Global Governance Needs Fresh Ideas

The world has changed enormously in recent decades. It is time to rethink and refresh the United Nations and the other institutions we collectively call “global governance”.

The word “governance” can be misleading. These international bodies do not have sovereign power over the nations they represent. To be effective, they must convene countries, help align their interests and reflect, as far as possible, the collective interests of the nations in the world.

There are more reasons than ever why we need international cooperation. But there are also new and alarming forces pulling us apart.

Making the global system more fit for purpose will require a much greater capacity to manage complexity and diversity. That is a fundamental change from the world of 1945. Despite the best efforts of smaller countries, the post-war system was ultimately shaped by the overwhelming power of a handful of major powers. The result was a world much entangled with security dilemmas and geopolitical competition, rather than one consistently focused on the common good of humanity.

Nevertheless, even at the height of the Cold War, when trust between the major powers was in very short supply, there were confidence-building initiatives and ground rules that were, by and large, respected. There was a basis for dialogue and negotiation. Rules and norms governing international trade also helped empower developing countries to grow by integrating into global supply chains.

Today, the international institutions that underpinned much of this cooperation are increasingly overlooked. They often seem unable to shape the agenda on some of the most important issues facing humanity: the extraordinary technological and economic transformation now underway; an open international economy that supports development and prosperity; how we use the world’s resources while maintaining a safe environment; and, inevitably, how we manage competition between the major powers. Instead, trade wars, economic coercion and the securitisation of supply chains have been widespread.

The likely transition to a multipolar world — with several major powers, very different worldviews and overlapping regional economic groupings — upends the post-war logic of a largely binary geopolitical competition. It also marks the end of the brief “unipolar moment” of overwhelming U.S. dominance following the Cold War, during which globalisation accelerated.

A more multipolar world means that cross-cultural understanding will become even more important. The world is no longer dominated by European civilisation. But neither is it possible to assume that economic development and interdependence alone will resolve our differences. They cannot do so if we misunderstand or distrust each other.

At this stage of the transition, many observers expect a zero-sum contest between the United States and China and see an inevitable clash of interests. Fragmentation and polarisation appear to be the order of the day. If that continues, it could fatally weaken the institutions, rules and norms of global governance that have served the world, however imperfectly, for generations. Yet interdependence remains a powerful and resilient force, and we should not ignore it.

The United States and China remain deeply intertwined. And the major challenges facing humanity — from food security and pandemics to climate change and technological change — cannot be solved by countries acting alone.

An international order built around a new and more sustainable form of interdependence would be far more fit for purpose than a return to the law of the jungle. Such a system could be based on a few simple principles: limited and shared international authority where global problems genuinely require it; respect for national sovereignty and non-intervention in domestic affairs; and greater respect between different cultures and civilisations. If the major powers could agree on such principles, much of the world would welcome them as a foundation for durable peace, development and economic cooperation rather than conflict and disruption.

It is a tall order.

Many countries are watching closely to see how a more influential China will seek to help shape a new multipolar system. China now has significant agenda-setting power, including through development finance, technology, trade and the green transition. China built much of its impressive economic strength through complex interdependence with economies around the world. When it comes to reforming global governance for a more multipolar world, China is also signalling that it intends to remain committed to interdependence and international cooperation.

The Global Governance Initiative (GGI) represents an important contribution to this discussion at a time of what China describes as “changes unseen in a century”. As a big-picture vision, the initiative deserves attention. The overarching narrative matters because it provides the framework within which more detailed proposals for reform may evolve over time.

Consistent with the Chinese concept of a “shared future”, the initiative takes the reality of nation-states as a given while emphasising sovereign equality, non-interference and cooperation. These principles could provide a basis for a new and more sustainable internationalism — if other major powers are prepared to engage with them and find common ground. That is the important test.

The GGI should not be judged simply by whether it comes from China, nor accepted uncritically because it does. Its ideas should be tested against the interests of the wider international community. Do they help countries cooperate? Do they preserve space for national sovereignty while addressing genuinely global problems? Can they accommodate different political systems and cultures? Can they contribute to a more stable and prosperous international economy? And, importantly, can they help build a more sustainable and representative global order in which both developing and developed countries have a meaningful voice and share in the benefits of global cooperation and economic development? These are questions worth debating seriously.

Wise leadership will seek strategic calm and look for shared interests wherever possible. That is simply the reality: for most of the world, cooperation is far preferable to conflict, and interdependence is far preferable to the law of the jungle. Global governance will inevitably evolve as the world changes. The question is whether we shape that evolution deliberately or allow it to be driven by rivalry, crisis and power politics.

The article reflects the author’s opinions, and not necessarily the views of China Focus.