1장
The Rise and Fall of Great Powers: When Leadership Makes All the Difference
In a world where international relations often seem determined by economic might or military strength, Yan Xuetong offers a refreshingly different perspective: political leadership is the decisive factor in the rise and fall of great powers. This provocative thesis forms the backbone of "Leadership and the Rise of Great Powers," a book that has become required reading in diplomatic circles from Beijing to Washington. When Barack Obama was asked about China's growing influence during his presidency, he reportedly kept a copy of Yan's earlier work on his desk as reference. The book's influence extends beyond politics-tech mogul Jack Ma has cited its insights on leadership as instrumental to Alibaba's global strategy.
What makes Yan's work particularly significant is how it bridges ancient Chinese political philosophy with modern international relations theory, creating a framework that explains not just why powers like Rome or Britain declined, but why certain rising states successfully replaced them while others failed. In an era where China's ascent and America's relative decline dominate geopolitical discourse, Yan's moral realist approach offers both explanatory power and predictive insight that conventional Western IR theories often lack.
2장
Moral Realism: Where Ethics Meets Power Politics
Contrary to popular misconceptions, classical realism has never completely divorced morality from international politics. Yan Xuetong demonstrates that even Hans Morgenthau, often cited as the father of amoral power politics, acknowledged morality's significant role in shaping state behavior. The difference lies in how realists distinguish between universal moral principles and the moral aspirations of particular nations.
Moral realism, as Yan defines it, focuses specifically on governmental morality-actions taken by state leaders according to universally accepted codes of conduct. This approach reflects Weber's "ethic of responsibility," where leaders are accountable for the foreseeable consequences of their decisions. Research shows that despite cultural differences, humans share five universal moral foundations: care/harm, fairness/cheating, loyalty/betrayal, authority/subversion, and sanctity/degradation. These foundations underpin international moral codes like the Geneva Conventions.
"A state's morality must be judged by its actions, not the motivations of its policymakers," Yan argues. This perspective allows us to evaluate leadership effectiveness without becoming entangled in debates about personal virtue or cultural relativism.
The distinction between power (influence), capability (strength), and authority (trust-based leadership) forms another cornerstone of moral realism. While capability includes material and non-material resources across political, military, economic, and cultural domains, political capability functions as a multiplicative factor affecting all other resources. This explains why states with similar material capabilities often achieve dramatically different outcomes.
Strategic credibility-gained through moral actions like honoring commitments-forms a crucial component of international authority. The United States maintained superpower status after the Cold War but suffered declining authority following the 2003 Iraq War, the 2008 financial crisis, and its abandonment of allies like Egypt's Mubarak. As Yan notes, "Authority can naturally increase power, but power cannot automatically improve authority."
Palestine illustrates how moral actions can increase power without enhancing capability-its protests against Israeli settlements earned international sympathy and political support through numerous UN resolutions but failed to provide the capability needed to protect its sovereignty. Conversely, Japan demonstrates how immoral actions like Prime Minister Abe's visits to the Yasukuni Shrine damaged Japan's power without reducing its capability.
What does this mean for rising powers? Leading by example rather than force is crucial for establishing lasting authority. Both Chinese traditional culture and early American thinkers like John Quincy Adams recognized this principle, though it has been overshadowed in recent decades by more coercive approaches to international leadership.
3장
The Four Faces of Leadership: How Leaders Shape National Destiny
Political leadership manifests not through individual authority but through complex collective decision-making mechanisms that guide state policy. Even in seemingly autocratic systems, policy decisions emerge from intricate interactions between the primary leader, their inner circle, advisors, and institutional stakeholders. Yan's framework dissects leadership types along two crucial dimensions: their stance toward the existing international order (maintain or change) and their approach to responsibility (responsible or irresponsible), yielding four distinct leadership paradigms.
Inactive leadership, rooted in Daoist philosophy, deliberately maintains a low strategic profile to avoid the "rising state's dilemma" - the challenge of growing stronger without triggering opposition from established powers. Leaders following this approach, like Malaysia's Mahathir Mohamad during the 1990s, prioritize internal development while carefully avoiding international confrontation. While this reduces immediate risks, it can result in missed opportunities for strategic advancement.
