China's Global Governance Initiative: A Just Cause Gains Worldwide Support

September 1 marks one year since China launched its Global Governance Initiative. China plays the long game. When the initiative was first proposed, many scratched their heads. Some even called it empty talk.

It took time. But eventually, the strategy became clear.

Rewind to November 2012. Xi Jinping had just become General Secretary. He led the new Politburo Standing Committee to the National Museum of China for the 'Road to Rejuvenation' exhibition. There, he unveiled the 'Chinese Dream' and the goal of the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation. At the time, most outsiders shrugged.

Fast forward to today. Chinese electric vehicles are everywhere. Its large AI models top the global charts in token usage. Its robots just set a world record of 8.64 seconds in the 100-meter dash, smashing the 9.58-second human record set by eight-time Olympic gold medalist Usain Bolt in 2009. The message is clear: China wasn't just blowing smoke.

The Global Governance Initiative is one of four major initiatives China has put forward. Its purpose: to turn the sweeping vision of  ‘a community with a shared future for mankind' into reality. And it all started in 2013.

Xi had just been elected President on March 14, 2013, at the first session of the 12th National People's Congress. Nine days later, he delivered a speech at the Moscow State Institute of International Relations. There, he first proposed the concept of ‘a community with a shared future for mankind'.

He was tackling a fundamental question: where is humanity headed? It was China's systematic response to an even bigger puzzle: what kind of world should we build, and how?

But this vision is rooted in China's own ambitions. President Xi has set clear goals: realize the 'Chinese Dream' and build a great modern socialist country in all respects.

As China rises, friction with the old hegemon, the United States, is inevitable. That tension is a defining feature of the 'major changes unseen in a century'.

A Community with a Shared Future

World War II ended in 1945. What followed was not peace, but a 40-year Cold War between two blocs led by the United States and the Soviet Union. History keeps repeating this pattern: established powers clash with rising challengers.

China wants to break that cycle. Its answer is 'a community with a shared future for mankind.' The idea is to ditch the old hegemonic mindset. It's the mindset where a single country sees itself as supreme. It rejects zero-sum games between nations. Instead, it pushes for win-win cooperation and common development.

There is a deeper strategy at work. China is aligning its own great rejuvenation with the major changes unseen in a century. The goal? To erase the false choice between the Chinese Dream and the world dream. Instead, it weaves them together. The result: Chinese solutions for global challenges, and a fresh blueprint for international relations.

But a shared future is a big, abstract idea. How do you make it real? China's answer: four major global initiatives.

Four Pillars for a New World Order

First, the development crisis. In September 2021, President Xi took the stage at the United Nations General Assembly and put forward the Global Development Initiative.

Second, the security tangle. As the international security landscape grew more volatile, President Xi proposed the Global Security Initiative at the Boao Forum for Asia Annual Conference in April 2022.

Third, the civilization question. To advance human progress, President Xi launched the Global Civilization Initiative at the CPC in Dialogue with World Political Parties High-level Meeting in Beijing in March 2023.

Fourth, the governance breakdown. With the global governance system failing, President Xi unveiled the Global Governance Initiative at the Shanghai Cooperation Organization Plus meeting in Tianjin in September 2025.

China has rolled out four major global initiatives, almost one per year. They tackle the development struggles of nations, the lopsided international security order, the advance of human civilization, and the paralysis of global governance. Each comes with a concrete action plan.

What's Wrong with Global Governance—and How China Plans to Fix It

So how does the Global Governance Initiative, proposed last year, fix a broken global governance system?

It zeroes in on three core shortcomings of the current international mechanisms.

First, a severe lack of representation.

Global South countries account for over 80% of the world's population. Yet their representation and voice in international organizations don't match their status.

Second, the erosion of authority.

The United States frequently withdraws from organizations and breaks agreements. It imposes unilateral sanctions and arbitrarily wages wars. This severely undermines the international system centered on the United Nations.

Third, effectiveness urgently needs to be improved.

Global governance has been slow to respond to, or even absent in addressing emerging challenges like climate change and artificial intelligence. This has led to serious delays in the United Nations' 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.

Action, Not Just Talk

Don't assume China's Global Governance Initiative is just another empty talk. It has rapidly evolved into a practical system: concepts, mechanisms, and concrete actions.

