What’s in it for me? Learn how leadership can determine a nation’s fate.
If you’ve scanned a global newspaper over the last ten years, you may have noticed that China always seems to be on the cusp of challenging the United States for most powerful nation in the world.
Over the years, China has pursued effective reforms that mean it’s well placed to compete with the US for global power.
But, truth be told, that moment never seems to arrive.
Well, finally, it looks like we’re fast approaching that point.
But what has led to China’s rise and the USA’s decline?
In the following blinks, you’ll discover it’s the leadership qualities of those that govern great nations that really make the difference.
While a strong economy and a powerful military might be important, without effective leadership, a state can’t achieve global dominance.
You’ll learn what makes one leadership able to command international power and credibility, while another drives its nation into decline.
Along the way, you’ll find out how Palestine gained international respect; about the four types of international leadership; and why Franklin D.
Roosevelt was a great president.
What makes a state powerful on the international stage?
Is it an effective military and strong economy?
A state’s leadership is the most significant factor in its rise and fall.
Or is it soft power, like a country’s popular culture or its diplomatic strength?
Well, the truth is that it’s not any one of these alone – it’s the way they’re all wielded by the leadership of the state.
The key message here is: A state’s leadership is the most significant factor in its rise and fall.
When we’re considering what makes a nation powerful, we have to focus on four separate factors.
These are its political leadership, its military, its economy, and its cultural influence.
Obviously, a powerful military allows for a nation to act defensively – or offensively – in the most devastating way.
A strong economy means that a state will be able to invest in its own interests.
And a vibrant and attractive culture means that a country will wield soft power all over the world.
But it’s how these different factors are managed that matters most.
And this comes from political capability, or the leadership, of a nation.
With an effective political leadership, the other three factors increase in strength.
Conversely, if the leadership is ineffective, they will decline, and the nation will lose influence and prestige on the world stage.
As powers rise and fall, there’s one quality that makes a state’s leadership effective or not.
This is its capacity for reform.
But what kind of reform exactly?
Well, simply put, “progressive” reform that gives the state an advantage over its international rivals, rather than “retrogressive” reform.
For instance, an example of progressive reform might be signing free trade agreements with other nations that help goods and services flow frictionlessly.
An example of retrogressive reform, on the other hand, might be slashing funds to vital infrastructure projects.
Powerful, dominant states are usually less inclined to carry out progressive reforms.
This is because established powers tend to be proud of their existing political and social institutions, and see no reason for change.
A rising power, on the other hand, is more incentivized to make these reforms, as it has more to gain.
Whether it’s able to make them is another matter, however, and depends on the effectiveness of its leadership.
In our modern global system, the United States is the dominant state, while China is the fastest rising state.
Whether this remains so depends on the leaderships of both countries, but especially on the leadership of the US.
This is because it’s easier for a state to lose its dominant status than it is to gain it.
Only through moral action can a state gain international authority.
Although the world is full of diverse societies and peoples, there are a few things that we tend to agree on.
One of them is a sense of morality.
“But morality is such a subjective term,” you might say.
After all, it could be that what is ‘moral’ for one person might not be for another.
Well, not quite.
Cultural psychologists, led by Jesse Graham, propose that different cultures actually share similar moral foundations.
Whether we live in New Zealand or sub-Saharan Africa, most of us instinctively understand fairness, loyalty and care, and, conversely, cheating, betrayal and harm.
On the international stage, this understanding of what is right and wrong is no less important.
The key message here is: Only through moral action can a state gain international authority.
Take the example of Palestine.
It’s a tiny state, without much in the way of military or economic capability.
However, when faced with Israel’s occupation of its territory, Palestine is able to muster political support and sympathy from the international community.
Palestine’s resistance is viewed as a legitimate moral action, as proven by the 77 UN resolutions from 1955 to 2013 condemning Israel.
So, by being on the “right” side morally, Palestine is able to gain international credibility, if not actual capability.
By contrast, consider the US during the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
By falsely claiming that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction – and embarking on a military invasion that led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians – George W.
