Oct 8, 2026
Modern architectural design of the National Library in Doha, Qatar. by David Attricki via Pexels
.
Qatar Underscores Collective Action, Solidarity and Partnership as Key to Advancing Sustainable Development
.
.
.
New York | October 07, 2026
.
The State of Qatar has reaffirmed that sustainable development is not merely a national responsibility, but a shared global endeavor requiring strengthened international cooperation grounded in solidarity and partnership. Qatar underscored its readiness to continue working with all Member States and the United Nations system to strengthen collective action and foster more resilient economies and societies.
Addressing the general debate of the Second Committee of the 81st session of the UN General Assembly, Third Secretary at Qatar’s Permanent Mission to the United Nations Mohamed Hassan Al Emadi said the session is taking place amid an increasingly challenging global development landscape, with developing countries confronting a complex and interconnected set of pressures, including shrinking fiscal space, widening financing and investment gaps, mounting debt burdens, the escalating impacts of climate change, disruptions to trade and supply chains, and the far-reaching consequences of conflicts and geopolitical crises.
He said Qatar continues to implement Qatar National Vision 2030, which provides a comprehensive framework for sustainable national development built around four interconnected pillars: human, social, economic and environmental development. He stressed that Qatar’s national experience demonstrates that investing in people is fundamental to advancing inclusive, comprehensive and sustainable development.
Al Emadi said artificial intelligence represents a far-reaching technological and economic transformation with considerable potential to accelerate development, while cautioning that it could also exacerbate existing inequalities if developing countries lack the infrastructure, capabilities and resources necessary to harness its benefits.
Against this backdrop, he said Qatar attaches particular importance to strengthening international cooperation on digital capacity building, expanding access to digital infrastructure, and promoting the safe, inclusive and equitable use of artificial intelligence.
He reaffirmed Qatar’s firm commitment to international cooperation and the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals, noting that the country translates these commitments into concrete partnerships and practical contributions through projects undertaken by the Qatar Fund for Development in cooperation with UN agencies, international financial institutions, governments and humanitarian organizations.
He said these efforts reflect Qatar’s commitment to advancing effective multilateral cooperation through financing, innovation, knowledge-sharing, capacity building and long-term partnerships.
Al Emadi said Qatar attaches particular importance to the least developed countries (LDCs), reaffirming its commitment to implementing the Doha Programme of Action for the Least Developed Countries for 2022-2031 and strengthening international partnerships to support these countries in addressing structural challenges and accelerating sustainable development.
In this context, he highlighted Qatar’s readiness to host the Comprehensive High-Level Midterm Review of the Implementation of the Doha Programme of Action from March 25-27, 2027, in Doha, pursuant to UN General Assembly Resolution 80/150.
He said Qatar looks forward to the review serving as a key milestone in assessing progress, identifying gaps and challenges, and strengthening international partnerships to ensure the full and effective implementation of the Doha Programme of Action throughout the remainder of the decade.
Turning to UN reform, Al Emadi said Qatar views the UN80 Initiative as an opportunity to strengthen the United Nations’ capacity to fulfill its mandates with greater efficiency and effectiveness and to better serve its Member States.
He stressed that the reform process should be grounded in intergovernmental ownership and should contribute to reducing duplication, strengthening coherence across the UN development system, and enhancing the Organization’s efficiency and effectiveness in responding to global challenges.
Al Emadi said Qatar looks forward to the draft resolutions to be considered by the Second Committee during the session reflecting a spirit of consensus and partnership, with a focus on tangible outcomes, in line with the objectives of UN reform, the outcomes of the Fourth International Conference on Financing for Development, and the 2030 Agenda and its Sustainable Development Goals.
.
.
Oct 3, 2026
Silhouette of a graduate adjusting their cap in a dramatic, dark setting. by Ben Khatry via Pexels
.
An opportunity to rethink innovation from the Global South
.
.
Innovation has become a defining marker of national progress and competitiveness. From digital technologies and healthcare to renewable energy and education, societies are increasingly shaped by their capacity to generate and apply new ideas. Yet, the global innovation landscape remains highly concentrated.
The United States and China dominate research and development investment, patent activity and advanced technology development, while Europe, Japan and South Korea form complementary hubs.
This geographic clustering raises familiar but urgent questions: What role can developing countries play in a world where innovation is structurally uneven? Can universities in the Global South become more than consumers of external models? And are there emerging conditions that may allow new voices, perspectives and priorities to shape global innovation narratives?
