Search

Copyright © 2026   prepared by the 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 Global South Perspectives Network   DISCLAIMER   Views expressed in this report do not necessarily represent the views of The coordinating entities or any of their office bearers   Original transcripts of the presentations made during a meeting held on 19 January 2026 have been summarised with the use of the AI tool and then edited and amended where necessary by the rapporteur for correctness and context.   FEBRUARY 2026   Author: Daryl Swanepoel   CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION 2 THE IMMEDIATE CONTEXT: SYMBOLIC ADVANCE AND POLITICAL CONTRACTION 3 MULTILATERALISM UNDER PRESSURE: WHEN RULES DEPEND ON RESTRAINT 4 REINTERPRETING THE AFRICAN G20: AGENDA-SETTING AS INFLUENCE 5 CONTESTATION AND LANGUAGE: NORMS UNDER EXPLICIT CHALLENGE 6 EXCLUSION AND PRECEDENT: PROCEDURAL NORMS AT RISK 7 ARTICLE 109 AND THE LIMITS OF FORMAL RENEWAL 8 FROM UNIPOLARITY TO MULTIPOLARITY: FRAGMENTATION AS STRUCTURAL TRANSITION 9 COALITIONS OF THE WILLING: PRAGMATIC COOPERATION IN A FRAGMENTED SYSTEM 10 AGENDA NARROWING: COHERENCE OR RETRENCHMENT? 11 PRESIDENCY CYCLES, CONTINUITY AND THE RISK OF HIATUS 12 FRAGMENTATION AND THE ILLUSION OF EXIT 13 BUREAUCRATISATION AND THE LOSS OF INFORMALITY 14 CONCLUSION: THE G20 BETWEEN STRUCTURAL CONSTRAINT AND ADAPTIVE AGENCY   Cover photo: Image generated using OpenAI’s DALL·E image generation model (2026). Concept developed for the Inclusive Society Institute / Global South Perspectives Network publication. 1 INTRODUCTION   The Open Consultation Mondays webinar on “What is the future of the G20?” took place at a moment when the international system appears to be quietly, but unmistakably, recalibrating itself. This is not a period marked by dramatic institutional collapse, nor by the sudden abandonment of multilateral frameworks. Rather, it is characterised by something more subtle and more unsettling: the gradual loosening of the political consensus that once gave those frameworks coherence and direction.   Multilateralism continues to exist in form, yet increasingly struggles to operate in substance, since rules remain written, but compliance has become selective. Forums still convene, but authority is uneven, contested and often fragile.   Within this unsettled terrain, the G20 occupies a distinctive and revealing position, because unlike treaty-based institutions, it is neither anchored in international law, nor supported by enforcement mechanisms. Its legitimacy rests almost entirely on political consent, procedural convention and the shared understanding that systemically important economies carry a collective responsibility for managing global risk. Where that understanding weakens, the G20 does not simply underperform. It becomes a site where deeper tensions in global governance are exposed.   For this reason, the consultation approached the G20 not as a discrete institution facing episodic difficulty, but as an indicator of broader transformations in how multilateral cooperation is practiced. The central concern was not whether the G20 has delivered particular outcomes, but whether the conditions that once made it a credible and effective forum still hold. 2 THE IMMEDIATE CONTEXT: SYMBOLIC ADVANCE AND POLITICAL CONTRACTION   The discussion was framed by the conclusion of the first G20 Summit hosted on the African continent. This G20 in Johannesburg marked an important symbolic expansion of global economic governance, that reflected both the shifting geography of systemic importance and the growing assertiveness of the developing and middle-income economies. Hosting the G20 on African soil carried an implicit challenge to inherited hierarchies within the international system, in that it reinforced the long-standing arguments that global governance must adapt to the contemporary economic realities, rather than remaining tethered to historical precedent.   But the consultation deliberately resisted a purely symbolic reading of the Summit and instead, it situated the African presidency within a longer trajectory in which developing countries have sought to reshape both the content and the normative orientation of global economic governance. The agenda advanced during the presidency foregrounded structural constraints, rather than cyclical fluctuations, directing attention to issues that speak directly to long-term development and systemic vulnerability.   