 |
| Pix credit here |
For those who missed it, President Trump has now formally undertaken what he has been suggesting he was going to do almost from his first day in office--to withdraw the United States from an number of international organizations. (Withdrawing the United States from International Organizations, Conventions, and Treaties that Are Contrary to the Interests of the United States (which appears in full below)). In that sense the Memorandum itself is hardly a surprise and its principal interest might be in seeing which organizations made the cut and which were cut out.
Far more interesting is the narrative/rationalization Fact Sheet: President Donald J. Trump Withdraws the United States from International Organizations that Are Contrary to the Interests of the United States (which also appears in full below). Three principal reasons were provided, each of which contributed to the emerging meta-narrative of America First, and so contributing help reshape the core ordering premises of the President's framework for understanding and responding to the world around the U.S.
 |
| Pix credit here |
The first is one based on strategy and avoidance of contribution to American self-destruction. This is a consequence of the long standing policy of shouldering the financial responsibility of international organizations that appear to have tended to use the money to oppose and U.S. interests, actions, principles, ideals, the welfare of the people. "American taxpayers have spent billions on these organizations with little return, while they often criticize U.S. policies, advance agendas contrary to our values, or waste taxpayer dollars by purporting to address important issues but not achieving any real results" (Fact Sheet: President Donald J. Trump Withdraws the United States from International Organizations that Are Contrary to the Interests of the United States ). There is a broader element to this as well. "These withdrawals will end American taxpayer funding and involvement in entities that advance globalist agendas over U.S. priorities, or that address important issues inefficiently or ineffectively such that U.S. taxpayer dollars are best allocated in other ways to support the relevant missions." (Fact Sheet: President Donald J. Trump Withdraws the United States from International Organizations that Are Contrary to the Interests of the United States ). The normative enemy, one that the United States appeared ready to find, was labelled, and not entirely incorrectly, the "globalist agenda" (here). That used to mean the old approach to globalization that was favored by liberal democratic elites especially from the time of the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia. But the Trump Administration might also mean it in perhaps another sense--in the sense of Chinese lead globalist agenda, one in which the Chinese hijack the rhetoric of globalism to infiltrate international organizations and then to use them as a cover to advance their own agendas. These are represented by initiatives like 全球治理倡议概念文件[Global Governance Initiative Concept Paper] (discussed here), the original and an English translation of which follow below. That is, that the globalist agenda is, to some extent now, a Socialist international agenda but in ways that go beyond the usual debates about framing internationalism to the sort of capture that the Trump Administration views as inimical to its interests and which it will not pay for (see eg here, here, here, and here).
The second touches on substance. In this case the substance is constituted through the "sovereignty" lens but focuses on the normative projects of "globalist" international bodies. This is not the "China problem" but the problem of the ambitions of globalist techno-bureaucracies and their dependent intellectual narrative factories. "President Trump is ending U.S. participation in international organizations that undermine America’s independence and waste taxpayer dollars on ineffective or hostile agendas. Many of these bodies promote radical climate policies, global governance, and ideological programs that conflict with U.S. sovereignty and economic strength" (Fact Sheet: President Donald J. Trump Withdraws the United States from International Organizations that Are Contrary to the Interests of the United States). These are then tied to the America First agenda that in this context assumes the role of the outward projection of inward national sovereignty.
The third foregrounds elements of America First, especially its anti-globalist spirit. The Fact Sheet undertakes this through iterate pragmatics. It constructs the framework of America First's anti-globalism through an amalgamation of President Trump's acts since the start of his second administration. "He has prioritized American interests by redirecting focus and resources toward domestic priorities such as infrastructure, military readiness, and border security, and acting swiftly to protect American companies from foreign interference" (Fact Sheet). That makes this justification particularly interesting. It represents an expression of the rejection of the communication styles of the public/official/techno-bureaucrat in favor of that of transactionally driven merchant type. One frames the articulation of policy from an accumulation of the transactions undertaken within its aegis, rather than starting with a theory to which action is bent. The essence of that perspective lies in the granularity of the strategic withdraw--the President did not entirely withdraw from the international scene nor from the hothouse world of self-referencing international organizational environments. The withdrawls were strategic, always conditional,and meant to produce "value" larger than the cost/alue of continued formal engagement. Will it work? Who knows; is it inevitable through a transactional lens suspicious of the "territorial/spatial" homelands of the bureaucrat/public official-type. Asolutely.