Universities in the innovation pipeline
In leading economies, innovation is rarely a standalone activity. It emerges from dense ecosystems in which universities play a central role – producing talent, generating research, and partnering with industry, government and venture capital. Universities like Stanford, MIT, Oxford or Tsinghua operate as nodes within systems that are well-funded, commercially agile and globally connected.
By contrast, universities in many parts of the developing world often contend with limited resources, inadequate infrastructure and competing mandates. Their place in national innovation systems is less assured, and expectations often exceed what is realistically supported. Nevertheless, this does not mean innovation is absent, only that it may take different forms, respond to different priorities and draw from different knowledge traditions.
Across Africa, Asia and Latin America, universities are increasingly seeking to redefine their role. In some cases, they are aligning more closely with local development challenges, such as climate resilience, health equity or food security, where innovation is not necessarily about high-tech disruption but about appropriate, sustainable and community-driven solutions.
Curriculum reform as a catalyst
Reimagining innovation also involves rethinking what and how universities teach. In many developing countries, curricula still reflect colonial legacies or imported templates that may not fully prepare students to solve local problems or participate meaningfully in the innovation economy.
Curriculum reform, when pursued strategically, can be a catalyst. Not only by integrating frontier areas like AI, green technologies or digital health but also by promoting interdisciplinary thinking, project-based learning and closer engagement with real-world contexts.
The goal is not to replicate Silicon Valley models but to nurture a new generation of problem-solvers who are grounded in their contexts while being globally aware.
Transnational education: Risk or opportunity?
One route through which universities in the Global South are seeking to broaden their horizons is transnational education (TNE). Often criticised for reinforcing asymmetrical dependencies where content flows from ‘provider’ to ‘recipient’, TNE can also evolve into a more collaborative and capacity-building mechanism.
Where partnerships are equitable and strategically aligned, TNE can enable co-developed programmes, shared research agendas and mobility pathways that enrich both sides. It can support the transfer of pedagogical models that promote innovation and help build academic ecosystems that are regionally relevant but internationally credible.
In Mauritius, Rwanda, Malaysia and the UAE, for example, efforts are underway to use TNE not merely to import global brands but to create regional education hubs that contribute to national innovation systems. Such models are still evolving, but they point to a shift: from dependency to interdependence and from consumption to co-creation.
A changing mobility landscape
Recent changes in global student mobility further complicate and perhaps enhance these dynamics. The tightening of visa rules and post-study work opportunities in traditional education destinations like the United Kingdom, the United States and Australia is prompting students, especially from Africa and South Asia, to explore alternative destinations.
This shift presents both a challenge and an opening. While it may disrupt long-established pipelines to Western institutions, it also creates space for new education hubs to emerge. Universities in the Global South that can offer quality, relevance and international connectivity may find themselves well-positioned to attract not only local students but also international ones.
This realignment may, in turn, accelerate investment in higher education infrastructure, the development of innovation-focused curricula and the strengthening of domestic research capacity. Some governments and university networks are already responding, not just to retain talent but to reposition themselves in a more multipolar higher education landscape.
Innovation on different terms
These developments raise deeper questions. What kinds of innovation are most urgently needed in the Global South? How do we value socially embedded forms of knowledge and problem-solving? Can South-South collaboration challenge the dominant paradigms of innovation defined largely by the North?
Universities are uniquely placed to mediate these tensions. But doing so may require more than isolated reforms. It calls for a shift in mindset, from emulation to experimentation, from benchmarking against external models to building on internal strengths.
There is, of course, no single path. Some institutions will pursue global rankings and research excellence strategies; others may prioritise community partnerships and applied problem-solving. What matters is that the space for innovation remains open to different logics, different origins and different futures.
A moment of possibility
Innovation is not owned by any one geography. While power and resources remain unevenly distributed, the conditions under which innovation can emerge are changing. Transnational education, shifting mobility patterns, curriculum reform and evolving institutional identities are converging in ways that invite new thinking.
For universities in the Global South, this moment offers both complexity and possibility. The challenge is not only to respond to global trends but also to help reshape them from within. What remains to be seen is how these institutions will seize the opportunity, not to replicate existing models of innovation but to imagine and nurture new ones, rooted in their own realities, yet connected to the world.