At the same time, the consultation acknowledged that this agenda unfolded within a narrowing political space. Participation by some major economies, most notably the United States, was limited. Contestation over language intensified. And soon after the Summit, developments surrounding the forthcoming presidency introduced new uncertainty regarding the procedural norms of the forum itself. This juxtaposition, between agenda expansion on the one hand and political contraction on the other, framed much of the discussion that followed. 3 MULTILATERALISM UNDER PRESSURE: WHEN RULES DEPEND ON RESTRAINT   A foundational analytical premise of the consultation was that multilateral institutions derive their effectiveness not from formal rules alone, but from the willingness of participants to accept constraint. Rules do not enforce themselves. They function because actors believe that restraint serves their long-term interests better than unilateral action.   When this belief erodes, institutions rarely collapse outright. More often, they hollow out. Procedures continue, but their binding force weakens. Participation becomes conditional, selective or instrumental. The consultation argued that this pattern is increasingly visible across the multilateral system as a whole.   The G20 is particularly exposed to this dynamic. Its informality was originally its greatest strength, allowing rapid coordination in moments of crisis and enabling dialogue among actors with divergent political and economic systems, but informality also carries vulnerability and so when commitment to consensus fades, flexibility can be repurposed to justify exclusion, agenda narrowing or procedural manipulation.   Current tensions within the G20 were therefore framed not as isolated dysfunctions, but as manifestations of a broader shift in global governance, namely a shifting away from rule-bounded cooperation and toward power-mediated engagement. This shift does not eliminate multilateralism, but it fundamentally alters its character, which renders cooperation more contingent and less predictable. 4 REINTERPRETING THE AFRICAN G20: AGENDA-SETTING AS INFLUENCE   A substantial portion of the discussion was devoted to reassessing what constitutes “impact” in contemporary global governance. The consultation challenged evaluation frameworks that privilege attendance by heads of state, the specificity of communiqués or the immediacy of deliverables.   Instead, emphasis was placed on agenda-setting as a form of influence, given that the shaping of the terms of debate can, in a fragmented system, be more consequential than securing immediate commitments. The African presidency was therefore understood as exercising policy and norm entrepreneurship, filling discursive space at a moment when the global narrative is unsettled.   Debt sustainability was foregrounded as a structural issue embedded in the architecture of global finance, rather than as a failure of fiscal discipline and the cost of capital was elevated as a central constraint on development. Climate finance was reframed around access, quality and adaptation, rather than aggregate pledges alone, and critical minerals were positioned within a development and beneficiation discourse that challenges extractive models which externalise value.   The consultation noted that many of these issues transcend the G20 itself. Their significance lies in their capacity to migrate across forums, reinforcing debates in development finance, climate negotiations and regional processes and so, in this sense, influence operates cumulatively, through repetition and coalition-building rather than through singular decisions.   5 CONTESTATION AND LANGUAGE: NORMS UNDER EXPLICIT CHALLENGE   The consultation examined the intensification of contestation within the G20, particularly around language previously regarded as settled, where issues such as climate action, gender, sustainable development and solidarity again became sites of explicit disagreement.   What distinguished this phase of contestation was not its breadth, but its nature; where the use of previously agreed language as a basis for compromise was resisted by some member states and where normative frameworks that had accumulated over time were no longer uniformly treated as common reference points. The discussion underscored that in consensus-based forums such as the G20, even limited resistance can exert disproportionate influence on the outcomes, because in such fora, even  a small number of dissenting actors can significantly narrow them and recalibrate what is considered to be politically possible. The result is that over time this dynamic reshapes expectations, which weakens the stabilising function of precedent.   