Emerging Influence of Middle Powers and Potential Changes in International Relations Theories, as Analyzed by a Chinese Scholar
Rewritten Article:
Step Up, Middle Powers! Professor Yan Xuetong Pushes for Subregional Integration
ASTANA - With major powers moving away from global leadership roles, it's time for middle powers to seize the opportunity and advance subregional integration, according to Professor Yan Xuetong, a renowned Chinese political scientist and a key player in the international relations field. During a lecture in Astana on April 28, Yan urged regional powers like Kazakhstan to create regional markets and cooperation frameworks.
Yan, a prominent professor at Tsinghua University's Institute of International Relations, and an honorary dean, is recognized as the architect of moral realism, a theory that places leadership values and strategic preferences at the heart of international politics. He is the author of several groundbreaking works on global leadership and foreign policy, and serves as editor-in-chief of The Chinese Journal of International Politics. In 2008, Foreign Policy magazine named him among the world's top 100 global thinkers.
Organized by the Kazakhstan Council on International Relations and the Qalam multimedia project, the event was part of a lecture series that previously featured scholars like Barry Buzan and Parag Khanna.
Yan underscored that global power shifts would provide Middle Powers with more room to contribute to regional integration. "In the absence of a leader, regional powers must step up to create regional markets and cooperation frameworks," he stated.
He emphasized China's relationship with Kazakhstan as the most comprehensive among China's ties in Central Asia. "China's relationship with other Central Asian states is mostly limited to border and economic issues. But its relationship with Kazakhstan is more expansive. If China aims to strengthen regional integration in Central Asia, it will have to rely on Kazakhstan," Yan remarked.
Theoretical Gaps and Moral Realism
Professor Yan Xuetong and the Director of the Kazakhstan Institute for Strategic Studies (KazISS), Yerkin Tukumov, discussed the limitations of mainstream international relations (IR) theories, such as constructivism, liberalism, and classical realism, in comprehending today's global developments.
Yan first addressed constructivism, a theory emphasizing the role of norms and ideas in shaping state behavior. After the Cold War, constructivists anticipated a continuous evolution from hostility to cooperation, eventually leading to global harmony. They expected history to follow a forward-moving trajectory.
"They think the world moves universally forward. They don't foresee a U-turn," Yan noted, alluding to recent developments such as surging nationalism and the decline of globalization that contradicted this view.
"Constructivism cannot explain why the norm of globalization can no longer sustain the direction of history," he added.
Turning to liberalism, Yan explained that this theory centers on the role of domestic and international institutions in moderating political power. Liberals argue that democratic institutions should constrain detrimental policymaking, and international institutions should reduce costs and encourage cooperation.
Lastly, Yan critiqued realism, which asserts that state behavior is driven by material power and national interest. However, he pointed out that the U.S. power and interests remained relatively consistent between the Trump and Biden administrations.
"If power and interest did not change, why did U.S. policymakers change their policies? Is American foreign policy driven by power and interest or by something else?" Yan questioned.
Moral Leadership and the Logic of Moral Realism
To address these gaps, Yan introduced a moral realism theory that positions national leaders and their values at the core of foreign policy.
"My theory argues that the change is due to a different type of leadership. That means leaders, policymakers, they have the power to establish institutions, to abandon institutions, to undermine institutions, or to reshape institutions," said Yan.
"So whatever the institution does depends on the leadership. If the leadership allows the institution to work, it works," he added.
Yan stressed that even though nations may pursue similar strategic goals such as economic growth or national strength, the approaches taken by leaders can vary based on their moral frameworks. He described this phenomenon as "strategic preference."
"For example, suppose we all need money. Everyone wants to become rich; I am 100% sure that none of us will take exactly the same approach to making money. Some, like me, earn money by teaching courses, while others — policymakers — make money by making decisions," said Yan.
The aim might be the same, but the method reflects personal values. According to Yan, this logic also applies to foreign policy.
When Personal Wishes Outweigh National Interests
At the heart of moral realism lies the belief that foreign policy is shaped not merely by power structures but by the moral character of leaders and their prioritization of personal versus national interests. Yan differentiated between moral leaders, who align personal goals with national interests, and immoral ones, who prioritize regime survival or personal gain.
He argued that traditional IR theories assume leaders will always act in the best interest of their nation. However, according to Yan, that's just an assumption. He referenced regimes that isolate themselves despite clear benefits from global engagement.
"Policymakers know that if they join the international community, the country will benefit a lot," he stated, explaining why they resist doing so. "That means there's a conflict between regime security and national security. National security means the security of the people, and regime security means the security for policymakers. So even today, you can still see this kind of situation."
The Era of Counter-Globalization
Yan claimed counter-globalization has been driven by political leadership rather than structural or institutional forces.
"The world changed because political leaders in major powers adopted de-globalization policies," he stated.
He described globalization as the creation of a unified global market following the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. Before that, markets were fragmented, with Eastern Europe lacking market economies, China being closed off, India mostly self-contained, and the U.S. primarily engaged in bilateral trade rather than multilateral trade.
According to Yan, global integration accelerated with the establishment of shared regulations under the World Trade Organization (WTO), although resistance persisted. Small businesses and local vendors struggled to compete with international corporations.
"For a long time during the Cold War, the dominant leadership was liberal leadership. It supported globalization," said Yan, highlighting the fact that governments opened their markets, welcomed foreign investment, and championed international cooperation.
But by the 2010s, some governments started withdrawing that support. Yan pointed to Brexit (the United Kingdom's departure from the European Union) and the U.S.-China trade stand-off under the Trump administration as turning points in the global agenda. He defined de-globalization as "governments using their power to reduce international cooperation."
- Yan Xuetong, a prominent Chinese political scientist, advocates for middle powers, like Kazakhstan, to step up and create regional markets and cooperation frameworks, as major powers retreat from global leadership roles.
- During his lecture in Astana, Yan emphasized that China's relationship with Kazakhstan is more expansive than its ties with other Central Asian states, and that China needs Kazakhstan to strengthen regional integration in Central Asia.
- In discussing limitations of mainstream international relations theories, Yan criticized constructivism for its failure to explain why the norm of globalization can no longer sustain history's direction.
- Moral realism, as proposed by Yan, argues that foreign policy is shaped by the moral character of leaders and their prioritization of personal versus national interests, and that political leaders in major powers have driven counter-globalization trends.
