The Chinese scholar emphasizes the rise of the Middle powers, the IR theory changes

Astana – When great powers withdraw from global leadership roles, the middle powers have to advance to subregional integration, said Professor Yan Xuetong, a renowned Chinese political scientist and one of the most influential thinkers in the world in the field of international relationships, during a lecture in Astana on April 28.

Yan, a respected professor and honorary dean at the Institute for International Relations from Tsinghua University, is generally recognized as the founder of morality realism, a theory that focuses on management values ​​and strategic preferences at the center of international politics. He is the author of several pioneering work on global leadership and foreign policy and is editor -in -chief of the Chinese Journal of International Politics. In 2008, the foreign policy magazine appointed him the world's leading global thinkers.

The event was organized by the Kazakhstan Council on International Relations and the Qalam Multimedia Project and was part of a lecture series that previously included scholars such as Barry Buzan and Parag Khanna.

Yan emphasized that global shifts will have so -called midpowers such as Kazakhstan more space to contribute to regional integration. “If there is no leading leader, regional powers must occur to create regional markets and framework conditions for cooperation,” he said.

He referred to the relationships between China and Kazakhstan as the most comprehensive under China's connections in Central Asia.

“China's collaboration with other Central Asian countries is mainly limited to border and economic problems. However, working with Kazakhstan is wider. If China wants to deepen regional integration into Central Asia, it has to rely on Kazakhstan,” said Yan.

Constructivism, liberalism and realism: theoretical gaps

Yan's lecture focused on his theory of moral realism, a framework that provides leadership and decisions at the core of foreign policy. To illustrate this, he dealt with the limits of the mainstream -international relationships (IR) theories such as constructivism, liberalism and classic realism in explaining the latest global developments.

For the first time, he emphasized constructivism, a theory that emphasizes the power of norms and ideas in the design of state behavior. After the Cold War, many constructivists expected a constant development from hostility to cooperation, which ultimately led to global harmony. They accepted, the story followed a trajectory moving forward.

“They believe that the world is progressing universally. They do not expect a turnaround,” said Yan and found that recent developments such as the cultivation of nationalism and the withdrawal from the globalization of this view contradicted.

“Constructivism cannot explain why the norm of globalization can no longer maintain the trend of history,” he said.

Yan turned to liberalism, which is often referred to as institutionalism, and explained that this theory focuses on the role of national and international institutions as a review of political power. Liberals argue that democratic institutions should restrict the harmful political decision and that international institutions should reduce the costs and promote cooperation.

Finally, Yan dealt with realism, who claims that the state behavior of material power and national interest is driven. However, he pointed out that the US power and the interests between the administrations of Trump and Biden remained relatively constant.

“If power and interest have not changed, why have US political decision -makers changed their politics? Is American foreign policy of power and interest or through something else?” Possidated Yan.

Leadership and the logic of moral realism

To explain these gaps, Yan introduced a moral realism theory that brings national leaders and their values ​​into foreign policy.

“My theory argues that the change is due to a different kind of leadership. This means that managers and political decision -makers have the authority to establish institutions to leave the institution, to undermine the institution or to redesign the institution,” said Yan.

“Whatever the institution does depends on the leadership. If the management of the institution allows to work, it works,” he added.

Yan emphasized that even if nations pursue similar strategic goals such as economic growth or national strength, the approaches that are pursued by managers can vary depending on the moral framework of the managers. He called this phenomenon “strategic preference”.

“Assuming we all need money. Everyone wants to get rich, but I am 100% sure that none of us will pursue exactly the same approach for money earners. People like me earn money by teaching courses and political decision -makers, others earn money by making decisions,” said Yan.

The goal is the same, but the method reflects personal values. According to Yan, this logic also applies to foreign policy.

When personal priorities override national interests

According to Yan, the core of moral realism is convinced that foreign policy is not only characterized by power structures, but also by the moral character of the leaders and their prioritization of personal and national interests. He contrast between moral leaders who reconcile personal goals with national interests, and immoral ones who prioritize the survival of the regime or personal profit.

He added that most of the traditional theories of international relationships assume that managers will always act in the best interest of their nation. According to Yan, however, this is only an assumption. He pointed to regime that isolating itself from global engagement despite clear economic advantages.

“The political decision -makers know that the country will benefit a lot from joining the international community,” he said, explaining why they refuse. “This means that there is a conflict between regime security and national security. National security means the safety of people and the security of the regime means security for political decision -makers. You can still see this type of situation today.”

The era of counter-globalization

Yan emphasized that counter-globalization was driven by political leadership rather than structural or institutional forces.

“The world is changing because managers in great powers have taken over the policy of de-globalization,” he said.

He described globalization as the occurrence of a uniform world market after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. Before that, the markets were divided, whereby Eastern Europe was missing due to the lack of market economies, with China being closed, was largely self -contained and the United States was mainly bilaterally than multilateral trade.

According to Yan, global integration accelerated with the creation of common regulations as part of the World Trade Organization (WTO), although there was resistance. Small businesses and local providers had problems competing with international companies.

“During the Cold War, the main lead for a very long time was the liberal leadership. It supported globalization,” said Yan, raising that the governments opened their markets, invited foreign investments and supported international cooperation.

In the 2010s, however, some governments began to withdraw support. Yan quoted the exit of the United Kingdom from the European Union and the US China trading status under the first Trump government as important turning points. He defined D-globalization as “governments that used their authority to reduce international cooperation”.