This development was interpreted as reflecting a broader environment in which norms themselves are increasingly contested, because as power politics reassert themselves, commitments to shared values become conditional, subject to reinterpretation or outright rejection. 6 EXCLUSION AND PRECEDENT: PROCEDURAL NORMS AT RISK   A critical analytical focus of the consultation concerned the unilateral exclusion of a founding G20 member, South Africa, under the forthcoming presidency, which, while formally framed as temporary, could set a troubling precedent.   The G20’s legitimacy rests on inclusion and shared participation among its members and therefore selective exclusion, even without formal expulsion, undermines this premise. More consequential, however, was the absence of collective resistance from the other members of the G20.   The consultation interpreted this silence of the other members as indicative of the current fragmented political environment in which institutional principles seem to increasingly yield to bilateral calculation. States may object privately, but publicly, they are reluctant to incur political cost by defending procedural norms. This pattern was identified as a key mechanism through which consensus-based systems erode. It does not occur through overt rejection, but through submission; and then over time, the exceptions become normalised, thereby altering expectations and embedding procedural uncertainty within the institution itself. 7 ARTICLE 109 AND THE LIMITS OF FORMAL RENEWAL   Flowing directly from the discussion on exclusion and procedural precedent, the consultation broadened its analytical lens to consider deeper structural constraints affecting institutional reform within the multilateral system. Particular reference was made to the United Nations Charter’s built-in reform mechanisms, notably Article 109, and to the persistent failure to activate them in any meaningful way.   Article 109 was treated as emblematic, rather than exceptional. Its existence demonstrates that the multilateral system is not legally frozen, pathways for comprehensive reform are formally available. Yet its non-use highlights a more fundamental reality: reform is not blocked by legal impossibility, but by political equilibrium. Those actors most empowered to activate reform are frequently those with the least incentive to alter existing arrangements.   This observation underscored a broader point. Institutional stagnation should not be misread as technical failure; instead, it reflects a balance of power in which entrenched advantage is preserved through inaction, where reform becomes conceivable only when shifts in power alter incentive structures and not merely when legal mechanisms exist. The consultation also cautioned against the activating Article 109, due to the profound political risk thereof. In a deeply fragmented and power-contested international system, the opening of the Charter to wholesale revision may yield an order markedly worse than the one it seeks to reform. 8 FROM UNIPOLARITY TO MULTIPOLARITY: FRAGMENTATION AS STRUCTURAL TRANSITION   Building on the discussion of institutional stasis, the consultation situated the current G20 dynamics within the wider historical transition that is underway; a transition from a unipolar to a multipolar world order.   The post-Cold War unipolar moment created an enabling environment for consensus-based multilateralism. In such an environment the concentration of power reduced coordination costs, which allowed dominant actors to underwrite the institutions even when the outcomes were imperfect or unevenly distributed. As power diffuses, however, the logic of cooperation changes fundamentally. Consensus becomes harder to sustain, veto power more widely distributed and normative coherence more fragile.   Fragmentation, in this reading, is not synonymous with chaos. It is a structural consequence of multipolarity. The challenge facing institutions such as the G20 is not whether fragmentation exists, but whether it can be governed. Consequently, thinner outcomes, slower consensus and heightened contestation may in fact reflect an adaptation of the system, rather than its failure. 