Bush quickly diminished the US’s international credibility.
Even though the US was a military and economic superpower, it lost support from many of its usual allies, as it became clear that the invasion was founded on deception.
This stands in contrast to the Gulf War of 1991, when George Bush Sr.
intervened to stop Saddam Hussein’s aggressive annexation of Kuwait.
Unlike the 2003 Iraq invasion, the 1991 intervention was backed by the UN Security Council, and was considered “moral” by international standards.
As a result, the US managed to assemble 34 nations as allies, which gave the country both credibility and more military power.
Here we can see how a dominant state can gain international support – by embarking on what the vast majority perceive to be moral actions.
And for a state to remain the dominant state, it must lead by example.
You can’t sustain authority through threats and bullying alone.
There are four types of international leadership: humane authority, hegemonic, anemocratic, and tyrannical.
Think of Donald Trump and Angela Merkel.
While they both have to fulfill broadly similar roles on the world stage, they do it very differently.
For one, Angela Merkel respects international laws and norms, while Donald Trump flouts them on a regular basis.
These specific leadership differences can be found all across world governments.
But how do we categorize them all?
The key message here is: There are four types of international leadership: humane authority, hegemonic, anemocratic, and tyrannical.
The first kind of leadership style is known as humane authority.
This type of leadership is seen to be trustworthy by others on the international stage.
By respecting international laws and norms – like, say, a UN resolution – a humane authority sets a good example to other states.
In modern history, US president Franklin D.
Roosevelt could be considered an example of this kind of leadership.
He demonstrated this during his presidency when the US played a leading role in liberating countries occupied by Nazi Germany.
He also helped lay the groundwork for the establishment of the United Nations.
Secondly, we come to hegemonic leadership.
This is a type of dominant leadership that’s trustworthy – but follows a double standard.
To its allies, it’s helpful and trustworthy, but to its rivals, it’s ruthless and doesn’t abide by international norms.
The leaderships of the US and the Soviet Union during the period of the Cold War could be considered hegemonic.
Then, we come to what the author calls anemocratic leadership.
This type of leadership is both untrustworthy and follows a double standard in its international behavior.
This type of leadership doesn’t follow international norms, and often acts in a contradictory and confused manner.
Because of its lack of moral foundation, it’s usually perceived as having zero credibility – even with its allies.
Some American scholars consider Donald Trump’s leadership to be a classic example of anemocracy.
Lastly, we come to tyrannical leadership.
When a leadership is untrustworthy and consistent in its untrustworthiness, it’s considered tyrannic.
This kind of leadership has no moral restraint in the pursuit of its goals, and is feared and distrusted by both ally and rival alike.
When a tyrannical state becomes the world’s dominant state, moral norms perish rather than expand.
Adolf Hitler’s fascist Germany and Japan’s militarist government during World War II are both considered tyrannies.
Out of these four leadership styles, humane authority is best placed to create a stable international order.
By embracing moral values, a humane authority will gain international credibility and be able to muster support for its ideas and reforms.
We’re moving toward a bipolar world order, where China challenges US dominance.
Since the end of the Cold War, the world has been described as unipolar by political scientists.
This means that there’s been one ‘pole’ of power.
And unsurprisingly enough, that power has been the USA.
However, things are changing.
Since the election of Donald Trump, the international order has started to fragment fast, and the US has ceded ground to a rising state.
The key message here is: We’re moving toward a bipolar world order, where China challenges US dominance.
How has this happened?
The author argues that it’s simply a lack of effective reform by successive American governments over the last two decades.
After the Clinton administration of the 1990s, the US has been on a slow path of political decline.
Neither the Bush nor Obama administrations reformed the country in a way that would allow it to maintain its global superpower status in the long-term.
On the one side, foreign policy disasters such as the Iraq War caused permanent damage to America’s standing on the world stage.
Domestically, America’s failure to enact economic reforms after the 2008 financial crisis has also been a major culprit in the nation’s slow decline.
Then, in 2016, American decline accelerated sharply with the election of Donald Trump.
