Dissecting China's global governance initiative

Read as PDF

Link to GSPN

Copyright © 2026

Inclusive Society Institute

PO Box 12609

Mill Street

Cape Town, 8010

South Africa

235-515 NPO

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced

or transmitted in any form or by any means without the permission in

writing from the Inclusive Society Institute

DISCLAIMER

Views expressed in this report do not necessarily represent the views of

the Inclusive Society Institute or its Board or Council members.

October 2025

Author: Daryl Swanepoel

Contents

1 INTRODUCTION: Contextualising the conversation

2 THE CONSULTATION: Framing the questions in an era of systemic drift

3 ANALYTICAL EXPANSION OF THE FOUR CORE QUESTIONS

3.1 China’s dual impulse: Corrective and strategic at once

3.2 Great-Power reactions: Anxiety, ambivalence and the defence of hierarchy

3.3 Global South perspectives: Resonance without alignment

3.4 Implications for the future of multilateralism: Between adaptation and fragmentation

4 DEEPENING THE DISCUSSION: PERSPECTIVES AND COUNTER PERSPECTIVES

5 BROADER IMPLICATIONS FOR A GLOBAL SOUTH STRATEGY

6 LOOKING AHEAD: THEMES FOR FUTURE CONSULTATION

7 CONCLUSION: CHOOSING BETWEEN EVOLUTION AND FRAGMENTATION

Cover photo: AI generated

1 INTRODUCTION

Contextualising the conversation

The Global South Perspectives Network enters this new phase of publishing its Monday Consultations at a moment when the international system appears suspended between epochs. One can sense a world taking stock of itself, as if pausing briefly before deciding what kind of order it wishes to inhabit next. The structures inherited from 1945 still stand, at least in name and legal form, yet their gravitational pull has weakened. Power has become more diffuse, expectations more plural and the consensus that once underpinned multilateralism has thinned with time.

It is within this atmosphere of transition that China’s Global Governance Initiative (GGI) has emerged. It is an initiative that has not only intensified existing debates about global power but has also illuminated the deeper uncertainties defining this historical moment. Some interpret the GGI as a strategic challenge to a familiar order, whilst others see it as a direct response to the reform inertia that has plagued multilateral institutions for decades. Many in the Global South recognise in it an echo of long-articulated frustrations, a sense, so to say, that the current system speaks the language of universality, yet often operates through hierarchies that privilege the few over the many.

This consultation, one of many held under the Monday Consultations banner, brought together analysts, practitioners and observers from across the global community, each contributing to a shared inquiry into what the GGI represents and what its emergence might mean for the future of global governance.

This analytical brief offers an expanded account of that conversation. It does not merely document the dialogue, it attempts to interpret it, so as to situate the remarks, questions and insights within the broader currents shaping the transition from an older order to whatever may come next. In doing so, it aims to provide a reflective and grounded contribution to the growing discourse on how the Global South might navigate a system that is neither stable, nor yet fully transformed.

2 THE CONSULTATION

Framing the questions in an era of

systemic drift

The consultation began by acknowledging a simple, but often overlooked truth, that global governance is no longer anchored to the geopolitical realities that produced it. The architecture designed in 1945, so elegant in conception, so ambitious in spirit, now struggles under the weight of contemporary demands. Its foundational assumptions have eroded, yet its institutional form has remained largely intact.

The United Nations Security Council still mirrors the balance of power at the end of the Second World War. The Bretton Woods institutions continue to reflect an economic geography that no longer exists. And even when the international system has pledged reform, as it did in the 2005 World Summit, implementation has consistently failed to materialise.

In this context, the emergence of the GGI appears less surprising and more inevitable. The world has been signalling its desire for reform for decades, but reform has proven elusive. Where institutions fail to adapt, the system creates the very spaces into which new actors step. China’s initiative thus becomes not merely a Chinese story, but a symptom of a deeper systemic malaise.

The consultation therefore sought to explore four interlocking questions: whether China is filling a vacuum or rewriting rules; how other great powers are responding; how the Global South interprets the initiative; and what this means for the future of multilateralism. These questions framed the discussion, but did not confine it and instead, they opened a broader reflection on the contingencies of this moment in world affairs.

3 ANALYTICAL EXPANSION OF THE

FOUR CORE QUESTIONS

3.1 China’s dual impulse: Corrective and strategic at once

A central theme emerging from the discussion was the recognition that the GGI cannot be reduced to a single motive in that it reflects both a critique and an ambition, both a response to structural inequities and a desire to shape the evolving order. This duality is not a contradiction. It is a characteristic of rising powers throughout history.

China’s argument begins with the claim that the multilateral system suffers from a legitimacy deficit, frozen, as it were, in the institutional imagination of 1945. The Initiative positions itself as a corrective to this democratic stagnation. Yet the GGI also grows out of a decade-long pattern of parallel institution-building: the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, the New Development Bank of BRICS, the Belt and Road Initiative, and now the GGI’s associated platforms. In combining critique with construction, China demonstrates both frustration with the existing order and confidence in its capacity to propose alternatives.