9 COALITIONS OF THE WILLING: PRAGMATIC COOPERATION IN A FRAGMENTED SYSTEM   Against this backdrop, the consultation explored the growing role of coalitions of the willing as pragmatic instruments of cooperation, not as substitutes for multilateralism, but as adaptive responses to institutional gridlock. Coalitions of the willing allow cooperation to proceed where unanimity proves unattainable, and so by enabling a critical mass of states to align around shared objectives, progress can be made without waiting for universal agreement. Their legitimacy of such cooperation will be derived from the coalition’s effectiveness, openness and the capacity to expand. The discussion acknowledged the potential risks associated with such coalition formation, where poorly designed coalitions can entrench fragmentation or reinforce power asymmetries. Yet in the current environment, paralysis was seen as a greater danger than pluralism and therefore carefully structured coalitions may help sustain cooperation, while preserving institutional continuity.   Within this logic, the G20 itself can be understood as an early coalition of the willing, given that it was created as to address systemic risks informally, when the existing institutions multilateral processes proved insufficient.   10 AGENDA NARROWING: COHERENCE OR RETRENCHMENT?   The proposal to narrow the G20 agenda to its original macroeconomic and financial focus was examined in detail. While agenda expansion has strained coherence, the consultation rejected a simplistic return to “back-to-basics”.   The global economy today is structurally different from that of earlier periods. Finance, development, inequality and climate risk are deeply intertwined. Treating development as external to economic governance misreads contemporary risk, in that a finance-only G20 risks managing symptoms, while ignoring the underlying causes.   The distinction advanced was therefore between rationalisation and regression. Streamlining may be necessary, retreat is not.   11 PRESIDENCY CYCLES, CONTINUITY AND THE RISK OF HIATUS   The discussion also noted that the immediate transition following South Africa’s presidency includes a de facto hiatus under the current United States presidency, during which the G20 process is expected to operate with reduced momentum and limited agenda expansion. This interlude was not framed as withdrawal from the forum, but as a period of lowered political investment, with implications for continuity and follow-through on issues elevated during the African presidency. Against this backdrop, cautious hope was expressed by a number of participants in the consultation that the United Kingdom presidency may serve as a point of reactivation, where deferred threads could be picked up and where the G20’s work programme can be re-anchored, even if under a different framing and set of priorities.   The consultation also reflected on the implications of the G20 presidency cycle, particularly the transition from South Africa to the United Kingdom, and thereafter to South Korea. The concern expressed was not one of intent or legitimacy, but of continuity. Presidencies matter because they shape agenda priority and framing, and the risk identified was that issues foregrounded under South Africa’s leadership, notably development constraints, inequality, debt dynamics and the cost of capital, may struggle to retain salience as the forum shifts toward political economies with different strategic reference points. The UK was implicitly associated with a more traditional G7-style orientation, while South Korea was seen as occupying a more ambiguous middle position. The underlying question was whether the momentum created by the African presidency would be carried forward or quietly diluted. Or will it be re-anchored around narrower macroeconomic concerns.   12 FRAGMENTATION AND THE ILLUSION OF EXIT   The discussion also addressed the proliferation of alternative groupings and parallel institutions, which should not be viewed  as straightforward substitutes for established forums. Fragmentation may very well create tactical openings, but it could also magnify power asymmetries. Negotiations in such fragmented environments could lead to smaller and middle-income states losing their collective leverage. 13 BUREAUCRATISATION AND THE LOSS OF INFORMALITY   A reflective strand of the consultation focused on the increasing bureaucratisation of the G20, where procedural density has expanded considerably, coupled with extensive negotiation over text that crowds out essential less formal political dialogue.   The G20 was originally conceived as an informal space for candid engagement and in the current environment that is marked by mistrust and fragmentation, such relational spaces may be increasingly important. Dialogue, the consultation argued, is not ornamental. It is infrastructural. 14 CONCLUSION: THE G20 BETWEEN STRUCTURAL CONSTRAINT AND ADAPTIVE AGENCY   The consultation underscored that the G20 should no longer be assessed against expectations formed in a different structural era. Its present tensions reflect deeper constraints embedded in the contemporary international order.   