Opinion
GLOBAL DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVE: FIVE YEARS AFTER
By Charles Onunaiju
It has been five years since China through the General Secretary of the Communist Party of China (CPC) President Xi Jinping proposed the Global Development Initiative in his speech to the general assembly of the United Nations in 2021. In his speech, he highlighted the significance of the year for China. It was both the one-hundred-year anniversary, since the founding of the Communist Party of China (1921) and the 50th anniversary of the restoration of China’s legitimate seat at the United Nations. The speech came against the background of the then, ravaging covid-19 pandemic and je observed that “Our world is facing the combined impacts of changes unseen in a century and the covid-19 pandemic.
The year also coincided with the China’s crucial policy outcome of the end of absolute poverty and a contribution of about 70% to global poverty reduction. On account of these, China brought her unique national experience in successful eradication of one of mankind’s most enduring scourge; poverty to the international domain. The elimination of absolute poverty has been an existential battle and from the time of the 18th National Congress of the CPC and the election of Xi Jinping to the central leadership of the party and the country, the work on the poverty elimination became the core focus of the party and the state. And with an uncommon devotion, it won the battle and delivered the solemn pledge to the Chinese people to bring about moderate prosperity in all respects in the life of the people. With a reputation of the epic achievement, China’s pledge and commitment to help drain the swamp of global poverty is not empty or impulsive.
Therefore, when president Xi Jinping introduced the Global Development Initiative by way of offering Chinese experience and practical contribution to engaging issues of global development, the world took adequate notice. The structural inadequacy in the flow of international public goods, most evident in the decline of western development assistance to the developing countries especially in the Global South, produced a critical lacuna in global development outlook.
China emerging from the historic and epic defeat of extreme poverty stepped up to the global podium to bring the issue of inclusive and shared development to the sharp focus. The seminal initiative for inclusive global development focused on the then urgent imperative to contain and defeat the vile covid-19 pandemic and to put countries in better shape to recover from the after effects of the deadly virus. Vulnerable regions of the world including Africa where the virus was most disruptive of the socio-economic landscape were clearly brought to the core of the recovery efforts launched by Beijing under the framework of the Global Development Initiative. Food security and poverty alleviations were critical measures contained in the GDI framework to ameliorate the social and economic disruptions of the virus.
The GDI emphasizes development as a priority and closely aligns with the central task of implementing the 2030 Agenda for sustainable development of the United Nations. It aims to deepen cooperation and through specific projects, promote policy dialogue, experience sharing, capacity building and tangible cooperation in various fields and participation by all parties. The GDI embodies the earnest aspirations of the international community to coalesce and an extensive united front on the core issue, central to all mankind.
China’s successful practice of inclusive national development trajectory reveals the immense power of human will be supported by correct policy choices and driven by leadership suffused with integrity and competence. The vital clue from China is that inclusive and sustainable development is possible. The credibility of China national development practice, especially the epic defeat of poverty has tremendous global implication and consequently rallied broad consensus on the China’s proposed Global Development Initiative, GDI. Five years down the line, the initiative has evolved from a Chinese proposal into a major global public good attracting broad participation from the international community and delivering tangible benefits to ordinary people across the world. Up to now, more than 130 countries and international organizations have endorsed the GDI and participated in relevant cooperation programs, resulting in the implementation of 1,800 livelihood-oriented projects and the training of 200,000 people in various professions, costing over 23 billion U.S dollars of mobilized funds.
Over the past five years, China has widely shared the Juncao technology, which uses grass to cultivate edible fungi that has in no small measure helped to alleviate poverty, and also the sustainable satellite 1 that enables synchronized data sharing and the MAZU platform, a disaster monitoring and early warning system to support countries in the Global South improve disaster prevention and mitigation capabilities. The GDI is focused on people-centered. Inclusive, innovation driven and eco-friendly development principles and more importantly promote tangible outcomes.
The past five years have demonstrated the resulted oriented nature of the GDI and served as a beacon of hope for common development for all mankind. With the passage of time, the significance of the initiative is being felt by more countries in the world, especially in the Global South that strives earnestly to fill in their respective development gaps. At a tense moment in the international systems when few powers are busy with undermining the development of others through protectionism and geo-political confrontation, China has been steadfast pushing forward shared development through advancing the Global Development Initiative (GDI).
The principles of the GDI which is centered around inclusive and sustainable development partnership, mutual respect and win-win outcomes in cooperation are clearly different from ideologies that triggers geopolitical rivalry and seek unilateral gains.