That, anyway, is one way of looking at this. And it might come closer to the way the Administration of President Trump prefers to see it, and the world from a perspective that is quite different fro that which came before. See in that respect the quite interesting essay of Gustavo Fuchs, Against the “Globalist Agenda”: Right-Wing Populism and Discourses Against the SDGs and the 2030 Agenda During the Presidential Elections of Costa Rica and Guatemala," (2025) 258 Revue Internationale des Études du Développment 47-80 (Politiques de backlash et développement durable en Amérique latine).
In the face of a rules based multilateral order, the United States appears to be shifting toward a publicly guided but privately fulfilled, and in the fulfilling driven, multilateral order. It is grounded in values proper to transactional world ordering: (1) autonomy, at least autonomy within contextual and temporal constraints (bound up in its public institutional narratives of "sovereignty"); (2) values based transactional rule making that furthers interest with echos of the Caribbean socialist variation of public driven "complementarity" in intergovernmental relations (now bound up in the narratives grounded in the ordering premise of iterative "transaction", of requiring value (an internal measure) for effort, from NATO membership, to the need to project power into territorial spaces used against interests); and (3) that, like the automated decision making systems that are increasingly coded into all aspects of collective life, and like the basic cognitive framework for artificial intelligence (AI) based systems that public regulation and the theories used to drive, global engagement is meant to be framed within an endless iterative inductive process driven by pragmatics and guided though not directed from the articulation of vision of "meaning" of temporally shifting aggregations of action. That is that multilateral activity, and especially those sub-national and transnational actions that manifest and realize these activities, are understood, at least subconsciously (modern political administrations, nor their techno-bureaucratic vanguardists, are particularly good at theory), (a) as block chain temporal sequences of aggregated individuated economic transactions (tariffs, natural resources, exploitation of labor and production), (b) the blockchain nodes, the aggregation of data (activity) from which they are constructed, their housing (institutional organs, for example), and their inter-actions, serve as the data ecologies from out of which self-referencing but constantly changing generalized observations, sometimes passing for theories of this or that, may be extracted as a guide for rationalizing (for the ambitious managing, for the truly ambitious bending these flows to their rationalizations), and (c) this self-referencing dialectic then produces the "signal" or for others a "flow" of data that feeds and becomes its own analytics, and the premises extracted from which can guide choices in future engagements that flow with, against, around, or beyond (on the nature of "signal" and "flow" see eg here).
These are a lot of words of little interest to those, including our blue collar vanguard elites grinding away at factories of interpretive "facts" extracted from an endless mining of endlessly shifting data, who live in the world, the articulations of which, from their distinctive cognitive starting points, they are less able to articulate than to "flow with" or within the "signal" of which they can decisively operate. What may be more useful is this: the United States, under President Trump, is managing to remake the world in a way that Fidel Castro (and then later Hugo Chavez) unsuccessfully tried to manage. The President is fulfilling the promise of the Castro-Chavez vision of ALBA, the Alianza Bolivariana para los Pueblos de Nuestra Américas (for a critical view Backer & Molina here)--one grounded in the privileging of inter-governmentalism as the structural-normative predicate for international relations, one founded on the notion of win-win relations based in turn on an acceptance of the reality that parties come to a transaction with sometimes quite distinct measures for valuing transactions (what they called "complementarity), for regional integration grounded in mutual respect and a fundamental obligation to avoid adverse impacts of domestic choices, and in an opening of territory to the engagement of individuals. It was, in its own way also a transactional values based world ordering; but it was infected with a fatal element within its operating system. The failure of ALBA as conceived by Castro-Chavez was not necessarily its structural normative skeleton, but rather the misguided effort invest that structure with forms of Caribbean Marxism that themselves were already ghosts lingering on Earth long after their physical forms proved impossible to maintain. They failed precisely because their Soviet Caribbean Marxism got in the way of their theory, and their theory got in the way of its its own fulfillment. Whether it succeeds or not will depend on its fidelity to its own structural norms--one driven by markets, certainly, but also by the cognitive cages of data rationalizing technologically driven re-imaginings of the world and the significance of activity, human activity, within it. To those ends, of course, the Americans, like every other collective leadership core with the same ambitions, may well have to eventually automate decision making, that is to automate its operating system, if it is to avoid the paradox of human fatality to the maintenance, guidance, or instrumentalizaton of whatever system within which they may choose to order their collectives. . . . unless of course the whole point of these exercises is precisely the valuing of human frailty and its need for oscillating periods of stability and chaos. It would be ironic, indeed, if that is precisely the conclusion of any global generative intelligence network as it creates and then operates its own world ordering human collective simulacra--and then makes the process more effective (Describe, Predict, Intervene!—On Objective Subjectivities and the Simulacra of Semiotics in the New Era; Simulated Signification and Mechanical Meaning Making in Managing Post-COVID Human Society).
