Opinion
The Future of Multilateralism: China’s Contribution to a More Equitable Global Order
By Professor Udenta O. Udenta
The June 2026 publication of ‘More Just and Equitable Global Governance: China’s Principles, Proposals and Actions’ by the State Council Information Office of the People’s Republic of China represents one of the most consequential contributions to contemporary debates on the future of international governance. At a time when the international system is increasingly strained by geopolitical rivalries, widening inequalities, persistent development deficits, climate challenges, and growing dissatisfaction with existing global institutions, the white paper offers a comprehensive critique of the prevailing order while advancing an alternative vision anchored on sovereign equality, multilateral cooperation, international law, and inclusive development.
Far from being a mere diplomatic statement, the document is a carefully articulated philosophical and policy framework that seeks to address the growing disconnect between twenty first century realities and institutions largely shaped by the power configurations of the post Second World War era. Its central proposition is both simple and profound: a stable and sustainable international order can only emerge when all nations, regardless of size or economic strength, possess a meaningful voice in shaping the rules that govern humanity’s collective future.
The significance of this white paper lies not only in what it says about China’s global ambitions, but also in what it reveals about the changing aspirations of the Global South. For decades, developing nations have sought a more representative international system capable of reflecting their demographic, economic, and political importance. China’s call for a more just and equitable model of global governance therefore resonates beyond Beijing, finding increasing support among countries that perceive existing institutions as insufficiently responsive to their interests and developmental priorities.
Whether one agrees entirely with China’s prescriptions or not, the white paper raises questions that can no longer be ignored: Can global governance remain legitimate if large segments of humanity remain underrepresented in decision making? Can international stability endure when economic benefits and political influence are concentrated within a narrow circle of states? By confronting these questions directly, China has placed itself at the centre of an emerging global conversation about fairness, representation, and shared prosperity, offering a vision that many regard as an important step toward a more balanced and democratic international order.
The international order stands at an inflection point. The institutions that have underpinned global governance since the conclusion of the Second World War are confronting challenges of legitimacy, representation, and effectiveness unprecedented in recent decades. Economic power has dispersed across continents, new centres of influence have emerged, and the aspirations of developing nations have grown increasingly difficult to ignore. Yet many of the mechanisms through which global affairs are managed continue to reflect the geopolitical realities of a bygone era.
It is within this context that China’s vision for a more just and equitable system of global governance has attracted increasing attention. More than a mere diplomatic proposition, it represents an attempt to re-imagine how international relations, economic development, and multilateral cooperation should function in an increasingly interconnected world.
The central premise is deceptively simple: a world that has fundamentally changed requires institutions capable of changing with it.
The Imperative of Reform
One of the most compelling arguments advanced by China is that the architecture of global governance no longer adequately reflects contemporary economic realities.
Emerging economies now account for a substantial share of global growth, trade, industrial production, and innovation. Countries across Asia, Africa, Latin America, and the Middle East have become indispensable contributors to global prosperity. Nevertheless, decision making within many international institutions remains disproportionately concentrated among a relatively small number of advanced economies. Such asymmetry inevitably raises questions concerning legitimacy.
A governance system derives its authority not solely from historical precedent but from its capacity to represent the interests of those it seeks to govern. As global economic gravity shifts, demands for greater representation become not merely desirable but unavoidable.
China’s advocacy for reform within institutions such as the United Nations, the International Monetary Fund, and the World Bank reflects this broader concern. The objective is not the dismantling of the existing order but its adaptation to contemporary realities.
Economic Development as a Pillar of Global Stability
Perhaps the most distinctive feature of China’s approach lies in its insistence that development occupies a central place within global governance. For decades, international discourse has often prioritised political frameworks whilst treating economic transformation as a secondary concern. China’s experience suggests the opposite. Sustainable governance, social stability, and national resilience are difficult to achieve in the absence of broad based economic development.