Formal reform pathways exist, but remain politically blocked and fragmentation is structural, rather than episodic and therefore, consensus, where it emerges, will be partial and issue-specific.   Within this environment, the G20 remains ambiguous, but consequential. It cannot restore a lost consensus, nor can it substitute for comprehensive institutional reform. Its value lies in functioning as a flexible platform for coordination, agenda-setting and selective alignment.   The future of the G20, like that of multilateralism itself, will be shaped by political choice, by whether states remain willing to accept constraint in pursuit of cooperation that is imperfect, but still necessary.   - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 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

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

Copyright © 2026   prepared by the 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 Global South Perspectives Network   DISCLAIMER   Views expressed in this report do not necessarily represent the views of The coordinating entities or any of their office bearers   Original transcripts of the presentations made during a meeting held on 19 January 2026 have been summarised with the use of the AI tool and then edited and amended where necessary by the rapporteur for correctness and context.   FEBRUARY 2026   Author: Dr Klaus Kotzé   CONTENTS   1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2 THE ATTACK ON VENEZUELA: A NEW PRECEDENT IN THE USE OF AMERICAN FORCE 3 VIOLENCE AS A SYSTEMIC PHENOMENON, NOT AN ANOMALY 4 EROSION OF EMPATHY AND THE LEGITIMACY CRISIS OF MULTILATERAL INSTITUTIONS 5 GLOBAL SOUTH PERSPECTIVES: CONSTRAINTS AND STRATEGIC AGENCY 5.1 COLLECTIVE DE-RISKING AND STRATEGIC DECOUPLING 5.2 INSTITUTIONAL RENEWAL AND NORM REINFORCEMENT 5.3 SHARED NARRATIVE AND MORAL RECLAMATION 6 REGIONAL AND GLOBAL RIPPLE EFFECTS 7 CONCLUSION - A CALL FOR DELIBERATE INTERRUPTION Cover photo: Microsoft Copilot 2026, AI generated illustration depicting U.S.–Venezuela geopolitical tensions, M365 Copilot image generation tool. 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY   On 3 January, the United States launched a major military operation against Venezuela that resulted in the capture of President Nicolás Maduro and his wife. This event marked the most direct U.S. military intervention in Latin America in decades and represents a fundamental rupture in the norms governing state sovereignty and the use of force. Experts convened by the Global South Perspectives Network assessed this event not as an isolated crisis but as a critical inflection point in global order, one with ramifications far beyond Venezuela. Their discussion made three core claims:   The attack signals a deep break-down of international norms, where force can be deployed unilaterally under broad pretences. It accelerates a global shift toward systemic violence, undermining institutions designed to contain conflict and protect sovereign equality. For the Global South, traditional responses based on deference or hedging are no longer sufficient; instead, collective strategies of agency, resilience and institutional renewal must be pursued.   This brief synthesises this expert conversation and explores the Venezuela operation’s effects on the international system’s current crisis, the pathways for Global South responses, and the broader consequences for the future of multilateralism and global governance.     2 THE ATTACK ON VENEZUELA: A NEW PRECEDENT IN THE USE OF AMERICAN FORCE   The U.S.’ operation in Venezuela, widely documented as involving air strikes on strategic installations in and around Caracas and the exfiltration of President Maduro, represents an unprecedented direct assault on another sovereign state’s leadership by U.S. forces in recent history.   What distinguishes this from previous military interventions is not just its scale but its apparent disregard for multilateral legal constraints. According to expert commentary, the operation violates core principles of the U.N. Charter, which prohibits the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.   Consultation participants underscored that this attack, framed by U.S. authorities as a counter-narco-terrorism and stabilisation operation, is emblematic of a broader pattern in which coercion is normalised, and legal norms are treated as optional rather than foundational.   