Since its launch, the initiative has racked up support from a wide range of countries and international organizations. Even some Western nations have expressed recognition.

France, the United Kingdom, Spain, Canada, and others have shown a positive attitude or explicitly endorsed multilateralism.

To turn the Global Governance Initiative into action, China has delivered on several major milestones over the past year.

First, the Group of Friends of Global Governance. Think of it as the initiative's operational core. Launched in New York last December with 43 founding member states, the group held a high-level meeting in the same city this May.

Second, the International Mediation Court was set up in Hong Kong. And Hong Kong has played a crucial role in the Global Governance Initiative. The court is the world's first intergovernmental organization designed to resolve international disputes through mediation. It was established in Hong Kong last October.

Within just over half a year, it successfully mediated its first international maritime dispute. That marks a substantive step forward in the peaceful resolution of international conflicts.

Third, the push to create a “World Artificial Intelligence Cooperation Organization.” In July this year, President Xi proposed the initiative at the Global Artificial Intelligence Conference.

Representatives from 29 countries signed an agreement in Shanghai to establish the organization. This is a direct action on governance in emerging fields under the Global Governance Initiative.

A Just Cause vs. Confrontation

The United States advocates confrontation. China advocates peace. America’s actions are exclusive. China’s actions are inclusive.

Consider this: China is preparing to establish a World Artificial Intelligence Cooperation Organization. It already has 29 member countries, including Kazakhstan. That same Kazakhstan is also a member of the U.S.-led “Pax Silica.” That American initiative aims to build supply chains in semiconductors, AI, and critical minerals—all designed to shut out China. Foreign media reports say the United States pressured Kazakhstan to choose between the two.

A small example, but it reveals a stark divide. China and the United States have fundamentally different attitudes toward international cooperation.

When the Great Way prevails, the world is shared by all.

A rising nation should cooperate as widely as possible. It should not try to eliminate the existing hegemon. And it should operate within accepted international rules. That is the kingly way to peace and fewer wars.

As the saying goes, a just cause enjoys abundant support; an unjust cause finds little. China’s Global Governance Initiative was proposed just a year ago. The positive response it has received is clear proof: a just cause can prevail in the world.

Lo Wing-hung

Bastille Commentary

** 博客文章文責自負,不代表本公司立場 **

The ancient Greek historian Thucydides recorded the famous "Melian Dialogue" in his monumental History of the Peloponnesian War. From it comes the celebrated line: "The strong do what they can, and the weak suffer what they must." Watching the United States and Canada trade tariff blows, I am reminded of that famous saying.

Talks Collapse, Tariffs Fly

Trade talks between the United States and Canada recently collapsed. Ottawa said Washington kept piling on new demands at the last minute. Canada could not accept them, and the negotiations broke down. US President Donald Trump hit back immediately. He invoked a never-before-used provision of the Tariff Act of 1930 and slapped an additional 50% tariff on US$20 billion worth of Canadian imports. The targets include products such as wine, cement and hockey sticks.

Ottawa fired back on Tuesday (August 25). The Canadian government announced retaliatory tariffs on US$20 billion worth of American goods. The answer to Trump's 50% hike came "dollar for dollar, rate for rate."

Trump, meanwhile, kept upping the ante. He wrote on his social platform that Canada has been exploiting the United States for years. Ottawa imposes excessive tariffs on American farm products, he said, and the bilateral trade deficit has run as high as US$60 billion over the long term. That situation, he warned, cannot go on. He then announced that tariffs on all Canadian cars, trucks, auto parts and steel will rise to 50% from January 1 next year. The move is plainly meant to force automakers with plants in Canada to relocate back to the United States.

Trump also declared that he no longer sees Canada as America's 51st state. His reasoning: the United States does not need Canada. It is Canada that needs the United States. He further announced that Lake Ontario would be renamed "Lake America."

Ford Fights Back

America's tariff onslaught has enraged Canadians. Ontario Premier Doug Ford publicly called out Trump on August 26, telling him he had "better have a pack of batteries." Ford's meaning could hardly be more blunt. Ontario currently supplies power to New York, Michigan and Minnesota. If Trump keeps pressing ahead in the trade war, the province can pull the switch at any time. That would cut power to 1.5 million homes and businesses in those three states.