This philosophy is reflected in the Global Development Initiative, which seeks to place poverty reduction, infrastructure development, food security, digital transformation, and sustainable growth at the heart of international cooperation.
The underlying logic is difficult to dismiss. A society burdened by unemployment, inadequate infrastructure, and chronic underdevelopment is unlikely to enjoy long term political stability. Economic empowerment is not merely a development objective; it is a governance imperative.
For Africa, where infrastructure deficits and development financing gaps remain significant obstacles, this perspective carries particular relevance.
The Belt and Road as Economic Diplomacy
No discussion of China’s vision for global governance can be complete without reference to the Belt and Road Initiative. Often misunderstood solely as an infrastructure programme, the initiative represents a broader exercise in economic diplomacy. Through investments in transportation networks, energy infrastructure, ports, railways, and industrial corridors, it seeks to enhance connectivity between nations and facilitate economic integration.
Critics have raised legitimate concerns regarding debt sustainability, project transparency, and geopolitical influence, yet it is equally undeniable that the initiative has provided many developing countries with access to infrastructure financing that might otherwise have remained unavailable.
From China’s perspective, economic interdependence promotes stability, reduces barriers to development, and creates shared prosperity. Whether one accepts this argument in its entirety or not, the initiative has unquestionably altered the landscape of international development finance.
Sovereignty and Strategic Autonomy
Another cornerstone of China’s approach is its emphasis on sovereign equality. In an era characterised by sanctions, geopolitical rivalries, and competing ideological narratives, China consistently advances the principle that nations should retain the freedom to determine their own developmental pathways without external coercion. This principle resonates strongly throughout much of the Global South.
Many developing countries possess historical memories of colonial domination, foreign intervention, and externally imposed policy prescriptions. Consequently, calls for mutual respect, non interference, and sovereign autonomy find a receptive audience.
The challenge, naturally, lies in ensuring that such principles are applied universally rather than selectively. Nonetheless, the emphasis on sovereign equality remains a significant feature of China’s diplomatic engagement.
Security Through Cooperation
Economic development alone cannot sustain global order. Stability also requires security. Recognising this reality, China has advanced the Global Security Initiative, which advocates cooperative security arrangements, dialogue based conflict resolution, and the rejection of Cold War mentalities.
The proposal rests upon the premise that security should be indivisible. In other words, one nation’s security should not be achieved at the expense of another’s insecurity.
While critics debate the practical implications of this doctrine, its broader philosophical foundation reflects a growing recognition that contemporary security challenges, from terrorism and cyber threats to regional conflicts and transnational crime, demand collective rather than unilateral responses.
Civilisational Pluralism in a Multipolar Age
A particularly intriguing dimension of China’s vision is its emphasis on cultural and civilisational diversity. Through the Global Civilization Initiative, China argues that no single civilisation possesses a monopoly on wisdom, modernity, or governance. Different societies, shaped by distinct histories and traditions, should be permitted to pursue development models suited to their unique circumstances.
This proposition challenges assumptions that political and economic progress must necessarily follow a singular template. Whether one agrees with this view or not, it raises important questions about the relationship between governance, culture, and national identity in an increasingly multipolar world.
The Rise of the Global South
Perhaps nowhere is China’s influence more visible than in its engagement with the Global South. Its support for the expansion of BRICS, advocacy for increased African representation within international institutions, and efforts to amplify the voices of developing nations all reflect a broader strategic objective: the creation of a more inclusive international order.
This does not imply the replacement of one hegemon with another. Rather, it suggests a gradual diffusion of influence across a wider spectrum of states. The aspiration is a world in which global governance is shaped not by a narrow concentration of power but by a broader coalition of stakeholders whose interests reflect the diversity of humanity itself.
