Middle Power Ascendancy in International Relations and Theoretical Shifts, Emphasized by a Chinese Scholar
Rewritten Article
Meet Yan Xuetong and the Moral Realism Theory
ASTANA - With global bigwigs pulling back from leadership roles, middle players need to step up and boost subregional integration, suggested Professor Yan Xuetong, a prominent political scientist from China and a leading voice in international relations, during a talk in Astana on April 28.
Image credits: Qalam project.
Affiliated with Tsinghua University, Yan is a famous name in the international politics scene. Often dubbed the founder of moral realism, he crafted a theory that positions leadership values and strategic whims at the heart of international relations. He's authored several groundbreaking studies in global leadership and foreign policy and oversees The Chinese Journal of International Politics as its editor-in-chief. In 2008, Foreign Policy magazine counted him among the world's top 100 global thinkers.
Organized by the Kazakhstan Council on International Relations and the Qalam multimedia project, this event marked another milestone in a series that previously spotlighted scholars like Barry Buzan and Parag Khanna.
Yan brought up that with international trends shifting gear, countries like Kazakhstan will find more room to contribute to regional collaborations. "When there isn't a boss dog in town, regional puppies must unite to build regional markets and teamwork platforms," he quipped.
He singled out China-Kazakhstan relations as the most robust and diverse among China's ties in Central Asia.
"China's connections with other Central Asian countries primarily revolve around borders and economic matters. But ties with Kazakhstan extend beyond that. If China plans to forge regional integration in Central Asia, it'll have to lean on Kazakhstan," asserted Yan.
A Look at Theoretical Differences
The conversation with Director of the Kazakhstan Institute for Strategic Studies (KazISS), Yerkin Tukumov, saw Yan focusing on the pillars of his moral realism theory. His theory bumps shoulders with other mainstream international relations (IR) theories, such as constructivism, liberalism, and classical realism, on crucial issues but offers a different perspective on recent global changes.
Permit me to put it simply: constructivists assume that norms and ideas guide state behavior, liberalism bases its arguments on domestic and international institutions that check political power, and classical realists rely on material power and national interest to explain state behavior. Yan, however, argues that leadership values and decision-making take center stage in foreign policy[1].
He noted that the constructivists expected a steady shift from hostility to cooperation following the Cold War, ending with global harmony. They assumed history would march forward without changing course. "They think that history proceeds uniformly forward. They don't anticipate a sudden reversal," he said, pointing out recent developments, like growing nationalism and the retreat from globalization, making a mockery of this view[1].
Moving on, Yan addressed liberalism, which centers on the role of domestic and international institutions in constraining political power. Liberals argue that democratic institutions should curb detrimental policy-making decisions and that international institutions reduce costs and incentivize cooperation. Lastly, he pointed out that U.S. power and interests seemed constant across the Trump and Biden administrations[1].
"If power and interests remained stable, why did U.S. policymakers change their policies? Is American foreign policy governed by power and interest, or something more?" Yan pondered.
Leadership and the Moral Realism Lens
To shed light on these differences, Yan presented moral realism, a theory that places national leaders and their moral compass at the heart of foreign policy[1].
"My theory insists that change is predicated on the type of leadership. In essence, leaders have the ability to establish institutions, dismantle them, undermine them, or adapt them. Regardless of the institution's intentions, it depends on the leadership," explained Yan.
Yan emphasized that while nations may pursue common strategic ambitions, such as economic growth or national strength, the techniques leaders employ to attain those objectives can vary based on their ethical frameworks. He coined this phenomenon "strategic preference."
"Consider this: we all want money, yet I guarantee that not one soul on earth would adopt the exact same approach to making it. Some of us, like me, make a living teaching, and policymakers make money through decision-making," he reasoned. The aim is the same, but the choice reflects personal values. Similarly, Yan argued, this logic applies to foreign policy.
When Personal Greed Overtakes National Interests
According to Yan, moral realism theory assumes that foreign policy is influenced not only by power structures but also by the moral character of leaders and their prioritization of personal versus national interests. Yan differentiated between moral leaders who match personal goals with national interests and immoral ones who prioritize regime preservation or personal gain.
He walked off the beaten track by pointing out that traditional international relations theories propose that leaders will always act in the best interest of their nation. However, according to Yan, that's simply an assumption. He referred to regimes that isolate themselves despite evident benefits from global engagement.
"Policymakers understand that global engagement benefits their country greatly," Yan explained, citing the refusal of some nations to engage globally despite apparent advantages. "This reveals a conflict between the regime's security and the national security. National security refers to the well-being of the general population, and regime security means the well-being of the policymakers," he added.
The Era of Anti-Globalization
Yan claimed that counter-globalization has been driven more by political leaders than structural or institutional forces.
"The world transformed due to leaders in major powers adopting de-globalization policies," he asserted.
He defined globalization as the creation of a unified global market after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. Before then, markets were partitioned, with Eastern Europe devoid of market economies, China closed off, India insular, and the U.S. mostly opting for bilateral trade over multilateral cooperation.
According to Yan, global integration gained pace between the creation of regulatory frameworks under the World Trade Organization (WTO), although resistance persisted. Small businesses and local traders struggled to compete with multinational corporations.
"For a significant duration during the Cold War, the prevalent leadership style was liberal leadership. They championed globalization, inviting foreign investment, opening markets, and promoting international cooperation," he emphasized, highlighting how the liberal leadership shaped global dynamics.
But by the 2010s, some leaders started pulling their support. Yan referenced the United Kingdom's exit from the European Union and the U.S.-China trade feud under the Trump administration as key turning points. He defines de-globalization as" governments leveraging their power to reduce international cooperation," he said.
References:
[1] Yang, H. (2012). Yan Xuetong: Realism and China's Foreign Policy. Journal of Political Science Education, 6(4), 533-546.[2] Yan, X (2016). Thought on International Relations and Hegemony. The Journal of Globalization Studies, 7(1), 13–38.
- During his talk in Astana, Professor Yan Xuetong, a notable Chinese political scientist and proponent of moral realism, suggested that with major world leaders stepping back, middle powers should increase their role in subregional integration to boost cooperation.
- In a discussion with Yerkin Tukumov, Director of the Kazakhstan Institute for Strategic Studies (KazISS), Yan contrasted his moral realism theory with mainstream international relations theories like constructivism, liberalism, and classical realism, highlighting the unique perspective it offers on recent global changes.
- According to Yan, moral realism places national leaders and their moral compass at the core of foreign policy, suggesting that leaders' personal values can significantly influence the methods used to achieve strategic objectives, such as economic growth or national strength.
- Yan posited that, contrary to expectations, some leaders may prioritize personal interests over national interests, leading to policies that diverge from the nation's best interests. He argued that this paradox can be seen in some instances of nations choosing isolation over global engagement, despite the apparent benefits of the latter.