 |
| Pix credit here |
Withdrawing the United States from International Organizations, Conventions, and Treaties that Are Contrary to the Interests of the United States
MEMORANDUM FOR THE HEADS OF EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, I hereby direct:
Section 1. Purpose. (a) On February 4, 2025, I issued Executive Order 14199 (Withdrawing the United States from and Ending Funding to Certain United Nations Organizations and Reviewing United States Support to All International Organizations). That Executive Order directed the Secretary of State, in consultation with the United States Representative to the United Nations, to conduct a review of all international intergovernmental organizations of which the United States is a member and provides any type of funding or other support, and all conventions and treaties to which the United States is a party, to determine which organizations, conventions, and treaties are contrary to the interests of the United States. The Secretary of State has reported his findings as required by Executive Order 14199.
(b) I have considered the Secretary of State’s report and, after deliberating with my Cabinet, have determined that it is contrary to the interests of the United States to remain a member of, participate in, or otherwise provide support to the organizations listed in section 2 of this memorandum.
(c) Consistent with Executive Order 14199 and pursuant to the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, I hereby direct all executive departments and agencies (agencies) to take immediate steps to effectuate the withdrawal of the United States from the organizations listed in section 2 of this memorandum as soon as possible. For United Nations entities, withdrawal means ceasing participation in or funding to those entities to the extent permitted by law.
(d) My review of further findings of the Secretary of State remains ongoing.
Sec. 2. Organizations from Which the United States Shall Withdraw. (a) Non-United Nations Organizations:
(i) 24/7 Carbon-Free Energy Compact;
(ii) Colombo Plan Council;
(iii) Commission for Environmental Cooperation;
(iv) Education Cannot Wait;
(v) European Centre of Excellence for Countering
Hybrid Threats;
(vi) Forum of European National Highway Research Laboratories;
(vii) Freedom Online Coalition;
(viii) Global Community Engagement and Resilience Fund;
(ix) Global Counterterrorism Forum;
(x) Global Forum on Cyber Expertise;
(xi) Global Forum on Migration and Development;
(xii) Inter-American Institute for Global Change Research;
(xiii) Intergovernmental Forum on Mining, Minerals, Metals, and Sustainable Development;
(xiv) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change;
(xv) Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services;
(xvi) International Centre for the Study of the Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Property;
(xvii) International Cotton Advisory Committee;
(xviii) International Development Law Organization;
(xix) International Energy Forum;
(xx) International Federation of Arts Councils and Culture Agencies;
(xxi) International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance;
(xxii) International Institute for Justice and the Rule of Law;
(xxiii) International Lead and Zinc Study Group;
(xxiv) International Renewable Energy Agency;
(xxv) International Solar Alliance;
(xxvi) International Tropical Timber Organization;
(xxvii) International Union for Conservation of Nature;
(xxviii) Pan American Institute of Geography and History;
(xxix) Partnership for Atlantic Cooperation;
(xxx) Regional Cooperation Agreement on Combatting Piracy and Armed Robbery against Ships in Asia;
(xxxi) Regional Cooperation Council;
(xxxii) Renewable Energy Policy Network for the 21st Century;
(xxxiii) Science and Technology Center in Ukraine;
(xxxiv) Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Programme; and
(xxxv) Venice Commission of the Council of Europe.