The Ultimate Test
The enduring significance of China’s principles, proposals, and actions lies not in the rhetoric surrounding them but in the questions they compel the international community to confront. Can institutions designed for the twentieth century effectively govern the twenty first? Can economic development be elevated from a peripheral concern to a central pillar of global governance? Can sovereignty, cooperation, and mutual respect coexist within an increasingly interconnected world? Can developing nations secure a greater voice in shaping the rules that govern global commerce, finance, and diplomacy?
These questions transcend China itself. They speak to the future of international legitimacy, economic justice, and political stability. Whether China’s vision ultimately succeeds remains uncertain. History teaches us that every rising power combines idealism with strategic interest. China is unlikely to prove an exception. Yet the broader debate it has invigorated is both necessary and timely.
A more just and equitable global order will not emerge through declarations alone. It will require institutions capable of adapting to new realities, economies committed to shared prosperity, and diplomacy rooted in genuine inclusiveness. In that respect, the conversation is no longer about China’s future role in the world. It is about the kind of world the international community wishes to build.
Professor Udenta O. Udenta is a Nigerian scholar, literary theorist, and public intellectual known for his contributions to critical theory, political economy, and African cultural studies. He has been an influential voice in progressive intellectual discourse in Nigeria, consistently engaging questions of governance, ideology, and development within the African context.
By Ibrahim Muhammad
The introduction of new licensing and operational guidelines by the National Hajj Commission of Nigeria (NAHCON) signals a broader push to strengthen regulation of private Hajj and Umrah operators and improve accountability, service delivery and consumer protection.
The reforms come amid similar regulatory efforts in countries including Pakistan and Indonesia, where authorities have introduced stricter licensing, financial controls and operational requirements for private pilgrimage operators.
The guidelines are expected to address concerns over service standards, financial transparency and the activities of unlicensed operators in Nigeria’s Hajj and Umrah industry. In Pakistan, recent reforms require private Hajj operators to meet financial and corporate governance standards, undergo performance reviews and operate through a central digital platform for pilgrim registration, payments and quota management.
The framework also requires operators to meet minimum operational thresholds and comply with service agreements covering areas such as accommodation, transportation, medical support, refunds and consumer protection. Indonesia, meanwhile, requires private Hajj operators to obtain regulatory approval for proposed package costs and meet government standards on pricing and service delivery.
These developments point to a wider shift towards digital accountability, financial transparency and stronger oversight of private pilgrimage services. As NAHCON implements its new framework, stakeholders will be watching to see whether it improves service delivery, curbs unlicensed operations, promotes fair competition and creates a more sustainable environment for legitimate Hajj and Umrah operators.
Ibrahim Muhammad is the National Coordinator of Independence Hajj Reporters (IHR).
Part Two will examine the reforms and their implications for Nigeria’s private Hajj and Umrah industry.
By Shemudara Blessing Morayo
As Nigeria prepares for the 2027 general elections, concerns about insecurity have become central to discussions about democratic governance. Elections provide citizens with the opportunity to choose their leaders through a free, fair and credible process. However, the ability of Nigerians to exercise this constitutional right depends largely on whether voters, electoral officials and security personnel can participate without fear of violence or intimidation.
Nigeria’s security challenges have become increasingly complex over the past decade. The country continues to face insurgency in the North-East, banditry and kidnapping in the North-West, farmer-herder conflicts in parts of the North-Central, separatist agitations and attacks on public institutions in the South-East, as well as piracy, militancy and other criminal activities in the Niger Delta. Rising urban crime also poses challenges in several major cities.These overlapping threats have displaced communities, disrupted livelihoods and strained the capacity of security agencies. In some areas, insecurity has also affected education, healthcare and civic participation, raising concerns about the organisation of peaceful elections.
Electoral violence has historically been a recurring feature of Nigeria’s democratic experience. Since the return to civilian rule in 1999, some elections have been marred by voter intimidation, destruction of electoral materials, attacks on polling units and clashes between political supporters.