Conservative leadership embraces economic determinism, fundamentally believing that commercial interdependence can mitigate political conflicts. This approach characterized Obama's "pivot to Asia" strategy and China's "peaceful rise" doctrine under Hu Jintao. Conservative leaders prioritize trade relationships and economic integration, as seen in Germany's approach under Angela Merkel, focusing on commercial ties even with geopolitical competitors.
Proactive leadership embodies political determinism, actively seeking to reshape the international environment through strategic alliances and calculated risk-taking. Clinton's expansion of NATO and engagement with former Soviet states exemplifies this approach. Similarly, South Korea's Kim Dae-jung's "Sunshine Policy" toward North Korea demonstrated proactive engagement despite significant risks.
Aggressive leadership, influenced by social Darwinist thinking, pursues dominance through military and economic coercion. Bush Jr.'s "preemptive war" doctrine and Trump's "America First" policy exemplified this approach. Russia under Putin, particularly regarding Ukraine, demonstrates how aggressive leadership can lead to strategic overreach and international isolation.
Leadership transitions occur through two primary mechanisms: regime change, bringing new leadership with different strategic orientations, or self-transformation, where existing leaders modify their approach. Nixon's dramatic shift from Cold War warrior to architect of Chinese engagement illustrates positive transformation. Conversely, leaders like Zimbabwe's Mugabe showed how extended power can lead to increasingly aggressive policies through "hubris syndrome."
The impact of leadership types on international relations is profound. Inactive leadership, as seen in post-war Japan, can build economic strength while avoiding geopolitical confrontation. Conservative leadership, exemplified by modern Germany, excels at economic integration but may struggle with security challenges. Proactive leadership, like South Korea under Kim Dae-jung, can reshape regional dynamics through strategic engagement. Aggressive leadership, as demonstrated by Russia's recent actions, often provokes international resistance that undermines long-term objectives.
China's strategic evolution particularly illustrates these dynamics: Deng Xiaoping's inactive leadership emphasized "hiding capabilities and biding time," focusing on economic development while avoiding international confrontation. Xi Jinping's shift toward more proactive leadership, evidenced by the Belt and Road Initiative and assertive regional policies, represents a fundamental strategic transformation that may determine China's future role in the international order.
4장
The Moral Foundations of International Leadership
International leadership differs fundamentally from state leadership, operating in a complex environment where authority cannot be imposed through direct control. While governments can implement plans through directives domestically, they must navigate a web of sovereign relationships internationally. International leadership rests on both material capability and strategic credibility rather than just political power, requiring sophisticated diplomatic skills and consistent behavior over time.
Yan identifies four types of international leadership based on strategic credibility (trustworthy/untrustworthy) and action principles (consistent/double standard), each with distinct characteristics and outcomes:
Humane authority combines trustworthiness with consistent policies following international norms. This rare form of leadership generates the most stable international support through mutual respect and reciprocal benefits. Historical examples include the Tang Dynasty's early period and aspects of British leadership during the 19th century Pax Britannica. These systems succeeded by creating predictable rules and shared prosperity rather than dominance.
Hegemony combines trustworthiness with double standards, applying different principles to allies versus adversaries. American leadership has often fallen into this category, maintaining reliability toward NATO allies while pursuing different policies toward non-allied nations. The Marshall Plan exemplifies this approach - generous support for Western Europe while excluding Eastern Bloc countries. This creates stable but limited coalitions.
Anemocracy combines untrustworthiness with double standards, making such states unpredictable with zero credibility among allies. King You of the Zhou Dynasty exemplifies this, tricking allies with false alarms until they abandoned him during a real invasion. Modern examples include regimes that frequently shift alliances and break agreements, undermining their own diplomatic position through unreliability.
Tyranny is untrustworthy but consistent, following realpolitik principles that undermine moral codes. The Qin Dynasty's brief fourteen-year reign demonstrates how material capability alone cannot maintain order. Similarly, aggressive powers that consistently violate international norms may achieve short-term gains but provoke unified opposition.