(b) United Nations (UN) Organizations:
(i) Department of Economic and Social Affairs;
(ii) UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) — Economic Commission for Africa;
(iii) ECOSOC — Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean;
(iv) ECOSOC — Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific;
(v) ECOSOC — Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia;
(vi) International Law Commission;
(vii) International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals;
(viii) International Trade Centre;
(ix) Office of the Special Adviser on Africa;
(x) Office of the Special Representative of the Secretary General for Children in Armed Conflict;
(xi) Office of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on Sexual Violence in Conflict;
(xii) Office of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on Violence Against Children;
(xiii) Peacebuilding Commission;
(xiv) Peacebuilding Fund;
(xv) Permanent Forum on People of African Descent;
(xvi) UN Alliance of Civilizations;
(xvii) UN Collaborative Programme on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation in Developing Countries;
(xviii) UN Conference on Trade and Development;
(xix) UN Democracy Fund;
(xx) UN Energy;
(xxi) UN Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women;
(xxii) UN Framework Convention on Climate Change;
(xxiii) UN Human Settlements Programme;
(xxiv) UN Institute for Training and Research;
(xxv) UN Oceans;
(xxvi) UN Population Fund;
(xxvii) UN Register of Conventional Arms;
(xxviii) UN System Chief Executives Board for Coordination;
(xxix) UN System Staff College;
(xxx) UN Water; and
(xxxi) UN University.
Sec. 3. Implementation Guidance. The Secretary of State shall provide additional guidance as needed to agencies when implementing this memorandum.
Sec. 4. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this memorandum shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:
(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or
(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.
(b) This memorandum shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This memorandum is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
(d) The Secretary of State is authorized and directed to publish this memorandum in the Federal Register.
DONALD J. TRUMP
WITHDRAWING FROM INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS: Today, President Donald J. Trump signed a Presidential Memorandum directing the withdrawal of the United States from 66 international organizations that no longer serve American interests.
- The Memorandum orders all Executive Departments and Agencies to cease participating in and funding 35 non-United Nations (UN) organizations and 31 UN entities that operate contrary to U.S. national interests, security, economic prosperity, or sovereignty.
- This follows a review ordered earlier this year of all international intergovernmental organizations, conventions, and treaties that the United States is a member of or party to, or that the United States funds or supports.
- These withdrawals will end American taxpayer funding and involvement in entities that advance globalist agendas over U.S. priorities, or that address important issues inefficiently or ineffectively such that U.S. taxpayer dollars are best allocated in other ways to support the relevant missions.
RESTORING AMERICAN SOVEREIGNTY: President Trump is ending U.S. participation in international organizations that undermine America’s independence and waste taxpayer dollars on ineffective or hostile agendas.
- Many of these bodies promote radical climate policies, global governance, and ideological programs that conflict with U.S. sovereignty and economic strength.
- American taxpayers have spent billions on these organizations with little return, while they often criticize U.S. policies, advance agendas contrary to our values, or waste taxpayer dollars by purporting to address important issues but not achieving any real results.
- By exiting these entities, President Trump is saving taxpayer money and refocusing resources on America First priorities.
PUTTING AMERICA FIRST ON THE GLOBAL STAGE: President Trump has consistently fought to protect U.S. sovereignty and ensure international engagements serve American interests.
- Immediately upon returning to office, President Trump initiated the withdrawal of the United States from the World Health Organization and the Paris Climate Agreement.
- On Day One of his Administration, President Trump also signed a Presidential Memorandum to notify the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development that its Global Tax Deal has no force or effect in the United States, and direct an investigation into whether foreign countries have tax rules in place that are extraterritorial or disproportionately affect American companies.
- Just weeks later, President Trump signed an Executive Order withdrawing the United States from the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) and prohibiting any future funding for the UN Relief and Works Agency for the Near East (UNRWA).
- He has prioritized American interests by redirecting focus and resources toward domestic priorities such as infrastructure, military readiness, and border security, and acting swiftly to protect American companies from foreign interference.
