4 min readNov 3, 2026 03:32 PM IST First published on: Nov 3, 2026 at 03:32 PM ISTAmid all the drama that surrounds the high-level week of the UN General Assembly in New York, it is all too easy to miss some of the quiet and constructive work that happens on the sidelines. The Partners for Multilateralism (P4M), which was launched at the 81st UNGA Week in New York in September, could turn out to be one such initiative.Co-sponsored by Australia, Brazil, Barbados, Canada, the European Union, India, and Kenya, and further signed by 18 other countries, the P4M commits to strengthening multilateral cooperation and the institutions and rule of law that underpin it. This matters at a time when multilateralism is under severe pressure. The US, a principal founder and long-time guarantor of the system, is now rejecting it through word and deed; other major players are also flouting rules and norms with frequency and impunity. Any declarations of support are only to be welcomed, and doubly so when they come from a group that includes large and small countries from both the Global South and the Global North. Moreover, some of the language of the P4M declaration is reform-oriented, like, “we commit to strengthening multilateral cooperation that is open, fair, equitable, inclusive, networked and practical”.AdvertisementDeveloping countries have spent the last several decades seeking to make multilateral institutions “fair, equitable, inclusive”, only to be given patronising lectures on why the system worked, and that they just needed to get their own house in order. Today, there is more of a receptive ear for the reform agenda in parts of the Global North. This is so for a variety of reasons, including turmoil within Western democracies and obvious weaknesses in the Transatlantic partnership, but also very much due to the growing clout of the Global South. P4M recognises and reflects the changing balance of power.Also Read | Three air purifiers, one AQI monitor and no peace of mindThat said, if the group does not want to join the list of other well-intended but failed initiatives, it would be well-served to focus on the following. First, declarations can swiftly get consigned to the realm of “cheap talk”. P4M needs to get cracking on a concrete plan of action, the costs of its implementation, and the distribution of these costs. Second, the group needs to establish clarity on the principles that will underpin its vision of an updated and reformed multilateralism. This, in turn, will require serious deliberation on how the group distinguishes itself from other similar endeavours, such as China’s four Global Initiatives. Third, a problem with (otherwise) promising exercises to revamp the multilateral system is that they fail to engage with the affected populations. Even the best such efforts will attract the ire of the public, if the global elite fail to communicate the relevance and expected impact of their proposals. Multilateralism is an easy scapegoat for domestic populism at the best of times; at a time when global discontent is rife, it would be foolhardy to ignore the importance of public engagement.Finally, it remains to be seen if the P4M declaration will be able to provide the necessary out-of-the-box thinking needed today to protect not just people, but also the planet. The diversity of its membership provides it with a potential treasure trove of alternative ideas on deep ecology and interspecies coexistence. Diving deep into these ideas with global thinkers, the P4M practitioners could develop an updated framework for multilateralism, which may have a chance to reduce the existential risks that affect us all.AdvertisementThe writer is distinguished fellow at ORF and honorary fellow of Darwin College, University of Cambridge