Dhanjay Jhurry is the managing director of the Uniciti International Education Hub in Mauritius. A former vice-chancellor of the University of Mauritius, he has been active in shaping regional higher education ecosystems through international partnerships, research-led innovation and transnational education initiatives.
.
.
An undated photo of the Beijing Citizen Service Hotline Center, which operates around the clock. /Xinhua (Courtesy of the interviewee)
.
Editor’s note: Yan Yu, a special commentator for CGTN, is a lecturer at the School of Government at Beijing Normal University. The article reflects the author’s opinions and not necessarily the views of CGTN.
.
As cities around the world embrace artificial intelligence, big data and digital platforms, the idea of the “smart city” is often associated with sensors, algorithms and connected infrastructure. Yet a more fundamental question deserves equal attention: How can a city actually hear its people and turn their everyday concerns into effective government action?
This question will be especially relevant when this year’s Beijing Forum on Swift Response to Public Complaints convenes in Beijing on October 12 and 13 under the theme “Digital Intelligence Era and People’s City.” Beijing’s experience suggests that the future of smart urban governance depends as much on institutions and collaboration as on technology.
Beijing’s 12345 citizen service hotline represents an important experiment in making government more accessible and responsive. It allows residents to report problems, seek public services and communicate directly with the municipal government. The city has expanded these services through websites, mobile applications and other digital channels.
But digital access alone cannot make a city responsive. Our comparative research on Beijing and New York City helps explain the institutional arrangements behind this responsiveness. The two cities have developed different forms of internal government collaboration.
New York follows a horizontal mode of collaboration, with technology-oriented leadership, a relatively fragmented institutional framework and contractual cooperation among city agencies. NYC311 has been especially strong in technological development and accessibility. Its customer relationship management systems, mobile applications, open interfaces and data tools allow residents to submit and track requests through multiple channels. Cooperation with municipal agencies is organized largely through Service Level Agreements, which establish response standards and expected time frames. Regular communication among agencies further supports coordination.
Beijing has built what we describe as a vertical mode of collaboration, characterized by administration-oriented leadership, a comprehensive institutional framework and cross-level cooperation. Its approach illustrates an important feature of urban governance: Citizen demands are connected directly to the administrative system and can mobilize coordination across organizational levels. Since the launch of the Swift Response to Public Complaints reform in 2019, Beijing has treated the 12345 hotline as more than a communication channel. Requests received through the hotline are assigned to responsible agencies and local governments, while performance in responding to residents is incorporated into government evaluation.
The Regulations of Beijing Municipality on Swift Response to Public Complaints promulgated and implemented in 2021 further institutionalized the process, covering the reception, classification, assignment, handling and feedback of citizen requests, together with evaluation and accountability arrangements.
International guests visit the Beijing Citizen Hotline Service Center to learn about the city’s “Swift Response to Public Complaints” reform, Beijing, China, June 26, 2026. /VCG
This institutionalization matters because many urban problems do not fit neatly within the boundaries of a single agency. A complaint about a neighborhood environment, a public facility or a local service may involve several departments and different levels of government. Beijing’s cross-level coordination mechanism enables grassroots governments to request assistance from higher-level authorities when a problem exceeds their own jurisdiction or capacity. Relevant agencies are then required to participate in resolving the issue. The result is an organizational mechanism that connects local knowledge with resources and authority located at different levels of governments.
Beijing offers a broader lesson for urban governance in the digital age. Technology can help governments sense social needs, process information and connect citizens with public agencies. But the ability to transform information into action depends on how authority, responsibility and resources are organized inside government.
This is where Beijing’s experience adds a distinctive perspective to the global discussion on smart cities. Its practice demonstrates how digital platforms can be embedded within administrative reform, legal rules, performance evaluation and cross-level coordination. Citizen input consequently becomes part of the routine operation of urban government rather than remaining simply a stream of data collected by a digital platform.
For cities searching for ways to govern increasingly complex societies, there is no single institutional model that can simply be transplanted across political and administrative contexts. The more transferable insight is the importance of aligning technology with governance. Smart technologies can expand the capacity to sense the city, while institutions determine whether and how governments respond to what they sense.
Beijing’s practice ultimately points to a broader question for the digital-intelligent era: What makes a city truly smart? The answer may lie less in the sophistication of its technologies than in whether those technologies help governments understand people’s needs and translate them into meaningful action. A people-centered city, in this sense, is one in which digital intelligence is ultimately measured by its capacity to make urban governance more responsive to citizens’ everyday lives.
.
.