"Everything's on the table. I'll do whatever it takes," Ford said. "Trump has underestimated Canadians. We're all in." Asked how he would respond to Trump's tariff offensive, Ford turned blunt: "He can kiss my ass. I have a lot of real estate on my ass, so he has a lot of room to kiss my ass." Ford also warned that Canada could restrict exports of oil, potash and strategic minerals to the United States. He accused Trump of squeezing every industry to force them all into America and turn Canada into a "vassal state."

Trump launched a fierce counterattack on social media after Ford spoke. First he branded the premier "Flunky Ford." Then came the threat: "Someone should get these clowns to fall in line, or the consequences for Canada will be far WORSE!"

Lessons From Melos

The clash between Canada and the United States brings to mind the Peloponnesian War. In 416 BC, Athens was the rising power. It had surged after the Greco-Persian Wars and built a maritime empire through the Delian League. Its navy was powerful, its economy prosperous, its culture vibrant. Athens was full of energy and bent on expansion. Sparta was the established power. The Sparta-led Peloponnesian League was the traditional overlord on land and fielded a mighty army. But its system was conservative, and its aim was chiefly to preserve the status quo.

Athens was expanding relentlessly at the time, coercing more city-states into its camp to build strength. Melos was an island state in the Aegean Sea and a Spartan colony. It had stayed neutral throughout the war. Athens could not tolerate a neutral city-state that refused to obey. It dispatched 30 warships and more than 3,000 soldiers to the shores of Melos, demanding unconditional surrender.

The Athenians and the Melians entered into a dialogue. Athens laid its cards on the table first: "There is no need to talk about justice in this negotiation, for right is only in question between equals in power." Then came that famous line, the principle by which Athens acted: "The strong do what they can, and the weak suffer what they must." The Athenians offered the Melians two choices. Submit and pay tribute, or resist and be destroyed by Athenian arms. The Melians chose to resist, placing their hopes in Spartan aid.

In the end, the promised reinforcements never came. The city-state fell. Athens carried out its threat by force. It slaughtered every adult man in the city and sold all the women and children into slavery. The island of Melos was utterly destroyed.

We often say that in the face of hegemony, one must fight back: "Strike one punch to forestall a hundred more." But the reality is, that is an art of struggle between rivals of comparable strength. When the gap in power is vast, confrontation may well bring about the fate of the Melians.

The Athenian maxim closely echoes a golden quote from former US Secretary of State Antony Blinken. On February 17, 2022, he made a striking remark about US-China relations on a panel at the Munich Security Conference: "In the international system, if you're not at the table, you're on the menu." But a seat at the table is not given. It takes the strength and standing that earns you one.

A Lopsided Matchup

International relations ultimately come down to a balance of power, chiefly military and economic might. Canada may have the world's second-largest landmass, but its population of 41 million is barely more than a tenth of America's. The US military ranks first in the world; Canada ranks 28th. The United States has between 1.32 and 2.8 million active-duty personnel; Canada has just 68,000 to 72,000. The US possesses a powerful nuclear triad; Canada has no nuclear weapons at all. The two countries share a border, but their military strength is worlds apart.

As for economic power, US GDP ranks first globally while Canada ranks tenth. America's nominal GDP stands at US$30.8 trillion. Canada's is US$2.3 trillion. The two economies are tightly intertwined, yet the disparity in power is extreme.

China has the strength to challenge the United States. Canada does not have that kind of clout. If Premier Ford's threat to cut off electricity to the US ever comes true, I fear it would hand Trump a pretext for war against Canada.

Choose To Be Strong

Today's world order swings with Trump's emotions. He is mired in the quagmire of the Iran war, and now he has launched a trade war against Canada. Picking a weaker opponent to fight is itself an act of venting frustration. Canada's position is extremely precarious.

The lesson of this story is simple. Given a choice, choose to be the strong. Never choose to be the weak. In these turbulent times, chanting "end one-party dictatorship" day in and day out in Hong Kong will not make our country stronger, nor will it make Hong Kong better. The true path to survival and development lies in building ourselves up and improving people's livelihoods. All other grand talk is nothing but hot air.

Lo Wing-hung