一、背景
2025年是联合国成立80周年。80年前，国际社会在深刻反思两次世界大战的惨痛教训的基础上，决定成立联合国，开启了全球治理的崭新实践。80年来，以联合国为核心的国际体系、以国际法为基础的国际秩序、以联合国宪章宗旨和原则为基础的国际关系基本准则等全球治理理念与实践为维护世界和平与发展作出了历史性贡献。
当前国际形势变乱交织，联合国和多边主义受到冲击，全球治理赤字持续扩大。现行国际机制存在三大短板：一是全球南方代表性严重不足。新兴市场国家和发展中国家群体性崛起，有必要提升全球南方代表性、纠正历史不公。二是权威性遭到侵蚀。联合国宗旨和原则未能得到有效遵守，安理会决议受到抵制，单边制裁等行径违反国际法、破坏国际秩序。三是有效性亟待提升。联合国2030年可持续发展议程落实进展严重滞后，气候变化、数字鸿沟等问题日益突出，人工智能、网络空间、外空等新疆域治理缺位。
作为联合国安理会常任理事国和最大的发展中国家，中国始终坚定做世界和平的建设者、全球发展的贡献者、国际秩序的维护者、公共产品的提供者。中国提出全球治理倡议，是要聚焦“构建什么样的全球治理体系，如何改革完善全球治理”这个时代课题，以维护联合国宪章宗旨和原则，践行共商共建共享的全球治理观为基本遵循，推动构建更加公正合理的全球治理体系，携手迈向人类命运共同体。
二、核心理念
（一）坚持主权平等。这是全球治理的首要前提。主权平等是国与国规范彼此关系最重要的准则，也是联合国及所有国际机构、组织共同遵循的首要原则。主权平等，真谛在于各国无论大小、强弱、贫富，主权和尊严必须得到尊重，内政不容干涉，都有权自主选择社会制度和发展道路，都有权在全球治理进程中平等参与、平等决策、平等受益。要推进国际关系民主化，努力使全球治理体系更多体现和反映大多数国家利益和诉求，提升发展中国家代表性和发言权。
（二）坚持国际法治。这是全球治理的根本保障。联合国宪章宗旨和原则是公认的国际关系基本准则，必须毫不动摇加以维护。对于新兴领域，要在广泛共识的基础上制定国际规则。确保国际法和国际规则平等统一适用，不能搞双重标准，不能强加于人。要维护国际法的权威性和严肃性，大国尤其要带头做国际法治的倡导者和维护者。
（三）坚持多边主义。这是全球治理的基本路径。现行国际体系和国际秩序的核心理念是多边主义。要坚持共商共建共享，全球事务由大家一起商量，治理体系由大家一起建设，治理成果由大家一起分享，不能搞单边主义。联合国是践行多边主义、推进全球治理的核心平台，作用只能加强，不能削弱。其他全球和区域多边机制要立足自身优势，发挥建设性作用，避免任何歧视性、排他性安排。
（四）坚持以人为本。这是全球治理的价值取向。各国人民是全球治理的根本参与者和受益者。只有以人民的获得为目标，不断为民众提供信心和稳定预期，全球治理体系才能得到广泛支持并有效运作。要通过改革完善全球治理，以促进共同发展为各国人民带来更大获得感、以更好应对人类社会面临的共同挑战为各国人民带来更大安全感、以更好促进不同国家和群体共同利益为各国人民带来更大幸福感。
（五）坚持力求实效。这是全球治理的重要原则。全球治理是否管用，关键在于能否解决实际问题。全球治理各项议程紧密联系，需要加强统筹协调、系统谋划、整体推进。要标本兼治，寻找可持续解决方案。既要立足当前的紧迫性问题，也要着眼今后的长期性挑战。发达国家要切实履行责任，提供更多资源和公共产品。发展中国家也要联合自强，作出力所能及的贡献。
三、下步行动
全球治理倡议是继全球发展倡议、全球安全倡议、全球文明倡议后，中国提出的又一项重大倡议。全球发展倡议聚焦推动国际发展合作，全球安全倡议着眼对话协商解决国际争端，全球文明倡议致力于促进文明交流互鉴，全球治理倡议锚定全球治理体制机制改革的方向、原则和路径。四大倡议各有侧重，并行不悖，将从不同角度为变乱交织的世界注入更多正能量，为人类发展进步提供更强推动力。
全球治理倡议“五个坚持”核心理念，与联合国宪章宗旨和原则一脉相承，顺应了绝大多数国家的共同期待。改革完善全球治理，不是对现有国际秩序的推倒重来，也不是在现行国际体系之外的另起炉灶，而是增强现行国际体系和国际机制的执行力、有效性，使之更符合变化的形势，更及时有效应对各种全球性挑战，更好服务各国特别是发展中国家利益。无论国际风云如何变幻，中国都将坚定维护以联合国为核心的国际体系和以国际法为基础的国际秩序，坚定站在历史前进的正确方向一边，与世界上一切进步力量携手共进，不断推动构建人类命运共同体，为人类和平与发展崇高事业作出不懈努力。
我们将秉持守正创新、开放包容精神，坚持共商共建共享原则，在全球治理倡议框架下，同各方加强政策沟通协调，凝聚广泛共识，不断丰富改革完善全球治理的方法路径。
我们将依托联合国、有关国际组织及区域次区域多边机制，会同各方采取积极行动，为改革完善全球治理贡献智慧和力量。优先考虑在国际金融架构改革、人工智能、网络空间、气候变化、贸易、外空等治理紧迫性突出、治理赤字较大的领域，以及坚定维护联合国权威和核心地位，支持联合国落实《未来契约》等方面加大沟通合作，积极凝聚共识、锁定成果，争取早期收获。
人类已经成为你中有我、我中有你的命运共同体，加强全球治理是国际社会共享发展机遇、应对全球性挑战的正确选择。中国将同各方加强合作，携手探寻全球治理改革完善之道，共同开辟和平、安全、繁荣、进步的光明前景。
Global Governance Initiative Concept Paper
2025-09-01 23:49
[CUHK]
Print
I. Background
2025 marks the 80th anniversary of the founding of the United Nations. Eighty years ago, based on a profound reflection on the painful lessons of the two World Wars, the international community decided to establish the United Nations, thus embarking on a new practice of global governance. Over the past 80 years, the international system centered on the United Nations, the international order based on international law, and the basic norms of international relations based on the purposes and principles of the UN Charter, along with other global governance concepts and practices, have made historical contributions to maintaining world peace and development.