3 VIOLENCE AS A SYSTEMIC PHENOMENON, NOT AN ANOMALY   A central theme of the expert discussion was that contemporary global violence is no longer episodic, confined to specific wars or crises. Instead, it has become systemic, embedded in institutional behaviours, strategic logics, and narratives that reward escalation. Speakers drew historical parallels to early twentieth-century upheavals, when incremental violations of norms eventually culminated in widespread conflict. They argued that the Venezuela attack, like past military precedents, risks opening new floodgates rather than resolving discrete problems.   This systemic view of violence was reinforced by a public health analogy: unchecked violence spreads much like an epidemic through exposure, imitation and reinforcement. Without continuous mechanisms of interruption, the patterns of force used in one context are readily replicated elsewhere. In this framing, the international system lacks effective institutional capacity to contain contagion once precedent for the use of force is established.     4 EROSION OF EMPATHY AND THE LEGITIMACY CRISIS OF MULTILATERAL INSTITUTIONS   Consultation participants highlighted that the attack on Venezuela exposes a profound empathy deficit in global political discourse. Suffering, displacement and disruption caused by military action are now so frequently broadcast that they risk becoming background noise, tolerated consequences rather than urgent moral challenges. Institutions designed to mediate interstate conflict, above all the United Nations, were described as increasingly unable to enforce their own norms or to offer meaningful political mediation. This is not merely institutional failure; it is a crisis of legitimacy. When the greatest military powers disregard the system they helped to build, the normative foundation of multilateralism is hollowed out.   This erosion was illustrated starkly by the swift reactions of world leaders and civil society: some came out to condemn the U.S. action as a violation of international law and a threat to sovereignty, while others celebrated it as bold leadership. This polarisation further undermines the possibility of unified, normative responses that reinforce peaceful conflict resolution. It challenges the very edifice of global order.     5 GLOBAL SOUTH PERSPECTIVES: CONSTRAINTS AND STRATEGIC AGENCY   For states in the Global South, the Venezuela crisis presented several pressing questions about agency, sovereignty and strategic alignment. Historically, many of these states have balanced relations with major powers to secure trade, investment and development partnerships. The Venezuela episode suggests that reliance on normative deference, or on the continuation of established diplomatic frameworks, may no longer be sufficient. Various speakers emphasised that while formal sovereignty remains a principle of international relations, practical sovereignty is increasingly compromised by the unilateral actions of powerful states. In effect, the traditional security guarantees and legal frameworks that once offered a measure of insulation against external intervention are no longer reliable.   This reality prompts a reassessment of strategic options. The experts identified three broad response pathways for the Global South:     5.1 COLLECTIVE DE-RISKING AND STRATEGIC DECOUPLING   Rather than isolated hedging or alignment with existing power blocs, Global South countries could explore collective strategies of de-risking. This would reduce dependence on external patronage that can be leveraged coercively. This could involve expanding trade among each other in the Global South, diversifying diplomatic partnerships, and strengthening regional security architectures. Collective de-risking would not be isolationist, but rather a coordinated effort to build resilience that reduces vulnerability to unilateral coercion.     5.2 INSTITUTIONAL RENEWAL AND NORM REINFORCEMENT   Various speakers stressed the need for reinvigorating multilateral institutions with broader legitimacy and balanced authority. This includes reforming U.N. mechanisms to ensure that no single power can override established norms with impunity. Reformed and new platforms where Global South voices are not marginalised are now more needed than ever.   Institutional renewal also means developing mechanisms capable of sustained engagement, rather than episodic crisis management, to interrupt cycles of violence effectively.     5.3 SHARED NARRATIVE AND MORAL RECLAMATION   The attack on Venezuela and the inaction from the global community crystallises a broader cultural crisis: a weakening of collective commitment to humanitarian norms and shared global responsibility. Global South actors can play a leading role in articulating and popularising alternative narratives that resist the normalisation of coercive violence and emphasise cooperation over dominance.     