In the past five years, China has launched more than 30 cooperation mechanisms and platforms to support Global South countries in enhancing their capabilities, thereby raising positive feelings towards China, across the world. According to the latest survey by the Pew Research Center, more people have a favorable view of China than the United States of America, in most of the 36 countries surveyed. People in many of the 17 middle-income countries surveyed see China as a more reliable partner than the United States and are more likely to say that China contributes to peace and stability around the world.
As its economy maintains high quality growth driven by innovation and greater openness, China continued to share significant opportunities for global development. Its innovations, such as open-source large language models, make new technologies affordable and drive shared development. Its cost-effective new energy products enrich global supply and promote green and low-carbon development.
Chinese manufacturing equipment exports and outbound investment help advance industrialization in developing countries, while cooperation under the Belt and Road Initiative improves infrastructure in many partner countries and expands their potential for development.
The implementation of the UN 2030 Agenda for sustainable development has been behind schedule. With less than five years left for achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), only 36 percent of assessable SDG targets are on target or making moderate progress, nearly half are moving too slowly, while 15 percent have even gone into reverse.
The urgent need for common development among humanity underscores the pressing relevance of the GDI. As a member of the Global South and a major country, China has promised to align its growth with the common good of the world, and steadily advance the implementation of the GDI together with other countries for new progress in shared and sustainable development.
In the past five years, since the introduction of the GDI, China has stayed true to its commitments and it is no doubt, that Beijing would not waver in its pledges that the sunshine of shared development and its corollary of poverty alleviations is felt at every corner of the globe.
By Prof. Sheriff Ghali Ibrahim
The rhetoretical questions always asked by President Xi Jinping are all-encompassing particularly within the framework of international relations and politics. “what is wrong with the world? Where are we coming from? Where are we now? And where are we headed to? Some of the complementary questions are: Why are states irrational? Why do states cause doom against their existence and why are experienced nations not influencing the inexperienced ones to be calm and choose the peaceful path?
These questions are trigered by the dumbness of Taiwanese leadership in continuing the annual Military Drills called Han Kuang which they started since April, 1984, by General Hau Pei-tsun, to test the joint combat readiness, command flexibility, and defense strategies against what Taiwan called “potential invasions from China.” In contemporary military strategy, there is no rationality, there is no intelligence and there is no in-depth calculation by Taiwan to dream of protecting itslf against China. China is not a threat to Taiwan, but reverse is the case, as Taiwanese leaders are fixated to be seperatists and conspire with external forces against China.
When Han Kuang (the annual Military Drills) started in 1984 as a comprehensive War game and field exercise for Taiwan’s armed forces, it focused initially on classic beach anti-landing, anti-airborne, and counter-air raid scenarios. It also established the core two-phase format: a spring computer-simulated Command Post Exercise (CPX) and subsequent Field Training Exercises (FTX).
This vision of pushing China back and creating a shield and a safety-net against China, integrated high-tech hardware additions like Patriot missile deployments starting around 2006 by Taiwan. It Shifted operational concepts to reflect shifting political and strategic defense doctrines under successive administrations and adopted bilingual command formats (Mandarin and English) by 2017 to improve joint clarity, all aimed at defeating China in case of an abrupt eruption of conflict.
Taiwan was further pushed to expanded drill duration significantly, moving from traditional 5-day windows to extended 10-day live-combat simulations, which also increased reserve force mobilization and from modern conflicts like the Russia-Ukraine war. This has made Taiwan oblivious of the enormity of the Russo-Ukrainian conflict!
Due to continuous China-phobia developed by Taiwan in which external forces have informed Taiwan on the necessity to significantly prepare for war against China, it incorporated advanced mobile rocket systems (HIMARS) and decentralized command backbrief methods modeled on partner military frameworks, presumably that will protect them from China’s bid for reunification.
The next question is who has been behind Taiwan’s military ambition? Who has continued to sell weapons to Taiwan? Who has vowed to defend Taiwan in its quest to be permanently independent from China? Those behind the curtains are recently victims of their choice emanating from a war of choice and loosing from a strategy of choice. If the United States cannot protect itself in a modern warfare strategy, especially in its war with Iran, why should Taiwan continue to uphold provocative annual Military Drills that cannot protect them, but create more distance and disharmony from China’s efforts of peaceful reunification?
The United States has failed to achieve its strategic objectives and has faced outright defeat in Vietnam War, the War in Afghanistan, the Korean War (strategic stalemate), the Bay of Pigs Invasion, and the Lebanese Civil War intervention. The goal in Vietnam was to stop the spread of communism in Southeast Asia and protect South Vietnam, but high local resistance, a strong guerrilla insurgency, and low public support at home forced a U.S. withdrawal. North Vietnam took over the south in 1975.