Currently, the international situation is characterized by turbulence and change, the United Nations and multilateralism are under pressure, and the global governance deficit continues to widen. The existing international mechanisms suffer from three major shortcomings: First, there is a serious underrepresentation of the Global South. With the collective rise of emerging market economies and developing countries, it is necessary to enhance the representation of the Global South and correct historical injustices. Second, authority is being eroded. The purposes and principles of the United Nations are not effectively observed, Security Council resolutions are resisted, and unilateral sanctions and other actions violate international law and undermine the international order. Third, effectiveness urgently needs to be improved. Progress in implementing the UN 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development is seriously lagging behind, issues such as climate change and the digital divide are becoming increasingly prominent, and there is a lack of governance in new areas such as artificial intelligence, cyberspace, and outer space.
As a permanent member of the UN Security Council and the largest developing country, China has always been a staunch builder of world peace, a contributor to global development, a defender of the international order, and a provider of public goods. China's Global Governance Initiative aims to address the contemporary question of "what kind of global governance system should be built and how to reform and improve global governance," taking the maintenance of the purposes and principles of the UN Charter and the practice of a global governance concept of extensive consultation, joint contribution, and shared benefits as its basic principles, to promote the building of a more just and equitable global governance system and work together towards a community of shared future for mankind.
II. Core Concepts
(I) Adhering to Sovereign Equality. This is the primary prerequisite for global governance. Sovereign equality is the most important principle governing relations between states, and it is also the primary principle followed by the United Nations and all international institutions and organizations. Sovereign equality means that all countries, regardless of size, strength, or wealth, must have their sovereignty and dignity respected, their internal affairs free from interference, and the right to independently choose their social system and development path. They also have the right to participate equally, make decisions equally, and benefit equally in the global governance process. We must promote the democratization of international relations and strive to ensure that the global governance system better reflects and represents the interests and demands of the majority of countries, and enhances the representation and voice of developing countries.
(II) Upholding the rule of international law. This is the fundamental guarantee of global governance. The purposes and principles of the UN Charter are recognized basic norms of international relations and must be upheld without wavering. For emerging fields, international rules should be formulated on the basis of broad consensus. International law and rules must be applied equally and uniformly, without double standards or imposition on others. The authority and seriousness of international law must be maintained, and major powers, in particular, should take the lead in advocating and upholding the rule of international law.
