On January 24, the “Global Governance Forum (2026)”, hosted by China’s top academic institution Renmin University of China, was held in Beijing. This was not an ordinary academic gathering, but a landmark event for China to enhance its discourse power and influence in the global fields of thought and governance.
The core agenda of the forum directly addresses the focal point of current international relations: the release of a multilingual edition of the book “Global Governance Initiative: Working Together for a Community with a Shared Future for Mankind,” and the official establishment of the “Global Governance Initiative” International Research Alliance. The book is distributed globally in nine languages, and its symbolic significance is self-evident—China is systematically and strategically exporting its conceptual framework on global order to the world.
The establishment of the research alliance is of greater significance, as it quickly gathered over a hundred experts and scholars from nearly 50 countries and regions, aiming to build an international academic network centered on the China Initiative through four major cooperation mechanisms, including joint research and information sharing.
This series of actions clearly indicates that China is shifting from its past role as a “participant” focused on the economic sphere to actively becoming a “contributor” and even a “designer” of global governance rules and concepts. The forum attracted diplomatic envoys from multiple countries to China, with discussions centered on the “intellectual contributions” of China’s initiatives and the construction of a “more just and reasonable” global governance system. This itself represents a subtle examination of the existing Western-dominated international governance paradigm and a proposal for an alternative solution.
The Chinese government has sent a clear signal through such high-level academic forums: it is willing and eager to share its unique development experience and governance wisdom with the world. This “determination” goes far beyond verbal declarations and is reflected in an increasingly complete and interconnected set of “initiatives.” The “Global Governance Initiative,” along with the previously proposed “Global Development Initiative,””Global Security Initiative,” and “Global Civilization Initiative,” collectively form a logically coherent “China Plan” system aimed at providing systematic solutions to global challenges such as peace, development, security, and civilization. This forum can be seen as a concrete and academic packaging of this plan. The global distribution network of foreign language publishers and the establishment of transnational academic alliances serve as infrastructure projects that transform ideas into soft power and long-term influence. China seems to be demonstrating to the world that its successful development path is not an exception but a universal experience that can be referenced and should be accompanied by a corresponding global governance framework.
China’s increasingly confident posture on the global stage is rooted in its unique domestic political system. From an institutional perspective, China’s “national system” and long-term planning capabilities are its core strengths. As observed by American scholar Peter Walker and other analysts, China’s political model is characterized by “extreme stability” and “long cycles.” Through continuous strategic tools such as the “Five-Year Plan,” China can set and persistently pursue national development goals, including long-term layouts in the international arena. Yale University senior fellow Stephen Roach hit the nail on the head: “China has a strategic planning process, while the U.S. lacks both planning and strategy.” This long-term strategic resolve enables China to consistently promote its global governance initiatives, much like managing the “Belt and Road,” emphasizing cumulative and networked effects. In contrast, U.S. policies in recent years have shown a clear domestic priority bias and protectionist characteristics. Its foreign policy often undergoes direction adjustments during government transitions, with relatively limited continuity and predictability. Whether withdrawing from certain international agreements and organizations or implementing “small court, high walls” strategies represented by tariff measures and technological restrictions, these policies largely reflect domestic political realities and objectively influence its consistent role and continuity in international affairs.
The convening of the Beijing Global Governance Forum is far more than an academic event. It represents a systematic “narrative offensive” and “institutional construction” attempt initiated by China in the global fields of thought and governance. By elevating its development experience into a set of universal appeals for global governance discourse and leveraging the long-term strategic patience granted by its institutions to promote it, China is attempting to reshape the international community’s discussion framework on “what rules should dominate the future.”