The U.S. tried to destroy Al-Qaeda and remove the Taliban from power after the September 11 attacks, but after 20 years of conflict and nation-building, the Western-backed government collapsed rapidly, and the Taliban returned to power during the chaotic U.S. military exit in August 2021. The U.S. goal in Korea was to expel North Korean forces from South Korea and unify the entire Korean Peninsula under a democratic government, but Chinese military intervention pushed U.S. and United Nations forces back, resulting in a bloody stalemate and an armistice that left the peninsula permanently divided.
The U.S. attempted to overthrow the communist government of Fidel Castro in Cuba using CIA-trained Cuban exiles, but the invasion was poorly planned, lacked expected U.S. air support, and was quickly crushed by Cuban armed forces, becoming a major Cold War embarrassment for Washington. The U.S. intended to restore political stability and peace during the Lebanese Civil War as part of a multinational peacekeeping force, but following the devastating 1983 Beirut barracks bombing that killed 241 U.S. service members, the U.S. withdrew its military forces without achieving its stabilization goals.
The question remains, is it not irrational for Taiwan to continue with its annual Military Drills? Can the U.S. battling with shortage of Missiles and defensive capability salvage Taiwan in the period of war? Answers are self-providing for the wise.
In conclusion, it is recommended that Taiwan accepts China’s extended hand of peaceful reunification and desist from carrying out provocative Military Drills that will deteriorate the concurrent condition. It should divorce external tools of influence that sway its leadership to miscalculated risks and return to the mother land for good.
Prof. Sheriff Ghali Ibrahim is the Provost, Anti-Corruption Academy of Nigeria and Head of Contemporary China-Africa Research
Opinion
Presidency Defends Tinubu’s Reforms, Criticises Catholic Bishops’ Comments on National Issues
By Sunday Dare
The Presidency has defended the policies of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, accusing the leadership of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of Nigeria (CBCN) of adopting what it described as a partisan stance in its recent public comments on national issues.
In an opinion article, Special Adviser to the President on Media and Public Communications, Sunday Dare, argued that religious leaders should maintain moral neutrality when engaging in political discourse. He said the bishops’ comments following a meeting with President Tinubu at the State House reflected opposition viewpoints rather than balanced national engagement.
Dare defended the administration’s economic reforms, including the removal of petrol subsidy and the unification of the foreign exchange market, describing them as necessary measures to address fiscal challenges inherited by the government in 2023.
He also cited increased allocations to states, reforms in public finance, the Nigerian Education Loan Fund (NELFUND), agricultural interventions and ongoing infrastructure projects as evidence of progress under the Tinubu administration.
The presidential aide further criticised comments attributed to Archbishop Emeritus John Cardinal Onaiyekan regarding governance and the 2027 elections, maintaining that President Tinubu remained committed to democratic principles and institutional integrity.
The article urged religious leaders to contribute constructive solutions to national challenges while preserving their independence from partisan politics.
The views expressed in the article are those of the author, who serves as Special Adviser to the President on Media and Public Communications.
By Ibrahim Muhammad, National Coordinator, Independent Hajj Reporters
Saudi Arabia’s ongoing reforms in Hajj and Umrah administration reflect a broader effort to improve service quality, strengthen consumer protection and align pilgrimage operations with the Kingdom’s Vision 2030, according to Ibrahim Muhammad, National Coordinator of Independent Hajj Reporters.
In this opinion article, Muhammad argues that the Kingdom’s revised operational requirements for Hajj and Umrah operators are aimed at reducing the number of service providers while ensuring that only financially capable and professionally managed companies participate in pilgrimage operations.
He cites Bangladesh’s regulatory framework as an example, noting that operators must meet minimum pilgrim quotas, use government-approved digital registration systems and clearly disclose package costs and services to prospective pilgrims.
The author also examines the National Hajj Commission of Nigeria’s (NAHCON) recently introduced licensing guidelines, including the requirement for a ₦250 million bank guarantee. He contends that the guarantee is intended to protect pilgrims rather than generate revenue, as it serves as a financial safeguard if an operator fails to fulfil contractual obligations.
Muhammad further advocates longer licence validity for private operators, suggesting Nigeria adopt a three-year licensing model similar to Pakistan’s while retaining annual compliance reviews.
He concludes that regulators, private operators and other stakeholders must work together to adapt to Saudi Arabia’s evolving regulatory framework, arguing that stronger standards and greater transparency will ultimately benefit Nigerian pilgrims and the Hajj industry.
This article is an opinion piece. The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this publication.
DSS Releases, Compensates Artisan Cleared of Links With Terrorists
GLOBAL DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVE: FIVE YEARS AFTER
You must be logged in to post a comment Login