"Unlike hegemony which uses deterrence-'the stick'-humane authority employs benevolence-'the carrot'-to gain followers through gratitude rather than fear," Yan explains. This distinction matters tremendously for international stability. Hegemonic leadership can maintain order temporarily but generates resentment that eventually undermines the system, as seen in the gradual erosion of American influence. Tyrannical leadership provokes resistance and counterbalancing, often leading to conflict. Only humane authority creates sustainable international support through shared benefits and consistent principles.
The implications for China's rise are profound and complex. While China's current government pursues different values domestically versus internationally, making humane authority difficult to achieve, Chinese millennials' international outlook may eventually enable China to adopt more consistent principles. If this occurs, China could potentially create more stable international support than the United States has maintained through hegemonic leadership. This would require significant reforms in areas like transparency, rule of law, and institutional credibility.
Imagine the difference: a world order maintained through mutual benefit rather than military deterrence; international cooperation driven by shared interests rather than coercion. This vision of humane authority leadership offers a compelling alternative to traditional power politics-if rising powers can embrace it. The success of such a system would depend on consistent adherence to international norms, transparent decision-making, and genuine commitment to mutual prosperity rather than zero-sum competition.
5장
How Leadership Shapes the International System
The international system operates through three fundamental components that interact in complex ways: actors (primarily nation-states and empires, but also including international organizations and non-state entities), configuration (the distribution of power, whether unipolar, bipolar, or multipolar), and norms (established rules and behaviors like sovereignty, territorial integrity, and principles of international conduct). System transformation occurs when significant changes manifest in at least two of these components simultaneously, creating a new international order.
Yan's theoretical framework outlines a four-step process through which leadership drives system transformation. First, leadership changes in rising or dominant states directly impact their national capabilities, potentially altering the international power configuration. This can occur through both positive developments (effective reforms, successful alliance-building) and negative ones (poor decision-making, internal instability). Second, these configuration changes create opportunities or necessities for new types of international leadership to emerge. Third, emerging leaders establish different international norms that reflect their particular values, worldview, and strategic interests. Finally, the simultaneous transformation of both power configuration and normative frameworks produces fundamental system change.
Historical examples provide compelling evidence for this process. The transformation from Western Zhou to the Spring and Autumn period demonstrates how leadership failure can trigger systemic change. When King You's death in 770 BCE created a power vacuum, the previously stable unipolar system under Zhou hegemony fragmented into a multipolar competition. Larger vassals abandoned their traditional roles as system maintainers and instead pursued individual hegemonic ambitions. This shift was accompanied by a fundamental change in normative behavior, from the established "coward-bully" system (where strong states protected weak ones) to a "double standard" system (where might increasingly made right).
The post-World War II transformation offers a modern parallel. The conflict's resolution dramatically altered the power configuration from European-centered multipolarity to US-Soviet bipolarity. Simultaneously, international norms shifted from naked realpolitik to a more complex double-standard system, where superpowers applied different rules to themselves versus others. This created the Yalta system, characterized by spheres of influence and ideological competition, which has persisted in modified form even after the Cold War's end.
Leadership quality proves particularly crucial in these transformations. The degradation of leadership in dominant states often has more immediate systemic effects than the emergence of new powers, as institutional decay and strategic mistakes can rapidly erode national capabilities. The Soviet Union's collapse in 1991 exemplifies how leadership failures can accelerate decline despite substantial material resources. Similarly, America's fluctuating global influence under different administrations, particularly visible during Trump's presidency, demonstrates how leadership decisions can impact international standing independent of underlying economic and military capabilities.
This theoretical framework provides valuable insights into why power transitions follow different paths. When leadership changes produce gradual, managed shifts in capabilities and norms, system transformation can occur relatively peacefully, as with Britain's accommodation of rising American power in the early 20th century. However, when leadership failures create sudden power vacuums or dramatic normative disruptions, as in pre-WWI Europe, the risk of systemic conflict increases substantially. Understanding these dynamics helps identify potential flashpoints and opportunities for peaceful transition in the contemporary international system.
6장
The Four Types of International Norms
International norms-behavioral principles regarding rights and obligations accepted by most states-emerge from different leadership types. Yan identifies four categories:
Realpolitik norms stem from tyrannical leadership, emphasizing power politics and coercive measures to achieve interests. The State of Qin's brutal policies caused other states to adopt similar approaches during China's Warring States period.