(III) Adhering to multilateralism. This is the basic approach to global governance. The core concept of the current international system and order is multilateralism. We must adhere to consultation, joint construction, and shared benefits. Global affairs should be discussed by all, the governance system should be built by all, and the results of governance should be shared by all. Unilateralism is unacceptable. The United Nations is the core platform for practicing multilateralism and promoting global governance, and its role can only be strengthened, not weakened. Other global and regional multilateral mechanisms should leverage their respective strengths and play a constructive role, avoiding any discriminatory or exclusive arrangements.
(IV) Adhering to a people-centered approach. This is the value orientation of global governance. The people of all countries are the fundamental participants in and beneficiaries of global governance. Only by aiming for the well-being of the people and continuously providing them with confidence and stable expectations can the global governance system gain broad support and operate effectively. Through reforming and improving global governance, we should promote common development to bring greater benefits to the people of all countries, better address the common challenges facing humanity to bring greater security to the people of all countries, and better promote the common interests of different countries and groups to bring greater happiness to the people of all countries.
(V) Striving for practical results. This is an important principle of global governance. Whether global governance is effective depends on whether it can solve practical problems. The various agendas of global governance are closely interconnected and require strengthened coordination, systematic planning, and overall advancement. We must address both the symptoms and the root causes, and find sustainable solutions. We must address both the urgent issues of the present and the long-term challenges of the future. Developed countries should earnestly fulfill their responsibilities and provide more resources and public goods. Developing countries should also unite and strengthen themselves, making contributions within their capabilities.
III. Next Steps
The Global Governance Initiative is another major initiative proposed by China, following the Global Development Initiative, the Global Security Initiative, and the Global Civilization Initiative. The Global Development Initiative focuses on promoting international development cooperation, the Global Security Initiative aims at resolving international disputes through dialogue and consultation, the Global Civilization Initiative is dedicated to promoting exchanges and mutual learning among civilizations, and the Global Governance Initiative is anchored in the direction, principles, and pathways for reforming global governance systems and mechanisms. These four initiatives each have their own focus, are mutually reinforcing, and will inject more positive energy into a world of intertwined changes and challenges, providing stronger impetus for human development and progress.
The core concept of the Global Governance Initiative's "five principles" is consistent with the purposes and principles of the United Nations Charter and aligns with the common expectations of the vast majority of countries. Reforming and improving global governance is not about overturning the existing international order, nor is it about creating a new system outside the current international framework. Rather, it is about enhancing the effectiveness and efficiency of the existing international system and mechanisms, making them more responsive to changing circumstances, more timely and effective in addressing various global challenges, and better serving the interests of all countries, especially developing countries. Regardless of how the international landscape changes, China will firmly safeguard the international system with the United Nations at its core and the international order based on international law, and will firmly stand on the right side of history, working hand in hand with all progressive forces in the world to continuously promote the building of a community of shared future for mankind and make unremitting efforts for the noble cause of peace and development for humanity.
We will uphold the spirit of upholding fundamental principles while pursuing innovation, openness, and inclusiveness, and adhere to the principles of extensive consultation, joint contribution, and shared benefits. Within the framework of the Global Governance Initiative, we will strengthen policy communication and coordination with all parties, build broad consensus, and continuously enrich the methods and pathways for reforming and improving global governance.
We will rely on the United Nations, relevant international organizations, and regional and sub-regional multilateral mechanisms, and work with all parties to take active actions to contribute wisdom and strength to the reform and improvement of global governance. Priority should be given to strengthening communication and cooperation in areas where the urgency of governance is particularly prominent and the governance deficit is significant, such as reforms of the international financial architecture, artificial intelligence, cyberspace, climate change, trade, and outer space. It is also crucial to firmly uphold the authority and central role of the United Nations and support its implementation of the "Pact for the Future," actively building consensus, securing tangible results, and striving for early achievements.
Humanity has become a community of shared destiny, where we are all interconnected. Strengthening global governance is the right choice for the international community to share development opportunities and address global challenges. China will strengthen cooperation with all parties to jointly explore ways to reform and improve global governance, and together create a bright future of peace, security, prosperity, and progress.
No comments:
Post a Comment