Since he took office, Trump has severed ties with allies and pulled out of international commitments.
Conversely, over the past two decades, the Chinese leadership has been enacting effective reforms – and raising their nation’s international stature in the process.
This means we’ll likely witness a new bipolar world in coming years, with the two main world powers competing for dominance.
But this bipolar world will be quite different to the one which existed during the Cold War, where there was a profound ideological difference between the United States and the Soviet Union.
Even though it has a communist government, the Chinese leadership has embraced economic pragmatism and free-market reform, which means that an ideological confrontation – and a new cold war – is very unlikely.
As China overtakes the US on numerous fronts, it’s likely that, in the next few decades, we’ll see the world’s political center of gravity shift from the USA to East Asia.
This could lead to a reconfiguration of the international order and the alliances within it.
After decades of a unipolar world, such a new order would undoubtedly bring its own uncertainties and challenges.
However, one thing looks fairly certain: the curtain is falling on the United States as the main superpower.
As we’ve learned, there are different types of international leadership.
International norms can change with different world leadership.
There are humane authorities, hegemonies, anemocracies, and tyrannies.
And when the dominant state is one of these types of leadership, they create a corresponding type of international “norm.
” This means that they normalize a kind of behavior on the world stage.
When a humane authority is the leading state, there will be a “moral” international norm.
A hegemonic leadership, on the other hand, creates a world order characterized by double standards.
An anemocracy is one where states behave as cowards and bullies depending on whether they’re dealing with a more, or less, powerful rival.
And a tyranny creates a world-order defined by brutal oppression.
However, these norms can change – rapidly, or over time.
What causes them to change?
The key message here is: International norms can change with different world leadership.
There are a few ways that this can happen.
Often, the quickest route to change comes through war.
For instance, after the defeat of Nazi Germany, the United States and the Soviet Union replaced the old European powers, and brought with them a new norm to the world.
Although the USA and USSR were very different on the surface, the essential form of their international leadership style was actually quite similar.
In the Western camp, the USA promoted capitalism, and maintained a hegemonic leadership.
In the East, the USSR also maintained a hegemonic leadership, but promoted communism.
Both superpowers treated their own allies fairly and with recourse to international law, but ignored both fairness and legality when it came to the other side’s allies.
By doing so, they made double-standards the new norm in international law.
The other fundamental way that new norms can be formed is through one country setting an example – and others imitating it.
For a norm to become established, other states must internalize the leading state’s philosophy.
We can see how this occurred after the fall of the Berlin Wall, when many former communist countries accepted the USA’s hegemonic status – and adopted its liberal, capitalist philosophy.
So where are we today?
The current liberal international order established by the US has remained unchanged for nearly three decades, but since the election of Trump, it’s been hanging in the balance.
He’s undermined it through his own aggressive nationalism and retreat from international diplomacy.
Regardless of how long this old norm survives into the future, one thing is certain: as history has shown, no international norm can remain forever.
We face a leaderless global order, with rapidly declining international cooperation.
If you scan the headlines at any point in the day, no doubt you’ll find something alarming about the direction the world is heading.
Maybe that’s a jump in CO2 emissions, or a global pandemic.
You’d be justified in thinking that there doesn’t appear to be any real leadership to step in and sort these big problems out.
Unfortunately, it doesn't look like this will change any time soon.
The key message here is: We face a leaderless global order, with rapidly declining international cooperation.
Though the USA and China are two major international powers, we can't expect much leadership from either of them in the near future.
This is because, as China catches up with the United States, neither country will want to run the risk of a military confrontation by interfering too much in global affairs.
Rather than exacerbate tensions with the US by intervening in the affairs of other countries, China will pursue a strategy of economic dominance.
This will entail China attempting to grow its international influence through trade and other economic ties.
Its chief focus, above all else, will be its own national economic strength.
And under Trump, the US has decided on the path of economic nationalism, too.
As it’s done in the past, the US has turned inward.
It’s distanced itself from many of its old allies and pursued an America First philosophy.
Even under new leadership, the US will find it difficult to change course and reconnect with allies, as America’s credibility has been seriously damaged by Trump.
