“In an era dominated by US–China tensions, we’ve shifted our eyes away from multilateralism,” said Emmanuel Daniel, founder and chairman of The Asian Banker, at the CGTN dialogue marking the UN’s 80th anniversary. Over time, he added, multilateralism “became very ideologically driven… by the time it reached the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), they were packaged as an ideology rather than a practical solution.” Daniel was joined by Erik Solheim, former UN under-secretary-general and chairman of the Europe Asia Centre, and Zhu Xian, former vice president of the World Bank and New Development Bank and current vice president and secretary general of the International Finance Forum, to explore how global governance, development finance and private capital must evolve to reflect a multipolar world shaped increasingly by regional actors and market-driven collaboration. Against this backdrop, Solheim argued that multilateralism remains indispensable but must be revitalised through structural, cultural and leadership reforms, noting that the UN still reflects a post-war order unfit for today’s realities. Zhu complemented this political lens with a practitioner’s perspective, stressing that no reform is credible without financial capacity — multilateral development banks, he said, must “double or even triple” their resources and leverage private markets to meet climate and development goals. Daniel, meanwhile, argued that the sustainability of multilateralism lies in shared financial exposure and collective learning rather than isolated, competitive models — a lesson long practised in banking’s collaborative frameworks. Structural, cultural and leadership reforms “Multilateralism is the answer — but it needs reform,” said Solheim, setting the tone for the dialogue. He outlined three key reforms to revitalise the UN and make multilateralism fit for purpose: First, he called for structural reform, noting that the Security Council still reflects a post-war order where “two small European nations — France and the United Kingdom —” hold permanent seats while major powers, Africa and much of the Global South remain under-represented. He also urged a cultural shift, saying the UN must move from being “a bureaucratic inward-looking structure” to one focused on delivering real outcomes — education, healthcare, infrastructure and peace. Finally, he pressed for leadership renewal, criticising the current heads of the UN as “completely incompetent” and calling for stronger, more accountable leadership to restore credibility and drive progress toward peace and sustainable development. For Solheim, the UN’s mission remains clear and urgent: to safeguard peace and advance the Sustainable Development Goals — building a greener, more educated and healthier world where no one remains in extreme poverty. The financial logic of shared risk That call for renewal extended into finance, where Daniel argued that multilateralism’s sustainability depends on how effectively financial systems can share risk and align incentives. “China has been learning how to incorporate multilateralism into its lending business globally,” Daniel said. “China Development Bank, for example, is like $2 trillion to $3 trillion worth of assets [and] with the growth and maturing of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) and New Development Bank — China has been learning to work with counterparties in banking”. Daniel described syndication as a template for this approach — where parties share risks, exchange best practices and identify opportunities collectively. True cooperation, he noted, lies in building systems that share both exposure and expertise. For Daniel — and echoed by Zhu — institutions that share exposure rather than duplicate effort build credibility faster. Development finance, Daniel suggested, is shifting from bilateral aid toward co-lending and co-investment models that distribute both opportunity and accountability. Rethinking multilateral development banks Building on Solheim’s call for reform, Zhu Xian offered a practitioner’s view from within. Multilateral development banks (MDBs), he said, must narrow their objectives while expanding their reach. “So at the project level, probably you’re only focused on and one or two most important goals as your priority and try to see that they can sustain after project would be completed”. Zhu identified resource mobilisation as the main constraint for multilateral development banks, urging them to “double or even triple” their resources for developing countries to meet urgent financing needs such as climate change. He added that relying on sovereign lending is no longer sustainable given limited fiscal space. MDBs, he said, must leverage private capital and market resources to expand their reach and impact. Zhu cautioned that excessive caution undermines development goals, noting that many financial institutions — including MDBs — operate within a “very risk-averse” culture. Yet, he said, “in development a lot of business are very risky,” and true impact requires institutions willing to “take the risk” to support the poor and disadvantaged. His remarks grounded the panel’s broader discussion — illustrating how Daniel’s financial logic and Solheim’s governance vision converge in the real constraints faced by lenders. Private capital as the multiplier Both Daniel and Zhu highlighted that the next phase of multilateralism will hinge on mobilising private capital alongside public institutions. Daniel warned that much of today’s green finance amounts to “greenwashing,” citing the absence of robust secondary markets in both Europe and the US. He said one of multilateralism’s goals should be to “incorporate the participation of private sector lending,” arguing that without markets that can properly value green bonds, “you can’t find the pricing, can’t find the funding to get the projects done.” Zhu agreed and added, “You need to really focus on leverage on the market resources, the private sector.” Both emphasised that credible green finance depends on functional secondary markets that price risk transparently and attract long-term capital. Networks and leadership by example Daniel noted that the future of cooperation is emerging from the ground up, led by smaller economies such as Singapore and Rwanda that are building cross-border payment systems linking local businesses and microfinance networks. “In the past,” he said, “cross-border infrastructures were built by the large US multinationals — Visa, Mastercard and so on. Now many smaller economies are building bilateral and multilateral systems that keep profits within the country.” These efforts, he said, form “a network growing from the grassroots up,” strengthening global stability through deeper interconnection. Leadership, he added, must also come by example — praising China’s “zero-emissions goal” as a benchmark for others to follow with “willingness and sincerity”. Solheim offered a vivid illustration of China’s progress: “Ten years ago I would never go running in Beijing… now I happily do it. The sky is blue.” Solheim’s reflection tied the panel back to the human dimension of reform — reminding that credible multilateralism must deliver visible change, from cleaner air to fairer opportunity. Across the CGTN dialogue, the message was clear: multilateralism is not obsolete but must adapt. Institutions must reform politically and financially; MDBs must leverage markets, not just balance sheets; and cooperation must extend from boardrooms to networks connecting firms and communities. “Multilateralism is still the answer,” Daniel said. But as Zhu reminded, its future depends on institutions willing to take the risk — not only financially, but in trusting markets and people to share that responsibility. Together, their perspectives converged on a pragmatic vision of multilateralism — one rooted not in ideology or hierarchy, but in shared risk, inclusive capital and accountable leadership.