Coward-bully norms emerge from anemocratic leadership, promoting conspiracy and deception as normal behavior. States browbeat the weak but fear the strong, creating unstable and unpredictable interactions.
Double-standard norms-the most common throughout history-emerge when hegemonic states apply realpolitik principles with enemies and moral principles with allies. The United States has often followed this approach, treating NATO allies according to moral principles while dealing with adversaries through realpolitik.
Moral norms guide states toward achieving interests through legal means applicable to specific historical periods. These norms emerge from humane authority leadership, which rewards moral behavior and punishes violations.
Leading states shape these norms through three key mechanisms: example-imitation (where other states copy the leading state's behavior), support-reinforcement (where the leading state rewards compliant behavior), and punishment-maintenance (where the leading state penalizes violations).
Among these mechanisms, example-imitation plays the fundamental role because no dominant state can establish norms it doesn't practice. As Yan notes, "Leading by example more effectively shapes international norms than other approaches."
The evolution of international norms is nonlinear, with each change depending on differences between rising and previous dominant states. History shows random changes in leadership and norm types, suggesting that while liberalist norms have persisted for decades, they will inevitably change-either progressively or retrogressively-in the future.
This framework explains puzzling aspects of international behavior. Why did the nuclear nonproliferation regime weaken after the Bush administration withdrew from the ABM Treaty? Because this action reduced America's strategic credibility, undermining the norm against nuclear proliferation and enabling North Korea and Iran to pursue nuclear ambitions. Why did annexation become legitimate during China's Warring States period? Because tyrannical leadership by the State of Qin normalized this behavior through example-imitation.
7장
The Decline of Liberalism and the Vacuum of Values
No modern ideology has maintained international mainstream status for more than three decades. Nationalism, fascism, communism, and liberalism have all risen and fallen as dominant ideologies. Liberalism gained prominence after World War II with American hegemony but now faces challenges from anti-establishment movements like Trumpism and populism.
In Western countries, liberalism's decline stems from inadequate responses to the 2008 financial crisis, while in non-Western countries, it's undermined by slowing Western economic growth and Western foreign policy double standards. Younger generations increasingly question democracy's value, with surveys showing millennials more open to non-democratic governance.
China has four competing ideologies influencing its foreign policy: Marxism (the official ideology with limited foreign policy influence), economic pragmatism (emphasizing economic prosperity), liberalism (popular among intellectuals but with diminishing influence), and traditionalism (drawing from ancient Chinese thought that emphasizes political leadership, strategic credibility, benevolence, and righteousness).
Though not the official ideology, traditionalism increasingly guides China's foreign policy, with Chinese leaders frequently citing traditional values like closeness, credibility, beneficence, and inclusiveness in diplomatic statements.
The decline of liberalism alongside ideological competition within China could lead to a world without mainstream values. The most probable scenario is regional ideological competition rather than global dominance by any single ideology: Shias versus Sunnis in Muslim countries, liberalism versus populism in Western nations, socialism versus capitalism in Latin America, and various other ideological battles across different regions.
One-man decision making has become prevalent in major states, undermining strategic credibility in several ways. Unlike collective decision making which conducts feasibility studies before decisions, one-man mechanisms make decisions first through personal consultations with few confidants, then task institutions with implementation. This approach produces inconsistent policies that reduce other states' confidence, as seen with Trump's flip-flopping on diplomatic agreements and China's rapid shifts on trade positions.
When leading states conduct irregular and untrustworthy foreign policy, lesser states imitate this behavior, preferring secret diplomacy over openness, conspiracy over dialogue, and bilateralism over multilateralism. This untrustworthiness diminishes smaller states' willingness to participate in global governance.
8장
Beyond Liberalism: A New Synthesis of East and West
Despite the retrogressive trend in international values, the impermanence of international leadership types creates the possibility for progressive leadership to emerge. The current China-US bipolarization suggests both China's growing capability and the potential for establishing an ideology more advanced than liberalism by combining the finest traditions of both countries' political thought. This dynamic presents a unique historical opportunity to bridge Eastern and Western philosophical approaches to governance and social organization.