This dual impulse, being simultaneously reformist and strategic, was widely noted in the consultation. It reflects a broader truth, that no major power seeks to reform the world in ways that negate its own interests. The more revealing question is not China’s ambition, but the conditions that have rendered that ambition consequential. If the existing institutions had evolved with greater agility, the space within which the GGI now operates might have been narrower. As it stands, the system itself has created the void that the GGI seeks to fill.

3.2 Great-Power reactions: Anxiety, ambivalence and the

defence of hierarchy

The consultation examined how other major powers interpret the GGI and what these reactions reveal about their own strategic anxieties.

The United States has framed the initiative as destabilising, even revisionist. Yet this rhetorical posture contrasts sharply with its longstanding resistance to institutional reforms it professes to support. Whether in IMF quota adjustments or Security Council redesign, Washington’s defence of the “rules-based order” often coincides with a defence of inherited privileges.

Europe’s position differs in tone, but not always in substance, because while sharing Western concerns about China’s intentions, European actors remain deeply protective of institutional arrangements that grant disproportionate influence to a continent whose demographic and economic weight has steadily declined. The two permanent Security Council seats held by France and the United Kingdom, for example, exemplify this disjuncture between contemporary realities and institutional persistence.

India, Japan and other Asian powers were described as occupying a space of strategic ambivalence. They are frustrated by the inertia of the system, but wary of a Sinocentric alternative, and they are conscious of their own role as regional poles within an increasingly plural global landscape.

What emerges from these reactions is not a coherent response to China, but a diverse set of anxieties about losing position within the existing hierarchy. Debates about global governance reform, in this sense, are inseparable from debates about power. The GGI becomes a prism through which the deeper insecurities of established and emerging powers are refracted.

3.3 Global South perspectives: Resonance without

alignment

One of the consultation’s clearest insights was the divergence between Western and Global South interpretations of the GGI. Across Africa, Southeast Asia, Latin America and the Middle East, China’s critique of the global system finds significant resonance. Many states recognise their own frustrations in China’s diagnosis: an unrepresentative system, inconsistent application of norms and a persistent sense of marginalisation within the institutions of global governance.

But resonance does not imply alignment. The Global South’s response is more subtle and more pragmatic. It reflects a recognition that the GGI, whatever its motivations, acknowledges grievances that the established custodians of the system have long neglected. For middle powers such as South Africa, Brazil, Indonesia and Türkiye, the GGI represents neither a new orthodoxy, nor a threat to be resisted, but an additional space in which agency may be exercised.

This pragmatic reading acknowledges both opportunity and risk, where the opportunity lies in leveraging competing centres of global influence to expand the negotiating space for developing countries; and where risk arises if parallel systems evolve into competing regimes that will deepen fragmentation and erode the universality that multilateralism aspires to maintain.

The consultation also highlighted the concerns of civil society, whose voices is said to adde further nuance to the discourse. Their concerns about transparency, governance standards and human rights are not solely directed at China, but also at the West, whose selective approach to human rights diplomacy, they argue, has undermined the West’s own credibility. These tensions reflect the broader philosophical question that asks who has the authority to define legitimacy, and to whom is that authority accountable?

3.4 Implications for the future of multilateralism: Between

adaptation and fragmentation

Perhaps the most reflective portion of the consultation centred on what the GGI and the reactions it provokes tell us about the trajectory of multilateralism itself.

Multilateralism, it was suggested, stands at a crossroads. Not because China challenges it, but because those entrusted with its stewardship have allowed it to stagnate. The institutions that once embodied the hope of a cooperative world have become, in some respects, the custodians of their own paralysis.

Three observations shaped the discussion. The first is that alternatives arise when institutions fail to adapt. The GGI’s emergence is therefore as much a reflection of institutional stasis as of Chinese ambition.

The second is that multipolarity is now an unavoidable reality, because whether acknowledged or resisted, it is shaping the contours of global politics. No single actor can unilaterally impose its vision of the world and any future order will, therefore, be layered, plural and hybrid.

The third observation is that containment strategies are unlikely to succeed. The GGI resonates not because it is Chinese, but because it speaks to structural inequities that many states experience directly. The more the initiative is dismissed rather than engaged, the more its appeal may grow.

The consultation thus returned repeatedly to a reflective tension: the world must navigate between the dangers of fragmentation and the necessity of adaptation. The GGI may well be the first major test of whether the existing system can accommodate new voices and new institutional forms without fracturing.

4 DEEPENING THE DISCUSSION:

PERSPECTIVES AND COUNTER

PERSPECTIVES

The conversation unfolded with a richness that exceeded the scope of the initial questions, drawing the participants into deeper reflections on the philosophical foundations of global governance.