And in this new world, with both the US and China turning inward, there’s also unlikely to be international cooperation on pressing issues like climate change, terrorism, and human trafficking.
Without the leadership of a major state, joint action through international organizations like the UN is likely to falter.
In fact, this process is well under way.
With Trump at the helm, the US has pulled out of the Paris Climate Agreement and criticized the UN, among other things.
It seems we face an uncertain, unstable international order without any central leadership, where we cooperate less on the most pressing matters.
Sounds depressing, doesn’t it?
Well, in the final blink, we’ll look at something a little more hopeful.
This is the new international order that could grow out of a blend of Chinese and American ideas.
There’s hope yet!
If you live in America, Europe or Australasia, you’ll be well aware of the ideas of liberal democracy that characterize "the West.
Chinese traditional ethics could serve as an influence for Western liberalism to create a new international norm.
" These ideas include equality, free enterprise, and freedom of expression, among other things.
However, in the early twenty-first century, the idea of liberal democracy has faced many challenges.
From the rise of populism in Europe to Trump’s nationalism in the US, western liberal democracy is being weakened.
And now, with the rise of China, it could very well be replaced altogether.
But what exactly might come after it?
The key message here is: Chinese traditional ethics could serve as an influence for Western liberalism to create a new international norm.
As Western liberalism declines, there could be a situation where there’s no one dominant global ideology, but a number of competing ideologies, like nationalism, socialism, and populism.
Another trend is the rise of supreme-leaders who make the bulk of their nation’s decisions.
In Russia, this is Vladimir Putin, and in India, it’s Narendra Modi.
States under this kind of governance will be driven by the personal interests of this one leader.
And that equals a world where states prefer secret diplomacy to open diplomacy, conspiracy to dialogue, and political shenanigans to international credibility.
However, while we might see a continuation of these trends, there’s potential for a new, beneficial ideological norm to grow.
As China continues to challenge the US for power, it could be that Western liberalism is slowly imbued with Chinese traditional ethics.
This could create a new ideological blend that might benefit the rest of the world.
While Western liberalism has brought a great deal of emancipatory good, there’s room for improvement.
For instance, its central idea of individual freedom can mean that society as a whole suffers.
This is because individual freedom, taken to its extreme, can turn into irresponsibility and anarchy.
This is where Chinese traditional ethics might have a role in improving the current state of Western liberalism.
This is because they prioritize civility – a quality that benefits the whole – as well as the individual.
The gist of this is that if you’re considerate to others, they will be considerate to you.
With the infusion of Western liberalism with Chinese traditional ethics, a new international ideological norm could be created.
This ideological fusion would be more considerate in its exercise of individual freedom when it endangers the greater good.
A new global order would be born – one based on fairness, justice, and civility.
Wouldn’t that be a world worth building?
Final summary
The key message in these blinks: Out of all the factors that determine a nation’s fate, leadership matters the most.
And with effective, reforming leadership, a nation can make great leaps.
Among the different forms of leadership, the most effective is humane authority, which brings moral leadership.
As China challenges the US for global dominance, we could see a retreat of global leadership, and a more anarchic world with many competing ideologies.
However, a new international ideology from a blend of Western liberalism and Chinese tradition could provide a positive way forward.
Got feedback?
We’d love to hear what you think about our content!
Just drop an email to remember@blinkist.
com with Leadership and the Rise of Great Powers as the subject line and share your thoughts!
What to read next: Partners and Rivals, by Wendy Dobson As you’ve just learned, author Yan Xuetong argues that, following the Iraq invasion and the economic crash of 2008, the US has lost ground on the international stage to China.
And with the erratic leadership of Donald Trump, further international drift seems inevitable for the States.
In the blinks to Partners and Rivals, you’ll learn more about this fascinating relationship between the US and China, but this time from a North American perspective.
Here you’ll discover that, rather than act as great rivals, the two countries will need to work together in the future, because of their deep economic interdependence.
For more insight into Sino-American relations, dip into the blinks to Partner and Rivals.