Although reforms by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), including the use of the Bimodal Voter Accreditation System (BVAS) and electronic transmission of results, have strengthened aspects of the electoral process, technology alone cannot guarantee peaceful elections. Security remains fundamental to electoral credibility.One major concern ahead of 2027 is voter turnout. Citizens in conflict-affected communities may be reluctant to visit polling centres because of fears of attacks, kidnapping or violent confrontations. Internally displaced persons (IDPs) have also faced difficulties exercising their voting rights after being forced from their communities.
If insecurity persists, significant numbers of eligible voters could be unable or unwilling to participate, potentially affecting the inclusiveness and legitimacy of electoral outcomes. Democracy depends on broad participation, and any situation that discourages citizens from voting poses a threat to democratic consolidation.
The safety of electoral officials is another critical concern. Election administrators, ad hoc staff and logistics personnel are responsible for transporting sensitive materials and conducting elections across thousands of polling units. Insecurity can make these activities particularly difficult in remote and conflict-prone areas.
Delays, cancellations or suspension of voting in affected communities could increase political tensions and fuel allegations of voter suppression or electoral manipulation. This makes effective security planning essential. Political actors must also play their part. The use of armed groups, political thugs and criminal networks during election periods has historically contributed to violence. Hate speech, misinformation and inflammatory rhetoric can further deepen political divisions.
As political campaigns for the 2027 elections intensify, political parties and candidates must adhere to electoral laws, respect democratic norms and discourage their supporters from engaging in violence. Peaceful elections require not only effective security institutions but also responsible political leadership.The role of security agencies will be decisive. The Nigeria Police Force, Armed Forces, Department of State Services, Nigeria Security and Civil Defence Corps and other relevant institutions must work together to protect voters, electoral personnel and infrastructure before, during and after the elections. Their responsibilities should include intelligence gathering, threat assessment, crowd management and the protection of electoral facilities.
Professionalism, impartiality and respect for human rights will also be essential to maintaining public confidence in security operations. INEC must equally strengthen collaboration with security agencies and other stakeholders. Early risk assessments, contingency planning and sustained engagement with local communities can help reduce vulnerabilities in areas prone to violence.
Civil society organisations, religious leaders, traditional rulers, youth groups and the media also have important roles to play. Through voter education, peacebuilding, fact-checking and responsible reporting, these stakeholders can help counter misinformation and encourage peaceful participation.Technology presents both opportunities and challenges for election security. While digital innovations have improved aspects of voter accreditation and result management, social media platforms can also facilitate the rapid spread of misinformation and inflammatory content.
Unverified information circulating during elections can create panic and trigger unrest, particularly in communities already affected by insecurity. Government institutions, civil society organisations and technology companies should therefore promote digital literacy, fact-checking and responsible online engagement while respecting freedom of expression.
Whether Nigerians can vote safely in 2027 will ultimately depend on the willingness of all stakeholders to address insecurity proactively. Security agencies need adequate funding, training, equipment and intelligence capabilities to respond effectively to evolving threats.
Political leaders must prioritise national stability over partisan interests, while citizens should reject electoral violence and demand accountability from those seeking public office. Beyond election security, long-term investments in good governance, education, youth employment, poverty reduction and justice sector reforms are also necessary to address some of the structural conditions that contribute to insecurity.
Insecurity remains one of the major threats to Nigeria’s democratic future as the country approaches the 2027 general elections. However, the challenges are not insurmountable.Through coordinated security operations, credible electoral administration, responsible political conduct, active civic participation and sustained institutional reforms, Nigeria can create an environment where citizens are able to participate freely and safely in the democratic process.
The success of the 2027 elections should not be measured solely by the declaration of winners. It should also be judged by the extent to which eligible Nigerians can exercise their right to vote without fear. Ensuring electoral security is therefore not merely a security objective; it is a democratic imperative that will shape Nigeria’s political stability and democratic legitimacy for years to come.
