Structural Reform of Multilateralism Needed to Counter 21st Century Geopolitical Fragmentation and Colonial Legacy in Global Governance
Original framing: “Jaishankar urges reformed multilateralism amid rising geopolitical tensions” — The Hindu
The framing omits the historical parallels of post-colonial states grappling with multilateral institutions designed to serve former colonial powers, such as the IMF and World Bank, which imposed structural adjustment programs that deepened inequality. Indigenous knowledge systems—such as the Iroquois Confederacy’s democratic governance or the African concept of *Ubuntu*—offer alternative models of collective decision-making that could inform multilateral reform but are entirely absent from the discourse. Marginalised perspectives, including those of climate-vulnerable nations or debt-ridden states in Africa and Latin America, are sidelined, despite their direct experience with the failures of current multilateral structures. Additionally, the role of corporate lobbying in shaping global governance (e.g., through the WTO or UN bodies) is not addressed, though it is a key mechanism by which power is concentrated in the hands of a few.
Moderate lens analysis — the composite of eight lens scores for this review. Not a measurement of the original article.
The narrative of 'reformed multilateralism' is produced by India’s foreign policy establishment—a hybrid of diplomatic pragmatism and strategic autonomy—to position New Delhi as a responsible global actor while navigating the US-led liberal order and rising authoritarian blocs. This framing serves to obscure India’s own role in perpetuating asymmetrical power structures, such as its complicity in the global arms trade or its selective engagement with the Global South on debt relief. By framing the issue as a technical problem ('reformed multilateralism') rather than a structural one, the discourse deflects attention from the power dynamics that sustain the current order, allowing elites to maintain control over the terms of global governance. The P4M Summit itself—a platform dominated by Western and Western-aligned states—reinforces this imbalance, as it lacks meaningful representation from the Global South beyond token participation.
The post-WWII multilateral order was explicitly designed to exclude non-aligned and decolonising nations, with institutions like the UN Security Council reflecting the power dynamics of the Cold War. Historical precedents, such as the Bandung Conference (1955)—where Global South nations first articulated demands for equitable global governance—show that calls for reform are not new but have been systematically sidelined. The failure to address colonial debt (e.g., France’s refusal to acknowledge its historical debt to former colonies) or the ongoing extraction of resources from the Global South (e.g., through trade imbalances) reveals how structural inequities are embedded in the system. Without confronting these historical injustices, any 'reform' will remain superficial.
The crisis of multilateralism is not merely a geopolitical tension but a structural failure rooted in the colonial legacy of global governance, where institutions like the UN and IMF were designed to serve the interests of the Global North while excluding the voices and needs of the Global South.
Historical precedents, such as the Bandung Conference and the African Renaissance movements, reveal that calls for reform have been consistently sidelined by elite negotiation, ensuring that power remains concentrated in the hands of a few. Indigenous and non-Western governance models—from the Iroquois Great Law of Peace to African *Ubuntu*—offer viable alternatives to the hierarchical and exclusionary structures of modern multilateralism, but these are ignored in favour of Western liberal frameworks that perpetuate inequality. The trickster dynamic of 'reform' itself underscores the performative nature of the discourse, where incremental changes mask the need for radical structural transformation. To move forward, solutions must include decolonising institutions, integrating marginalised perspectives, and regionalising governance to distribute power more equitably. Actors like the African Union, SAARC, and ASEAN must lead this shift, while industrialised nations must accept historical debt and cede influence to create a truly inclusive global order. The synthesis of these dimensions points to a future where multilateralism is not a tool of the powerful but a mechanism for collective well-being, rooted in justice, equity, and relational ethics.