From initiative to action: One year of the Global Governance Initiative

Editor's note: Biljana Vankovska is a political scientist, international relations expert and media commentator. She also serves as executive director of North Macedonia's think tank Synegia Orbi: The Institute for Global Analysis. The article reflects the author's opinions and not necessarily those of CGTN.

One year ago, at the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) Tianjin Summit, Chinese President Xi Jinping proposed the Global Governance Initiative (GGI), calling on countries to work together to build a more just and equitable global governance system. 

The world of 2026 is more unstable, unpredictable and dangerous than a year ago, particularly in geopolitics and geoeconomics. This suggests the GGI was not only timely but has become even more significant. Yet some intellectual circles remain skeptical. Some see the GGI as primarily declaratory, while others question whether China can translate its vision into meaningful changes in the international order.

The GGI is not political propaganda – it is a vision for a better world and an outstretched hand. And the GGI is not solely Chinese. It cannot deliver results unless other countries become partners. The reform of the current international order, sinking due to contradictions since 1945 and increasing disregard for the UN Charter, is a colossal undertaking with existential significance. China's role lies in initiative and awareness – sounding the alarm without spreading panic. The GGI's principles draw on historical lessons and philosophical wisdom of human coexistence.

In the global political sphere, there is a shortage of foresight, patience and common sense. Some prevailing approaches to international affairs increasingly rely on sanctions, coercion and military means as tools for addressing complex conflicts. From the Balkans to Latin America, Africa to Asia, the world moves towards deadlock. The GGI's importance lies in asserting there is both a way out and hope – expressed in fundamental premises enabling joint projects, trust-building and commitment to principles that don't bend from situation to situation.

A one-year period is too short for sustained judgment. Yet even at this early stage, it is difficult to identify many comparable initiatives that place the reform of global governance so explicitly at the center of the international agenda. What distinguishes the GGI is its attempt to link national interests with the broader well-being of the international community, rather than viewing them as competing objectives. This vision stands in clear contrast to the growing emphasis on militarization, bloc confrontation and power politics in international affairs. The GGI, therefore, offers an alternative to the notion that such confrontation is an inevitable feature of the international order.

The first year of the GGI naturally invites debate, including critical discussion aimed at improving its implementation. Yet the initiative should not be assessed through the lens of conventional great-power competition. Its significance lies precisely in its effort to promote new forms of cooperation and restore confidence in the possibility of a more peaceful and equitable international order. The essential question is therefore not simply what China has done, but how many countries have embraced the initiative and to what extent their support reflects long-term interests and a genuine commitment to its principles.

The world has no reason to fear China or any country offering collective development avenues. Fear should target those claiming: my solution, usually hasty and with bombs, is the only correct one. The GGI's future depends on countries worldwide and on all of us as commentators, activists, experts and professors.

Some critics claim China is trapped in profit, corporate capital and power struggles like others. They say historical circumstances tie China's hands, so initiatives like the GGI improve image rather than change reality. They forget Marx's wisdom: people make their own history, but not under circumstances of their own choosing – they act within given historical context. The same applies to states and platforms wanting a different world. We cannot afford to wait for better conditions during polycrises and the absence of common sense. Such hostile conditions make the task more urgent: finding creative solutions within possibilities and changing the world step by step.

China has taken several steps with concrete bilateral examples. This spring, during US President Donald Trump's visit to Beijing, President Xi Jinping's messages demonstrated the GGI in practice: proposing constructive strategic stability with a country with which China has profound problems. This is an alternative in an almost impossible situation. Similarly, regarding Cuba, Iran and Gaza, China has been clear about international justice and humanitarian necessity. Humanitarian aid may not be enough, but many countries don't even do that out of fear or opportunism.

Some critics argue that China should intervene more directly in the world's major hotspots. Such expectations, however, risk reproducing the very logic of great-power dominance that the GGI seeks to move beyond. 

Global governance cannot depend on a single power acting as a universal arbiter or savior. The more constructive question is how China, together with other countries and international partners, can contribute to resolving conflicts, reducing tensions and addressing global challenges without further deepening confrontation or increasing the risk of catastrophic conflict.

Rome wasn't built in a day. Everything takes time, learning, effort and solidarity. So with the GGI. It should be tested by reality, principles measured against actions, successes recognized, weaknesses not hidden. 

This September 1, China needs applause least of all. It needs partners with conscience and awareness of humanity's collective good and our common future. Perhaps that's the real test after the first year of the GGI: not whether it has already changed the world, but whether it can convince enough people the world can still be changed.