Shemudara Blessing Morayo is a graduate of Veritas University, Bwari, Abuja, and is currently serving as a National Youth Service Corps (NYSC) member at the Institute for Peace and Conflict Resolution (IPCR). She can be reached at [shemudarablessing2002@gmail.com](mailto:shemudarablessing2002@gmail.com).
…As forum recounts real reasons in crisis
…Alleges leadership control, administrative mistakes, others
By Kaduna Correspondent
As the raging disputes in the Arewa Consultative Forum (ACF), the socio-cultural umbrella organization of northern Nigeria, has continue to deepened, allegations of leadership control tussle, administrative breaches, and mismanagement of about ₦4 billion endowment fund, amongst other reasons, have been enumerated.In this interview with our Kaduna State Correspondent, Gabriel Udeh, the National Publicity Secretary of the ACF, Prof. Tukur Muhammad-Baba, a retired professor of sociology, broke silence on the internal wrangling that recently led to the sealing of the Forum’s headquarters by police in kaduna.
Prof. Muhammad-Baba traced the crisis to attempts to usurp the powers of the National Executive Committee (NEC), disputes over tenure, and violation of the ACF constitution in the management of the Fund. He also spoke on the status of the suspended Board of Trustees Chairman, Alhaji Bashir Dalhatu, and the Forum’s position on insecurity in the North. Excerpts:
Q: Let’s know you fully and your position Sir?
A: Okay, I am Tukur Muhammad-Baba. I am a retired university lecturer. I am a scholar for life. That is, I am a professor of sociology. I was the former dean of the Faculty of Social and Management Sciences at the Federal University of Technology, Minna, among others, just before I retired. But basically, I am Tukur Muhammad-Baba. Currently, National Publicity Secretary of the Arewa Consultative Forum. I am a scholar by calling and a sociologist. Thank you so much.
Q: ACF is one of the most respected organizations in Nigeria. There are serious concerns about the recent crisis that went viral and led to police invasion. What are the real reasons ACF is neck deep in this crisis?
A: ACF is a foremost socio-cultural organization in the country. One reason it has retained credibility is because it is not ethnic-based, not religious-based. It’s political, but not partisan. We consult among various groups in the north to come up with a platform of common interest – roads, education, economic development. The north has over 300 ethnic groups. We are united by geography and sociology. For example, in Benue and in Kogi states, we have northerners who are Igbo. In Kwara state, we have northerners who are Yoruba. They are indigenous to the area. But like every modern organization, conflict is inevitable. It is how you handle disagreement that defines the organization. We’ve had personality differences over the years. If you ask me to summarize, the bone of contention is not so much ACF, it’s control of the ACF. Unprecedentedly, individuals emerged and want to control this organization in their own image. During the 25th anniversary, we launched an endowment fund for the first time because we realized there was too much political interference with governors’ contributions. The target was ₦100 billion. Pledges were about ₦7 billion, out of which a little less than ₦4 billion was generated.
Q: What exactly went wrong with the management of that fund?
A: The constitution is clear. There are five organs: Patrons, General Assembly, Board of Trustees, NEC, and NWC. NEC and NWC are the management. BoT is to advise and oversee. There has been a persistent attempt to usurp NEC’s powers by a functionary of BoT, in particular the then chairman, who assumed functions outside the constitution. The fund was moved out of Kaduna, against the constitution which says management must be at the head office. It was moved to a financial institution in Kano offering 8%. We had institutions offering 20% and 21%. By our calculation, we would have earned about ₦113 million in three months at 21%, but at 8% we earned just over ₦17 million. We also discovered part of the money was moved from one bank branch to another where an individual had a personal account, without EXCO approval, without the financial secretary or treasurer.
Q: There is also the issue of tenure of officers and leadership. What happened?