6 REGIONAL AND GLOBAL RIPPLE EFFECTS   Various participants suggested that the Venezuela episode will have far-reaching effects on regional stability and global geopolitics. In Latin America and the Caribbean, the fear of contagion, whether political, economic, or military, has already driven shifts in diplomacy, migration pressures and security postures. The crisis has the potential to deepen emigration flows, strain host-state resources and heighten regional militarisation.   Beyond the Western Hemisphere, the attack reinforces concerns about great powers using force various spurious pretexts, including counterterrorism or transnational crime. If unchallenged, the precedent set in Venezuela will likely lower thresholds for intervention elsewhere, eroding the protective value of sovereignty as a principle.     7 CONCLUSION - A CALL FOR DELIBERATE INTERRUPTION   The experts in the Global South Perspectives Network concluded that the attack on Venezuela is more than a geopolitical flashpoint; it is a wake-up call. The international order is currently oscillating between inertia and escalation, and the path it follows will depend on whether political actors choose to invest in deliberate mechanisms of interruption and renewal or allow systemic violence to self-perpetuate.   The Global South finds itself at a crossroads: continue to navigate within the existing architecture, or contribute to shaping a more resilient, equitable and normatively grounded framework for global governance.         - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 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

Embracing a society that is built on social and national democratic values Public Policy Research & Analysis Democratic Education, Briefings, Seminars & Conferences Publications & Liberation Archive Portal Featured Activity The People's Voice: Public Participation and the Soul of South African Democracy Books Our Latest Activities #2/26 Open Consultation Mondays: What is the future of the G20 in a fragmenting world? Open Consultation Mondays Daryl Swanepoel 2 days ago #1/26 Open Consultation Mondays: The U.S. intervention in Venezuela: Global reactions and implications Open Consultation Mondays Klaus Kotzé Feb 3 Journal for Inclusive Public Policy, Volume 6, Issue 1 Release of JIPP Inclusive Society Institute Jan 31 Up

Monthly Newsletter Jan 31, 2026 ISI Newsletter: December 2025 & January 2026 Sep 30, 2025 ISI Newsletter: September 2025 Jun 30, 2025 ISI Newsletter: June 2025 Mar 31, 2025 ISI Newsletter: March 2025 Nov 30, 2024 ISI Newsletter: November 2024 Aug 31, 2024 ISI Newsletter: August 2024 May 31, 2024 ISI Newslette r: May 2024 Feb 29, 2024 ISI Newslette r: February 2024 Oct 31, 2023 ISI Newsletter: October 2023 Jul 31, 2023 ISI Newsletter: July 2023 Apr 30, 2023 ISI Newsletter: April 2023 Jan 31, 2023 ISI Newsletter: December 2022 & January 2023 Sep 30, 2022 ISI Newsletter: September 2022 Jun 30, 2022 ISI Newsletter: June 2022 Mar 31, 2022 ISI Newsletter: March 2022 Nov 30, 2025 ISI Newsletter: November 2025 Aug 31, 2025 ISI Newsletter: August 2025 May 31, 2025 ISI Newsletter: May 2025 Feb 28, 2025 ISI Newsletter: February 2025 Oct 31, 2024 ISI Newsletter: October 2024 Jul 31, 2024 ISI Newsletter: July 2024 Apr 30, 2024 ISI Newslette r: April 2024 Jan 31, 2024 ISI Newsletter: December 2023 & January 2024 Sep 30, 2023 ISI Newsletter: September 2023 Jun 30, 2023 ISI Newsletter: June 2 023 Mar 31, 2023 ISI Newsletter: March 2023 Nov 30, 2022 ISI Newsletter: November 2022 Aug 31, 2022 ISI Newsletter: August 2022 May 31, 2022 ISI Newsletter: May 2022 Feb 28, 2022 ISI Newsletter: February 2022 Oct 31, 2025 ISI Newsletter: October 2025 Jul 31, 2025 ISI Newsletter: July 2025 Apr 30, 2025 ISI Newsletter: April 2025 Jan 31, 2025 ISI Newsletter: December 2024 & January 2025 Sep 30, 2024 ISI Newsletter: September 2024 Jun 30, 2024 ISI Newsletter: June 2024 Mar 31, 2024 ISI Newslette r: March 2024 Nov 30, 2023 ISI Newsletter: November 2023 Aug 31, 2023 ISI Newsletter: August 2023 May 31, 2023 ISI Newsletter: May 2023 Feb 28, 2023 ISI Newsletter: February 2023 Oct 31, 2022 ISI Newsletter: October 2022 Jul 31, 2022 ISI Newsletter: July 2022 Apr 30, 2022 ISI Newsletter: April 2022 Jan 31, 2022 ISI Newsletter: January 2022 Up

Current Projects POLICY RESEAR CH & ANALYSIS Up PANEL AND ROUNDTABLE DISCUSSION Up BRIEFINGS Up INTERNATIONAL Up POLLING Up SEMINARS & CONFERENCES Up PUBLICATIONS Up LIBERATION & LIVING ARCHIVES Up