Published in China Daily： 2025-4-11
Damage control
Jin Junda
As the US scales back its commitments to global governance, other countries should develop consultation mechanisms to construct a new framework
Since Donald Trump returned to the White House, his administration has scaled back the United States' commitments to global governance — withdrawing from the Paris Agreement and the World Health Organization, scrutinizing foreign aid programs and criticizing international organizations such as the United Nations.
It is in the interests of most countries to make up the global governance deficit left by the Trump administration. However, the divergent positions and interests of countries, as well as the setbacks in reforming the global governance framework have undermined confidence in global governance. It is thus imperative to build a global governance framework that ensures the fair distribution of power and responsibilities while encouraging nations to actively engage in global affairs.
The current global governance system is dominated by a few major powers, and it has even become a political tool for these nations. Cooperation and reform are being neglected.
This is reflected in several ways. First, major powers control the financing of the global governance framework and exert a dominant influence on policymaking.
Second, Europe and the US wield excessive power within the framework and can unilaterally paralyze governance mechanisms and manipulate staffing.
Third, the tenets of the mainstream global governance frameworks are largely based on Western-centric political and economic theories. Some initiatives that aim to transplant the "universal values" and "universal systems "to developing countries failed to achieve desired results, or even led to disastrous outcomes.
Fourth, Europe and the US regard the global governance framework they lead as their "spheres of influence", excluding other countries from involvement and rejecting dialogue.
The root cause of the problem lies in the fact that the existing global governance framework fails to reflect the evolving trends in international relations. At the time when institutions such as the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and the WHO were established, developed countries led by the US dominated the global governance system and provided the material support necessary for its operation.
This "one superpower+several major powers" structure that characterized the Western bloc during the Cold War and the post-Cold War global order achieved a balance between power and responsibility, thus maintaining stability over a long period. However, the current international order is becoming increasingly multipolar, and the political and economic clout of developing countries is rising.
But reform of the global governance framework has made little progress, resulting in an uneven distribution of power and responsibilities. Global governance requires developing countries to take on more responsibilities, but their voice and decision-making power are still limited.
The essence of a balance of power and responsibility is that the benefits a country can reap from its participation in global governance are commensurate with its costs. Since the interests and demands of each country vary, allocating power within the governance framework is an important way to ensure that member states benefit.
A positive example is the United Nations Security Council, where the principle of "unanimity among major powers" helps avoid direct conflicts between nuclear-armed states, and makes permanent members willing to stay in and support the framework. The support of major powers for the UN Security Council is essential for other countries to engage in cooperation.
But in some other global governance mechanisms, there are significant disagreements between the major powers and emerging economies that obstruct cooperation and lead to a lose-lose scenario. Developed countries such as the US, perceiving the costs in engaging in global governance to outweigh the benefits, have increasingly turned to unilateralism or "mini-multilateral" approaches to tackle global challenges. Meanwhile, emerging economies' enthusiasm for taking part in global affairs has waned, as their calls for reforming the governance system remain unaddressed.
The problem with the current global governance system is that countries seeking to preserve the status quo and those advocating reform have similar global influence, leading to an impasse in the reform of global governance. However, as global challenges continue to intensify, they may create new opportunities to drive meaningful reform in the global governance system.
Global governance is increasingly becoming a core national interest for countries significantly affected by global challenges, and they want to devote more resources and assume greater responsibility. Major powers, including China, Europe, Russia, Japan and India, should support these countries in participating in — and even leading — global governance efforts.
At present, global policymakers need to prioritize urgent issues that directly affect the interests of all countries, or issues where there is a "power vacuum" and most countries seek to expand their influence to facilitate dialogue between the Global North and the Global South.
As the US scales back its commitments to global governance, China, Europe, Japan, other emerging economies and key regional countries should explore areas where results can be achieved quickly through bilateral and multilateral engagement, such as negotiations over hotspot issues, humanitarian interventions, technology ethics, and digital sovereignty. On this basis, they should develop permanent consultation mechanisms to construct a new governance framework or build consensus to reform the existing global governance framework.
An important principle in the selection of global issues is "unanimity among major powers".Major powers dominate the technology, capital and political influence necessary for global governance, and they are the key to the stability of governance frameworks. Without a consensus among major powers or where there is a serious conflict of interest between them, it is not possible to resolve a global issue through dialogue.
But even in areas lacking "major power consensus", countries can redress the unfair distribution of responsibilities and powers and provide institutional support to nations willing to contribute resources and efforts to global governance through several ways.
The first is multi-level governance; when certain countries or organizations take the initiative to engage in unilateral or regional governance on key issues of concern, major powers and international organizations can communicate with them and offer diplomatic, technical, and financial support.
The second is to establish open international cooperation frameworks, such as the "BRICS+" and "ASEAN+3" mechanisms. These institutional arrangements can accommodate countries that are unable to join the governance framework but are willing to engage in limited cooperation.
The third way is the coexistence of multiple frameworks led by the Global South. In areas where large deficits exist, such as economic development, there is room for the coexistence of cooperative initiatives and private investments from China, the US, Europe, Russia, Japan, India and other countries.
China should call for the Global South to issue a joint declaration opposing exclusive cooperation and encouraging the coexistence of major powers. In areas where the US is willing to invest resources and engage in equal dialogue with other stakeholders, other major powers and international organizations can work with it.
Anti-globalization and populist sentiment are rising across the world, and a number of major countries are increasingly turning to unilateral diplomacy, which dampen the enthusiasm for countries to join global governance. Therefore, major countries need to quickly identify issues where there is consensus and progress can be made, and help those countries that want to take part in global governance to do so.