No concept has triggered such long, dramatic debates in international academia as global governance. The concept originated in Europe, yet academic circles there have yet to agree on a uniform definition. “Global governance” has been a pragmatist term subject to dramatically different interpretations. In the United State, the anti-globalist Donald Trump scoffs at global governance, which has been replaced by “transactionalism” and marginalized in the latest U.S. National Security Strategy.Taking advantage of the positive resonance its proposed Global Governance Initiative has received in Global South nations, China has formed a 43-member “group of friends of global governance” under the UN framework. There is obviously divergent positioning and understanding of global governance in different contexts.
Different ideas and plans
China and the West proposed their own ideas and plans for global governance in different international conditions. Along with the mighty waves of globalization in the 1990s, increasingly prominent challenges emerged. The previous model of “hard management” of international affairs by major powers appeared inefficient in coping with the global crises that combined traditional and non-traditional problems. Germany's former chancellor, Willy Brandt, was the first to propose the idea of global governance as distinguished from state-centrism. In 1995, the Commission on Global Governance—composed of international celebrities—issued Our Global Neighborhood, which comprehensively and systematically elaborated a fresh model for the governance of global affairs based on rules and regulations rather than on government authority, with participation by diverse actors. Post-nation-state diversity， multilateralism and consultative governance have since served as the core elements of global governance. NGO, civic society and climate change are the key terms.
Deepening international changes in the 2020s have revealed rising tides of anti-globalization and geopolitical hotspots. Under Trump 2.0, international politics and the global economy have entered a new biosphere. Unilateralism and the law of the jungle are coming back, the postwar “liberal international order” is fading out and the U.S. is no longer willing to provide the public good of global governance.Meanwhile, the collective rise of the Global South has resulted in further changes in the global balance of power, but the structure of the distribution of international institutionalized power remains unbalanced. Belated reforms of such institutions as the United Nations have raised questions and challenges to their authority and effectiveness. The global governance regime is in an unprecedented state of “imbalance, ineffectiveness, disorder.” As the world reached a crossroads, China put forward its Global Governance Initiative, showing the world the principles, path and direction of future governance from five dimensions—sovereignty, equality, people-first and action-oriented approaches.
What sovereignty means
Since Europe put forward the idea of global governance, it has attempted to innovate from the perspective of supra nationalism. Western globalists believe globalization has brought global governance into a post-nation-state era; countries would be unable to cope with such challenges as climate change and epidemics, or adapt to the new situation in which actors such as NGOs, transnational corporations and civil societies actively participate in global governance if they stick to the dogma of national sovereignty. Therefore under the European framework of global governance, sovereignty is no longer as sacred and untouchable as it used to be. Under this view, for the greater good of the world, nation-states need to relinquish part of their sovereignty—that is, transfer financial and currency sovereignty like members of the European Union.
Under China's Global Governance Initiative, sovereignty equality is the most important principle. Today's world is far from the ideal of a “state of unity.” The interests of nation-states remain the primary concern of each government, and equal sovereignty remains a fundamental guarantee when it comes to preserving those interests.As the U.S. deploys a massive military force against Venezuela, illustrating the evident rise of unilaterali bullying and “might is right” thinking, the emphasis on equal sovereignty is highly relevant and has strong historical significance. The core connotation lies in the belief that all countries, big or small, rich or poor, are entitled to equal participation in the governance of global affairs and in sharing the achievements of global governance. The outlook on global governance featuring consultation, participation and sharing is a necessary prerequisite and the ultimate outcome of sovereignty equality.
Interpretations of multilateralism
The initial European advocates of global governance came to the understanding that it's no longer possible to rely on any single power to resolve global hot spot issues and troubles, and so the era of unilateral governance by big powers is over. Therefore, they advocate multilateral governance in international affairs and accentuate the indispensable role and functions of the UN.In its 2003 European Security Strategy, the EU proposed the idea of “effective multilateralism,” which advocates the establishment of a rules-based global governance regime featuring multilateral cooperation and consultative action. Multilateralism in the European view is in sharp contrast with American unilateralism as well as other “mini-multilateral” groupings or “small circles,” such as the QUAD. But effective multilateralism remains a multilateral governance model in which the West plays the central role, and other countries coordinate with them. So it is still confined in the trap of “West-centrism,” and it remains a “core-periphery” governance model in its basic nature.
China advocates genuine multilateralism, which is a correction and upgrade of effective multilateralism. It exposes and critiques the pseudo-multilateralism of Western small circles and camp confrontations. Global governance should transcend West-centrism and avoid any discriminatory, exclusive arrangements. Every country should have a say in global affairs, which should not be dictated by a single power or a certain small group.China resolutely supports the UN's authority as the core platform of global governance and opposes any form of unilateralism. This includes the exclusivity of the emerging hegemony in the Western Hemisphere. The global governance regime must undergo a transition from a “core-periphery” model to an “equal-orderly” one.
Western values vs. Chinese nature
The Western narrative about global governance has a premise, which is that global governance must be based on Western values featuring human rights and democracy. All actors may smoothly participate only under such conditions. Based on this ideological premise, Western nations often interfere with the internal affairs of other countries with the excuse that they are merely coping with global crises under a banner asserting that “human rights override sovereignty.” This is an important reason that many Global South nations, including China, don't subscribe to the Western model of global governance.
China advocates a people-centered values for its proposed initiative, assuming only that when global governance targets people's practical gains can it win broad support and operate efficiently. Compared with the widely disputed claim of Western human rights and democratic values, the people-centered orientation is likely to attract broader endorsement. That's because it is the only guarantee protecting the most basic of human rights. The purpose and goal of global governance is to promote development through equal multilateral cooperation, thus bringing a sense of gain, security and happiness.
To sum up, the current state of global governance is seeing some changes because of the actors, strategic direction and capacity for implementation. The Western outlook, unfortunately, is already unable to reflect the new realities of the worldwide balance of power or the new biosphere of international politics.China's Global Governance Initiative, which conforms to the interests of the Global South, has some clear structural and cognitive differences compared with the Western outlook. Global governance has entered a post-Western era and calls for the building of a new governance regime that features consultation and sharing by both the Global North and the Global South.
