In recent years, one of the most debated issues in international relations is the need for reform in global governance. This need is often expressed by actors such as Russia, China, and India. These states, which are also founding members of BRICS, support the development of the Global South and share a vision of a multipolar world. This intention was expressed by Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi during the India-Brazil-South Africa (IBSA) Leaders’ Summit on 24 November 2025 with the following words:[i] “We all agree that global institutions do not reflect the realities of the 21st century. None of us is a permanent member of the UN Security Council. This clearly shows that global institutions no longer represent today’s world.”
Similarly, Modi said in an earlier statement that the Global South should have more representation in the international system, that two-thirds of humanity is not represented in global institutions, and that especially the countries of the Global South are “the victims of this double standard.”[ii] According to Russia, China, and India, the current global system creates space for the West’s unilateral practices, and a multipolar world must be built. However, these actors criticize the current global governance from different angles and develop their own universal governance plans. In this sense, the three actors’ visions of a multipolar world or their global governance plans can differ from each other.
First, it should be emphasized that Russia and China are permanent members of the United Nations (UN) Security Council and they have veto power. In this way, they are different from India. Even so, Russia and China calling for reform in global governance is a valuable effort that can contribute to world peace and security. Both India and Russia express the view that “the UN Security Council should be expanded with representatives from different continents”.[iii] China expresses the need for reform of the UN system in a broader sense and presents its plan called the “Global Governance Initiative” to the world.[iv]
All three actors agree that a world system dominated by the West must change, and that a more inclusive and fair order should be built instead. However, some differences of opinion can appear regarding the roadmap to achieve this goal. The clearest example of this happened during the BRICS enlargement process in 2024. Although many countries around the world applied for membership, only four were accepted. In this sense, geopolitical rivalries or bloc formations can be said to have prevented the enlargement of BRICS. For example, it can be assumed that actors seen as part of the Western world will not be accepted into BRICS because they are not part of the Global South. This mentality then turns the Global South into a pole (axis) against the West. Therefore, the danger of a Cold War–style bloc mentality spreading to the countries of the Global South is quite high. It can be argued that this bloc mentality is especially valid for Russia and India. China, however, calls for abandoning this idea, mainly to neighbouring countries and also to Russia and India.[v]
Russia, which continues a politics of polarization against the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and continues its war in Ukraine with a zero-sum game mentality, tries to make the West accept its policies through hard power. By choosing the path of “war” for a more just, inclusive, and peaceful world, Russia follows a different method from both China and India. From the perspective of global security approaches, it can be said that Russia and China have similar views, that they support the “indivisible security principle,” that they oppose NATO’s increasing presence in the Asian continent and its seas, and that they are worried about India’s security partnerships with Western countries such as the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (QUAD).
China’s approach to the international system has become more concrete with President Xi Jinping’s announcements in recent years regarding global development, security, civilization, and governance initiatives. In this sense, China’s “Global Governance Initiative” contains a holistic approach that considers the development, security, and common future of humanity together. Accordingly, the world’s security, development, and common fate of humanity depend on good governance of this world. However, the current system is an unfair order where unilateral practices are widespread and a large part of the world is not represented. China is supportive of and encourages the expansion of institutions such as BRICS and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) to implement this vision. However, for Beijing’s efforts to succeed, it must first cooperate and reach consensus with Russia and India. In other words, the actor that China wants to see as a member in BRICS or SCO must also be accepted by Russia and India. This is also valid for Russia. For example, even if Russia wants to accept Azerbaijan into the SCO, India may oppose this membership due to the country’s existing ties with both Armenia and Pakistan. Similarly, even if Russia and China give the green light to Turkey’s BRICS membership, it may be difficult to convince India under the current circumstances. In short, India’s bloc mentality may become one of the significant obstacles to the development of the Global South in the long term.
In conclusion, for the construction of a new global governance, there is a need not only to revise the UN but also to avoid a bloc mentality in the development of the Global South. There is a risk that the Global South could turn into a bloc against the West. If the idea of multipolarity cannot be truly established, it seems inevitable that the Global South will become an axis against the West. Therefore, it is very important for India, especially as a democratic country seen as part of the Western world, to follow a balancing policy to ensure the emergence of a fair, inclusive, and peaceful global governance. Ultimately, greater harmony among Russia, China, and India regarding global governance could make a very significant contribution to the world’s peace and security.
[i] “Global governance institutions far from 21st century realities, need reforms: PM”, Hindustan Times, https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/global-governance-institutions-far-from-21st-century-realities-need-reforms-pm-101763924162197.html, (Date of Access: 24.11.2025).
[ii] “Global South a victim of double standards: PM bats for inclusion at Brics”, India Today, https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/without-global-south-world-bodies-are-like-phone-with-sim-but-no-network-pm-calls-out-double-standards-2751698-2025-07-06, (Date of Access: 24.11.2025).
[iii] “On Russia’s approaches to reforming the UN Security Council”, The Embassy of the Russian Federation in the Republic of India, https://india.mid.ru/en/news/on_russia_s_approaches_to_reforming_the_un_security_council/, (Date of Access: 24.11.2025).
[iv] “China urges reform of global governance system as the UN marks 80th anniversary”, China Daily, https://www.chinadaily.com.cn/a/202510/25/WS68fc2d17a310f735438b6e0f.html, (Date of Access: 24.11.2025).
[v] “China’s Xi urges regional leaders to oppose ‘Cold War mentality’ at summit”, Al Jazeera, https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/9/1/chinas-xi-urges-regional-leaders-to-oppose-cold-war-mentality-at-summit, (Date of Access: 24.11.2025).