Yan proposes combining liberalism's values of equality, democracy, and freedom with Chinese traditional values of benevolence, righteousness, and li (rites) to create universally acceptable values in the forms of fairness, justice, and civility. This synthesis acknowledges that neither system alone provides a complete framework for addressing contemporary global challenges, from climate change to economic inequality.
While liberalism values equality as a natural law, focusing on equality without considering inherent human differences can lead to conflict rather than cooperation. For instance, applying identical environmental standards to developed and developing nations often creates resentment and resistance. Benevolence, the core idea of Confucianism, calls on leaders to empathize with their people and can help manage relations between the strong and weak, reducing social conflicts. This principle manifests in practices like progressive taxation and international development aid. By merging equality with benevolence, we can promote fairness globally, applying "common but differentiated responsibilities" as seen in climate agreements, trade partnerships, and development programs.
Democracy represents liberalism's major contribution to political life, with governmental legitimacy derived from popular support. While representative democracy through majority consent legitimizes governmental decisions, it cannot guarantee those decisions are just, as evidenced by historical cases where democratic majorities have supported discriminatory policies. Righteousness, an ancient Chinese moral code, emphasizes just outcomes rather than procedural legitimacy. It considers the broader impact of decisions on all stakeholders, including future generations. By fusing democracy with righteousness, we can ensure resolutions are both legitimate in form and just in result, creating a more comprehensive approach to governance that balances popular will with moral imperatives.
Freedom, a core value of liberalism rooted in human instinct, must be balanced with social order. While laws deter illegal actions through punishment, rites preemptively restrain uncivilized behavior through moral formats. Traditional Chinese concepts of li encompass everything from personal etiquette to diplomatic protocol, creating frameworks for harmonious interaction. The embrace of freedom alongside rites improves civility and reduces violent conflicts by establishing clear expectations for behavior while preserving individual autonomy.
In the 21st century, innovation-driven wealth accumulation reduces the need to control natural resources, making it possible for competing powers like China and the US to establish norms of civility that regulate their competition peacefully. This technological transformation, exemplified by the digital economy and renewable energy development, potentially allows for a new type of great power relationship that avoids the wars that historically accompanied power shifts. The synthesis of Eastern and Western values could provide the philosophical foundation for this new paradigm, enabling cooperative competition rather than destructive confrontation.
9장
The Coming Bipolar World: Predictions and Possibilities
Based on his theory, Yan predicts China's rise will transform the American-dominated unipolar configuration into a bipolar one between China and the United States within the next decade. China's government demonstrates stronger reform capability than recent American administrations, potentially further reducing its capability gap with the US. The huge capability disparity between these two powers and all other major states ensures this bipolar structure.
This bipolarization will shift the world center from Europe to East Asia, as both superpowers have critical strategic interests in this region. China requires regional dominance for national rejuvenation, while the US must maintain influence there to preserve world leadership.
Unlike during the Cold War, lesser states will choose sides between China and the US based on specific issues rather than comprehensive alignment, with many adopting "two-track strategies"-siding with China economically and the US on security matters. Neither superpower will provide global leadership: China adheres to nonalignment principles while the US shows reluctance to fully protect its allies.
Nuclear deterrence will effectively prevent direct war between China and the United States, just as it did between the US and Soviet Union during the Cold War. Even proxy wars are unlikely, as China prioritizes economic influence through initiatives like AIIB and Belt and Road rather than military confrontation-a stark contrast to US-Soviet rivalry.
However, peace between the superpowers won't guarantee global stability. Regional powers like Russia, India, Turkey, and others will likely pursue military solutions to local disputes when superpowers remain uninvolved, potentially intensifying conflicts across the Middle East, Eurasia, South Asia, and Africa.
Without mainstream values or consistent leadership, progress on global governance issues like climate change and counterterrorism will stagnate. Most states will prioritize national sovereignty over international collaboration, undermining collective efforts on pressing global challenges.
Despite these challenges, Yan argues that humane authority leadership offers the best chance for improving international relations. The question remains: can either China or the United States evolve toward this leadership model, or will we see continued deterioration in international norms and cooperation? The answer may determine not just which power dominates the 21st century, but whether that dominance creates a more stable and just world order.