One participant argued that legitimacy, far from being an ambiguous construct, requires universal standards, because without legitimacy grounded in representation and participation, multilateralism risks becoming a façade for power politics. Another countered that universalism itself is often claimed by those who historically benefited from defining it and so the question then becomes: who determines what counts as legitimate?

The Charter may offer the anchor, but interpretation remains contested.

Others reflected on the tension between international law and the so-called “rules-based international order.” For many states, the latter is seen not as a neutral framework, but as a flexible vocabulary used to justify inconsistent action. The consultation suggested that a re-centring of the Charter, rather than a reliance on ad hoc interpretations, might offer firmer ground for a renewed multilateralism.

Concerns about multipolarity also surfaced, with one participant suggesting that multipolarity offers the promise of inclusivity, but also the risk of disorder, because he proffered, without strong institutions capable of coordinating the interests of multiple poles, the world may slide toward spheres of influence reminiscent of earlier eras. Yet the consultation resisted fatalism, by suggesting that multipolarity need not replicate the past, as it can be shaped into something more collaborative, provided the institutional imagination is revived.

Another theme that surfaced was the paralysis surrounding Security Council reform. While Africa’s demand for two permanent seats remains consistent, the question of which states should hold them continues to divide the continent, which is an internal divergence that mirrors similar divides across the Global South. These divergences, therefore, suggests that reform requires not only a redrawing of institutional lines, but indeed also a re-articulation of the principles upon which representation should rest.

5 BROADER IMPLICATIONS FOR A

GLOBAL SOUTH STRATEGY

The discussion illuminated several implications for the Global South’s approach to global governance., one being that there is growing recognition that the Global South is no longer a passive recipient of global norms, but an active co-author of emerging institutional debates. The GGI, regardless of its origin, provides a platform through which long-standing concerns about equity and representation can be expressed more forcefully.

A second implication is the need for greater coherence within the Global South itself, because internal divergences weaken negotiating power and slow reform. Yet the consultation suggested that these divergences, if openly acknowledged, rather than suppressed, can become sources of creative institutional design, such as the proposal that regional representation should be explored, rather than expanding the Security Council along national lines.

A third implication is the need to balance opportunity and caution. China’s initiative should be neither romanticised, nor rejected in that its possibilities lie in the space between endorsement and opposition.  It could evolve into a strategic engagement that recognises its potential to reshape global governance without surrendering the normative aspirations that the Global South holds for a fair and inclusive system.

6 LOOKING AHEAD: THEMES FOR

FUTURE CONSULTATION

The discussion pointed toward several directions for future exploration, including, amongst others, the evolving relationship between international law and competing rule-making systems, the institutional implications of multipolarity, the governance of digital, financial and technological domains and the future of development finance in a world no longer dominated by the Bretton Woods institutions. All emerged as themes that merit deeper reflection.

The GGI will not be the last initiative to challenge the global governance status quo. But by beginning here, the Monday Consultation Series establishes a foundation for understanding how global governance might evolve if the voices of the Global South are treated not as peripheral commentary, but as central contributions.

7 CONCLUSION: CHOOSING BETWEEN

EVOLUTION AND FRAGMENTATION

The consultation closed with an observation that captures the philosophical spirit of the discussion, namely that the world is not choosing between a Western order and a Chinese order. It is choosing between an order capable of evolving and an order condemned to fragment.

China’s GGI is a reminder that global governance can stagnate only for so long before alternatives arise. Whether those alternatives deepen fragmentation or contribute to renewal depends on the willingness of established institutions to open themselves to reform and on the ability of emerging actors to articulate their visions with clarity and coherence.

In this sense, the GGI is not simply a Chinese proposal. It is a mirror held up to the international community, reflecting both the failures of the present and the possibilities of a different future.

The Global South Perspectives Network offers this analytical brief as the first step in an ongoing dialogue. Much remains to be explored, questioned and re-imagined. But this consultation has made one truth clear: global governance is at its most vibrant when the conversation is shared.

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

This report has been published by the Inclusive Society Institute on behalf of the Global South Perspectives Network

Global South Perspectives Network (GSPN) is an international coalition founded in 2022 by HumanizaCom, the Foundation for Global Governance and Sustainability (FOGGS), and the Inclusive Society Institute (ISI). It brings together think tanks and experts from Latin America, the Caribbean, Africa, and the Middle East to amplify Global South voices in global governance debates.

GSPN works to strengthen Southern representation in decision-making, focusing on United Nations reform and multilateralism. Through research, dialogue, and advocacy, it promotes equitable partnerships between the Global South and North.

Key initiatives include the 2023 report Global South Perspectives on Global Governance Reform, presented at a UN workshop in New York, and events such as the 2024 UN Civil Society workshop in Nairobi.

GSPN’s mission is to ensure Global South nations are equal partners in shaping global policy, fostering a fair, inclusive, and sustainable international order.

Email: info@inclusivesociety.org.za

Phone: +27 (0) 21 201 1589

Web: www.inclusivesociety.org.za