Posted on September 21, 2025
The UN letter 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 its will, and its whim, leading to unilateralism, hegemonic ambitions and a retreat towards economic protectionism. These transgressions not only threaten world peace and stability, but also undermine the credibility and authority of international institutions that were created to defend the collective government.
There is a growing understanding that the existing structure, largely molded by the frames centered on the west, has become ineffective and ineffectable. Before our eyes, the system has not been able to prevent regional conflicts, offer inclusive economic growth or face the defining collective challenge of our time: climate change, an existential threat to the global south and the north.
This broader failure is reflected in recent events that have exposed the deficiencies in global governance. The unilateral military actions of Israel, particularly his “genocide” continuous in Gaza and his attacks in Lebanon, Syria, Yemen, Iran and Qatar, show their flagrant contempt for the right and international systems created to avoid such violations. However, even before the arrest orders of the International Criminal Court, the International System has not brought Israeli leaders responsible for what a UN investigation commission has described as “war crimes” and “crimes against humanity” in Gaza. Instead, Tel Aviv has been protected by political and military support layers of the United States and its western allies.
The war in Ukraine provides another marked example. The United States and its partners have armed the international financial system to punish Russia and the states of co -emerged that refuse to align with their position on the conflict. Such selective application shows how Western powers exploit global institutions to serve narrow geopolitical interests.
Perhaps the biggest blow for global governance of the United States itself: the original system architect. The Trump administration has lit a commercial war by unilaterally imposing radical tariffs on commercial partners, in violation of the obligations of the World Trade Organization (WTO). Not only that, Trump further weakened multilateral institutions by withdrawing from the Paris Climate Agreement and the World Health Organization (WHO), undermining international efforts to address critical challenges of environmental and public health.
In the midst of this new wave of unilateralism, the international institutions established after World War II to prevent wars, stimulate economic development and defend the rule of law are struggling to fulfill their founding mandates. The United Nations and their multilateral structure face a legitimacy crisis born from the sub -presentation of the global south, the erosion of international standards and obvious failures on climate change, pandemics, AI and outer space governance.
Such deficiencies make systemic reform not only desirable but inevitable. And the first impression of such reforms was presented by the president of China, Xi Jinping, at the recent summit of the Shanghai cooperation organization in Tianjin. He proposed the Global Governance Initiative (GGI), an integral framework, focused on people and oriented to action aimed at promoting a more fair, inclusive and democratic international order. Arraighed in the vision of President XI of a “community with a shared future for humanity”, the GGI is based on five basic concepts: sovereign equality, rule of law, multilateralism, governance centered on people and tangible action.
We are going to break it down.
First, sovereign equality. Each state, regardless of their size, strength or wealth, deserves the same respect, voice and participation in global decision making. Although the UN letter enshrines the same principle, powerful nations and blocks continue to monopolize decision making. Therefore, the emphasis of the GGI in equality resonates strongly with the global south, offering a transformative vision of equity and inclusion in world affairs.
Second, Status of Universal Law. For governance to be credible, international law must be applied equally and consistently. However, a selective application of the Law by the West has eroded the credibility of global institutions such as the UN Security Council, where the West has enormous structural advantages. The GGI challenges such double ratings and selective application, asking that the great powers lead with the example.
Third, genuine multilateralism. The GGI states that complex global challenges cannot be resolved by unilateralism or exclusion blocks. This is in a marked contrast to the zero sum mentality of the United States, successfully captured by former United States Secretary of the United States Antony Blinken, who commented at the 2024 Munich Security Conference: “If you are not at the table, you will probably be in the menu.”
In the GGI vision, “everyone is on the table” in global decision making, and no one is “placed in the menu.” The initiative states that the UN will continue to be the central platform for multilateral cooperation, while encouraging other institutions to complement its role. Unlike exclusive alliances and unilateral actions, the GGI foresees a more democratic, inclusive and effective multilateral system.
Fourth, a people -centered approach. The GGI places human well -being in the center of governance. Whether they address global challenges, including climate change, poverty, health or digital divisions, the initiative emphasizes that institutions must remain connected to the needs and aspirations of common people. A separate governance system of the people you are looking for to address the risk of losing their legitimacy. This perspective contrasts directly with the tendency of Western leaders, personified by Trump’s “America First” approach to prioritize narrow national interests on global cooperation.
Fifth, tangible results. Abstract ideals and high statements are not enough. Governance must produce real, coordinated and sustainable actions to address urgent problems and long -term challenges. He argues that developed nations must assume their responsibilities by providing more public goods, while developing countries must collaborate to improve their collective capacity.
GGI is not an isolated initiative. It moves within the widest framework defined by President XI, aimed at addressing the many dimensions of global challenges. This framework also includes the Belt and Road (BRI) initiative, the Global Development Initiative (GDI), the Global Security Initiative (GSI) and the Global Civilization Initiative (GCI). Each focuses on a different dimension: the bri on infrastructure and connectivity; the GDI on the development and agenda of the UN 2030; the GSI on peace and security; and the GCI on intercultural dialogue, with the GGI serving as the general framework to reform the principles and institutions of governance.
Some Western commentators can rule it out as a “theoretical proposal”, but China’s history suggests otherwise. China has constantly translated its vision of global governance into a specific action. Since the eradication of poverty and technological advancement in the home of South-South cooperation abroad, Beijing has shown that it can translate vision into practice.
That said, the GGI does not seek to undo the existing international system, but rather to reform it, making it more inclusive, credible and receptive to the realities of an increasingly polarized, unequal and chaotic world. In any case, the GGI presents a convincing alternative to the domain of unilateralism and the double standard that have undermined confidence in global institutions. Unlike the symbolic commitments that often fall short in substance, the GGI emphasizes the practical action and shared responsibility, especially among the nations developed and in development.
While the GGI can harm the western concept of an order “based on rules”, or what remains of it, Beijing’s plan still has the promise to deliver a more fair system. President XI’s vision of a “community with a shared future for humanity” can barely demonstrate a greater disappointment than the reality that develops before us: a global system that is increasingly leaning in favor of powerful inequalities and leaving the world more divided than ever.
