allies behind its back.

Further, the different but related global programs coming before GGI tell us a lot about how effective the Communist Part of China (CPC) has been when it comes to steering the waves of geopolitics. The greatest testimonies here lie in the Global Development Initiative (introduced by President Xi at the 76th UN General Assembly session), the Global Security Initiative (introduced by President Xi at the Boao Forum for Asia Annual Conference in 2022), and the Global Civilization Initiative (introduced by President Xi at the CPC in Dialogue with World Political Parties High-level Meeting in 2023). Taking the second of the trio, a 2024 assessment of the project found that it had already received support from over one hundred countries and that its principles had been adopted in no less than ninety bilateral/multilateral agreements.

GGI is therefore an answer to several issues that have been plaguing international relations for a while now. And from the vision as articulated and the evidence of what China has accomplished previously, there is no doubt that its promise will come to fruition as the years unfold.

The writer is a research fellow at the Development Watch Centre