PUBLISHED
September 21, 2025
The UN Charter is based on the principle of sovereign equality of all member states. In practice, however, this ideal has been compromised. Power remains concentrated in the hands of a few, with the strongest nations bending the system to their will — and at their whim — giving rise to unilateralism, hegemonic ambitions, and a retreat into economic protectionism. These transgressions not only threaten global peace and stability but also undermine the credibility and authority of international institutions that were created to uphold collective governance.
There is a growing realisation that the existing structure — largely shaped by Western-centric frameworks — has become ineffective and inequitable. Before our eyes, the system has failed to prevent regional conflicts, deliver inclusive economic growth, or confront the defining collective challenge of our time – climate change, an existential threat to both the Global South and the North.
This broader failure is mirrored in recent events that have laid bare the deficiencies in global governance. Israel’s unilateral military actions — particularly its ongoing “genocide” in Gaza and its strikes in Lebanon, Syria, Yemen, Iran, and Qatar — show its blatant disregard for international law and systems created to prevent such violations. Yet, even in the face of arrest warrants from the International Criminal Court, the international system has failed to hold Israeli leaders accountable for what a UN inquiry commission has described as “war crimes” and “crimes against humanity” in Gaza. Instead, Tel Aviv has been shielded by layers of political and military support of both the US and its Western allies.
The war in Ukraine provides another stark example. The United States and its partners have weaponised the international financial system to punish Russia and coerce states that refuse to align with their stance on the conflict. Such selective enforcement shows how Western powers exploit global institutions to serve narrow geopolitical interests.
Perhaps the biggest blow to global governance came from the United States itself – the system’s original architect. The Trump administration has ignited a trade war by unilaterally imposing sweeping tariffs on trading partners, in violation of World Trade Organization (WTO) obligations. Not only that, Trump further weakened multilateral institutions by pulling out from the Paris Climate Agreement and the World Health Organization (WHO), undermining international efforts to tackle critical environmental and public health challenges.
Amid this new wave of unilateralism, the international institutions established after World War II to prevent wars, stimulate economic development, and uphold the rule of law are struggling to fulfill their founding mandates. The United Nations and its multilateral structure face a crisis of legitimacy born out of the Global South’s underrepresentation, the erosion of international norms, and the glaring failures on climate change, pandemics, AI, and outer space governance.
Such shortcomings make systemic reform not just desirable but inevitable. And the first print of such reforms was presented by China’s President Xi Jinping at the recent Shanghai Cooperation Organization summit in Tianjin. He proposed the Global Governance Initiative (GGI) — a comprehensive, people-centered, and action-oriented framework aimed at fostering a more just, inclusive, and democratic international order. Rooted in President Xi’s vision of a “community with a shared future for humanity,” the GGI is based on five core concepts: sovereign equality, rule of law, multilateralism, people-centered governance, and tangible action.
Let’s break it down.
First, sovereign equality. Every state, regardless of its size, strength, or wealth, deserves equal respect, voice, and participation in global decision-making. Although the UN Charter enshrines the same principle, powerful nations and blocs continue to monopolise decision-making. Thus, the GGI’s emphasis on equality resonates strongly with the Global South, offering a transformative vision of fairness and inclusion in world affairs.
Second, universal rule of law. For governance to be credible, international law must be applied equally and consistently. However, a selective application of law by the West has eroded the credibility of global institutions like the UN Security Council, where the West holds huge structural advantages. The GGI challenges such double standards and selective enforcement, calling upon major powers to lead by example.
Third, genuine multilateralism. The GGI asserts that complex global challenges cannot be solved through unilateralism or exclusionary blocs. This stands in stark contrast to the United States’ zero-sum mentality — aptly captured by former US secretary of state Antony Blinken, who remarked at the 2024 Munich Security Conference: “If you’re not at the table, you’ll probably be on the menu.”
In the GGI vision, “everyone is at the table” in global decision-making — and no one is “placed on the menu.” The initiative affirms that the UN will remain the central platform for multilateral cooperation, while encouraging other institutions to complement its role. In contrast to exclusionary alliances and unilateral actions, the GGI envisions a more democratic, inclusive, and effective multilateral system.
Fourth, a people-centered approach. The GGI places human well-being at the core of governance. Whether addressing global challenges, including climate change, poverty, health, or digital divides, the initiative stresses that institutions must remain connected to the needs and aspirations of ordinary people. A governance system detached from the people it seeks to serve risks losing its legitimacy. This perspective directly contrasts with Western leaders’ tendency, epitomised by Trump’s “America First” approach, to prioritise narrow national interests over global cooperation.
Fifth, tangible outcomes. Abstract ideals and lofty declarations are not enough. Governance must produce real, coordinated, and sustainable actions to address both urgent problems and long-term challenges. It argues that developed nations must shoulder their responsibilities by providing more public goods, while developing countries must collaborate to enhance their collective capacity.
The GGI is not an isolated initiative. It weaves into the broader framework defined by President Xi, aimed at tackling the many dimensions of global challenges. This framework also includes the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), Global Development Initiative (GDI), Global Security Initiative (GSI), and Global Civilization Initiative (GCI). Each focuses on a different dimension: the BRI on infrastructure and connectivity; the GDI on development and the UN’s 2030 Agenda; the GSI on peace and security; and the GCI on intercultural dialogue, with the GGI serving as the overarching framework for reforming governance principles and institutions.
Some Western commentators may dismiss it as a “theoretical proposal”, but China’s track record suggests otherwise. China has consistently translated its global governance vision into concrete action. From poverty eradication and technological advancement at home to South-South cooperation abroad, Beijing has shown it can translate vision into practice.
That said, the GGI doesn’t seek to undo the existing international system, but rather to reform it, making it more inclusive, credible, and responsive to the realities of an increasingly polarised, unequal, and chaotic world. If anything, the GGI presents a compelling alternative to the dominance of unilateralism and double standards that have undermined trust in global institutions. Unlike symbolic commitments that often fall short in substance, the GGI stresses practical action and shared responsibility, especially between developed and developing nations.
While the GGI may unsettle the Western concept of a “rules-based” order — or what remains of it — Beijing’s plan still holds the promise of delivering a fairer system. President Xi’s vision of a “community with a shared future for mankind” can hardly prove a greater disappointment than the reality unfolding before us today: a global system tilting ever more in favour of the powerful, increasing inequalities, and leaving the world more divided than ever.