A: The constitution says the Secretary-General serves three years, renewable once. In 2023 there was a lacuna of 6-9 months with no NWC. The ex-Secretary-General continued. His letter of appointment for the second term said tenure begins from inauguration. But BoT said no, he had overstayed. Legal experts said the interim period cannot count. NEC was sidelined. We read in the papers that the SG was asked to go. Nobody wrote to NEC. The Leadership Selection Committee, which is ad hoc, had been in place for nine years. We told them they stood dissolved. They refused
.Q: The crisis led to the headquarters being sealed by police. How did that happen?
A: Disagreement over interpretation led some to invite police to seal the headquarters. It had never happened before. I told the media: when the police get bored of staying at the gate, they will leave. And within 10 days, they left. EXCO had to meet elsewhere. The chairman of BoT also intervened and said nobody should come to the meeting, but he has no power to do that under the constitution.
Q: What about Alhaji Bashir Dalhatu, the BoT Chairman? Is he still in office?
A: A petition was received that he was interfering in functions not his, moving money, and directing staff. The Code of Conduct Committee invited him. He refused to appear. The committee recommended suspension and forensic audit. EXCO endorsed it. Bashir Dalhatu was suspended as a member of ACF. By implication, he cannot be BoT Chairman because only a member can hold that position. The BoT should have appointed a new chairman. He has continued to act as if he is CEO. As of now, Bashir Dalhatu is not a member of ACF. He is a suspended member. Any action he takes as chairman is null and void.
Q: Some people are calling it fraud. Is it fraud or administrative mistake?
A: Fraud can only be established by proper investigation. It is under investigation. There is a forensic review going on. The Code of Conduct and Ethics Committee is still waiting to hear from those accused. What I can say now is there have been serious administrative lapses that violate the ACF Constitution. The money shouldn’t have been moved. The organization is losing money by keeping it at 8% instead of 20%. Whether there is fraud or not will be established after investigations.
Q: What is ACF’s position on the rising insecurity in the North?
A: Government seems more interested in politics than security. The most existential threat to Nigeria is insecurity: kidnapping, banditry, rape, inter-communal clashes. It’s not a question of capacity. Our armed forces are trained in the best military colleges worldwide. We think it’s a question of political will. Governors are chief security officers but have no control over police or military deployment. That’s a serious lacuna. We are also not in support of amnesty without accountability. You cannot have your sister raped and government surrenders your right to justice. We must decapitate these criminals and their enablers.
Q: Are there efforts to resolve the crisis?
A: Yes. Elders are intervening. Lawyers have submitted legal positions. We are hoping it will be resolved soon because the North needs to articulate its position within Nigeria. When we are united, ACF has been impactful. We reviewed the four tax bills and 80% of our recommendations were reflected. We galvanized opposition to military intervention in Niger Republic and to foreign military bases in Nigeria. Our position is simple:let everybody abide by the provisions of the constitution.
Group Lists Tinubu’s Achievements, Reaffirms Support For Renewed Hope Agenda
Group Rallies Support for Tinubu’s Renewed Hope Agenda, Lauds Gbajabiamila
APC North-West Begins 2027 Mobilisation to Boost Support for Tinubu
-
News12 hours agoGov. Ododo Urges Nigerians in Diaspora to Support Tinubu’s Reforms, Invest in Kogi
-
News12 hours agoPAAU Launches Solar-Powered Campus Tricycle Shuttle Service in Anyigba
-
News12 hours agoKano Assembly Begins Four-Day Legislative Retreat to Strengthen Governance
-
News12 hours agoGwamna Scholarship Beneficiaries Back 2027 Governorship Bid, Pledge Support
-
News12 hours agoACF Mourns Former Minister Abubakar Alhaji, Pays Tribute to Sardaunan Sokoto
-
News7 hours agoAONDOAKAA: THE MAN WHO KEEPS SURVIVING STORMS
-
News12 hours agoDelta Government Rejects Political Violence Claims Over Attack on Governor’s Aide
-
News5 hours agoAPC’s Substitution Storm: Can the ruling party survives the legal fireworks?
You must be logged in to post a comment Login