Tariq Saeedi
At the World Government Summit in Dubai, Turkmenistan presented a framework that cuts to the heart of contemporary international relations: the world has become reactive when it must be preventive, fragmented when it must be unified, and uncertain when it must be predictable.
Foreign Minister Rashid Meredov’s four initiatives form not a wishlist but a diagnostic tool—one that identifies precisely where global cooperation is failing and offers concrete mechanisms for repair.
The Crisis Management Trap
The first initiative—establishing a Multilateral Group for Preventive Public Governance—addresses what might be called the fundamental inefficiency of modern diplomacy. Nations wait for crises to erupt, then scramble to coordinate responses. By that point, economic damage has occurred, political positions have hardened, and the costs of resolution have multiplied exponentially.
Consider recent global disruptions: supply chain breakdowns, migration surges, financial contagion, climate disasters. — In virtually every case, early warning signs existed. What was missing was not data but coordinated preventive action. States lack structured mechanisms to share risk assessments, test governance solutions collaboratively, or implement early interventions before crises cross borders.
Preventive governance shifts the paradigm from damage control to risk reduction. It recognizes that in an interconnected world, one nation’s unaddressed vulnerability becomes every nation’s emergency.
The Erosion of Legal Certainty
The proposal to designate 2028 as the Year of International Law speaks to a quiet but dangerous trend: the gradual marginalization of legal frameworks in international affairs.
As Meredov notes, this isn’t merely about respect for existing treaties—it’s about whether international law can maintain relevance amid geopolitical realignment and emerging forms of conflict.
The timing is deliberate. By 2028, artificial intelligence will be deeply embedded in defense systems, autonomous weapons will be operational, and cyber capabilities will have evolved beyond current legal definitions.
The question isn’t whether international law applies to these domains but whether states still believe legal frameworks matter more than raw power.
A dedicated year creates space for honest dialogue: How does sovereignty function in an age of transborder data flows? What legal principles govern AI decision-making in conflict zones? How do we update Geneva Conventions for algorithmic warfare? These aren’t academic questions—they determine whether future alliances operate on rules or leverage.
Turkmenistan offers four initiatives concerning the future global alliances
The Data Integrity Crisis
The third initiative—universal principles for data soundness and verification—addresses perhaps the most insidious threat to cooperation: the collapse of shared reality. When partners cannot agree on basic facts, collaboration becomes impossible.
This goes beyond concerns about disinformation. It encompasses the reliability of economic statistics that inform trade agreements, the accuracy of climate data that shapes environmental commitments, the integrity of health surveillance that triggers pandemic responses, and the trustworthiness of AI-generated analyses that increasingly drive policy decisions.
Joint verification mechanisms create transparency about methodology, allow cross-checking of sources, and establish standards for evidence quality. — Without such foundations, every negotiation devolves into disputes over whose data to trust—and trust, once questioned at this fundamental level, rarely recovers.
From Declaration to Delivery
The fourth initiative—consolidating implementation capacity—grounds the entire framework in practical reality. Turkmenistan doesn’t merely propose; it demonstrates.
The successful establishment of the UN Decade of Sustainable Transport (2026-2035) proves that well-structured initiatives can move from concept to institutional reality.
The Sustainable Transport Atlas serves as a model: a concrete tool, with clear metrics, designed for monitoring and accountability. This is the difference between symbolic declarations and actionable frameworks. The former generate headlines; the latter generate results.
The Architecture of Trust
What unifies these four initiatives is their focus on the infrastructure of trust—the systems and practices that make cooperation rational rather than merely aspirational. Meredov’s framework recognizes that 21st-century leadership isn’t about dominance but about creating conditions where collaboration becomes more profitable than confrontation.
Preventive governance reduces the costs and risks of cooperation. Legal certainty makes commitments credible. Data integrity ensures partners operate from shared facts.
Implementation mechanisms prove that collective action produces tangible outcomes.
This is not idealism; it is pragmatism for a multipolar world where no single power can dictate terms but all powers must coordinate to survive shared threats—pandemics, climate change, financial instability, technological disruption.
The Relevance to Today’s Reality
Current global dynamics validate every element of Turkmenistan’s proposal. Alliances are straining because partners doubt each other’s reliability, question each other’s data, and fear unilateral actions.
The absence of preventive mechanisms means states face crisis after crisis without building systemic resilience. The weakening of legal frameworks creates uncertainty that inhibits long-term investment and cooperation.
The genius of this framework is that it doesn’t demand transformation of national interests—it offers tools to pursue those interests more effectively through structured cooperation.
A nation advancing preventive governance doesn’t sacrifice sovereignty; it reduces the likelihood of external crises disrupting domestic stability. A state supporting data verification mechanisms doesn’t weaken its position; it strengthens the credibility of its own claims.
In an era when trust between nations is scarce and crises are abundant, Turkmenistan has offered something valuable: a blueprint for making global cooperation functional again. Whether the international community possesses the foresight to embrace preventive over reactive approaches will define not just the future of alliances, but the stability of the global order itself. /// nCa, 6 February 2026