在2025年达沃斯世界经济论坛年会上，马来西亚总理安瓦尔·易卜拉欣从理性和外交的角度出发，提出了有关和平、发展与区域合作的亚洲愿景。

与之相反，美国总统唐纳德·特朗普代表了一种截然不同的领导风格。作为一个长期主导全球事务的超级大国的领导人，特朗普从他的“美国优先”角度出发，向全球投射其影响力。

特朗普的性格和领导风格已经脱离了西方政治思想的传统框架。以西方政治哲学家——亚里士多德、马基雅维利和马克斯·韦伯——的观点来衡量，特朗普也属于另类。

亚里士多德认为领导人要重视美德，以道德责任和追求集体利益为领导核心。特朗普的做法似乎与之完全相反，他主张优先考虑个人利益，不怕分裂，不追求团结。马基雅维利注重获取和维护权力。这表面上与特朗普的方式是一致的，但即使是马基雅维利，可能也无法轻易接受特朗普式的冲动和对全面战略的不屑一顾。特朗普的做法似乎更符合韦伯的魅力领导者概念，因为特朗普的民粹主义吸引力和激发选民支持的能力更多地体现了他的领袖魅力。

然而，特朗普的魅力往往伴随着一种破坏力，改变了政治生活中的原有界限。特朗普正在打破西方政治哲学所支撑的每一种领导模式。他展现了一种悖论，他的影响力不是来自对既定规范的遵守，而是来自对既定规范毫不留情的摧毁和对支持者的吸引力。

亚洲领导人提出了以长远规划和集体福祉为基础的领导模式。中国领导人一直强调共同发展和多边合作，这与一些西方领导人的帝国主义言论形成鲜明对比。

亚洲的政治风气来源于与西方截然不同的文化。一个很好的例子是儒家提倡的和谐与道德责任理念，它主张通过对话和相互尊重的方式解决争端，营造和平与合作的环境。

随着美国主导的单极时代逐渐落幕，世界面临一个关键时刻。各国是会与传统的帝国主义领导模式保持一致，还是更倾向于强调合作、包容与共同繁荣的新领导模式？答案在于各国领导人能否超越狭隘的自身利益，在权力与目的、实用主义与道德责任之间取得平衡。

最终，领导层的素质将决定新地缘政治现实的发展轨迹。

在这个关键时刻，领导人们必须做出选择——是延续一个优先考虑硬实力和利益的体系，还是以远见和勇气奋起迎接挑战？应对战争与冲突、地缘政治动荡、贫困和气候变化等重大挑战更需要以人民真正需求为导向的改革型领导。

By Christine Loh

At the 2025 World Economic Forum in Davos, Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim stood out as a voice of reason and diplomacy, presenting the Asian vision of peace, development, and regional cooperation.

Representing a nation with one of Southeast Asia’s fastest-growing economies, Anwar showcased a pragmatic and authoritative approach to resolving disputes, emphasising dialogue and economic cooperation over confrontation. He spoke with conviction about safeguarding Malaysia’s autonomy while fostering productive relations with neighbours and major powers alike.

In response to questions about China, Anwar rejected the notion of singling out its big neighbour over South China Sea tensions. He urged for constructive engagement, underscoring the importance of Southeast Asian collective framework – through ASEAN – in fostering stability and growth across the region.

In stark contrast, US President Donald Trump represented a radically different style of leadership. As the leader of a superpower that has long dominated global affairs, Trump projects power through his America First lens.

Trump’s transactional and bombastic style, marked by an unapologetic tendency that alienates allies and antagonises adversaries alike. His approach to neighbours Canada and Mexico underscores this. His administration’s threat to impose 25% tariffs on Canadian and Mexican goods, coupled with derogatory remarks suggesting Canada could become America’s “51st state” or that the Gulf of Mexico should be renamed the “Gulf of America,” epitomises an outlandish attitude that many view as bullying. This is a far cry from the good-neighbour policies advocated by Anwar.

Trump’s character and leadership style stand as an extraordinary departure from the traditional frameworks of western political thinking. When judged against the ideals of western political philosophers – Aristotle, Machiavelli, and Max Weber – Trump defies categorisation.

Aristotle’s concept of virtuous leadership, centred on moral responsibility and the pursuit of the collective good, seems almost antithetical to Trump’s approach, which prioritises personal gain, spectacle, and division over unity. Machiavelli’s pragmatism and emphasis on power maintenance align superficially with Trump’s transactional methods, yet even the Florentine would likely balk at Trump’s unpredictable impulsiveness and disregard for calculated strategy. Weber’s notion of charismatic authority fits more closely, as Trump’s populist appeal and ability to galvanise unwavering support reflect the power of charisma over traditional rational or institutional authority.

Yet Trump’s charisma is often accompanied by a destabilising force, reshaping the boundaries of what is considered acceptable in political life. In breaking every mode of leadership espoused by Western political philosophy, Trump embodies a paradox: a leader whose influence stems not from adherence to established norms but from his ability to dismantle them with uncaring audacity and appeal to his large base of supporters.

The difference in leadership styles becomes even more striking when considering Trump’s and his wife’s launch of meme cryptocurrency just ahead of his second inauguration. This move raises questions about the priorities of national leadership. Trump’s actions seem detached, trivialising the role of a leader. His focus on self-promotion and profit exemplifies a shift in political norms, where responsibility takes a back seat to spectacle and personal gain.

Trump’s behaviour has broader implications for the global perception of American zeitgeist and the integrity of the so-called “western liberal order,” a much-used term by his immediate predecessor Joe Biden and his administration. This term will likely drop out of usage during Trump’s era, as the current president focusses on America First.

In contrast, Asian leaders like Anwar and Chinese President Xi offer models rooted in long-term planning and collective well-being. Xi continuously emphasises development, multilateral cooperation, and pragmatic governance, which stand in stark opposition to the bluster and imperial rhetoric associated with Western leaders like Trump, Biden and former British prime ministers Boris Johnson and Liz Truss.

Asia’s political ethos is inspired by very different cultural roots. A good example is the Confucian ideals of harmony and moral responsibility, and ways for resolving disputes through dialogue and mutual respect, fostering an environment of peace and cooperation.

To western media sensibilities, projected to global audiences, Asian leaders may appear dull and stilted when compared to the Hollywood-esque theatrics of American politics. However, many of these leaders are serious-minded individuals with substantial contributions to their nations.

Consider Xi and the senior Chinese leaders often labeled as “colourless” by Western commentators. Despite their understated demeanour and measured language, they have delivered significant progress for the Chinese people. This prompts an important question: how can these seemingly unremarkable figures be so effective for their citizens? Could it be that biases obscure a clearer understanding of their capabilities in the west?

As the unipolar era of US dominance fades, the world faces a pivotal moment. Will nations align with traditional metrics of imperial power, or will they gravitate toward models of leadership that prioritise cooperation, inclusivity, and the common good? The answer lies in the ability of leaders to rise above narrow self-interest, balancing power with purpose and pragmatism with moral responsibility.

Ultimately, the quality of leadership will define the trajectory of this new geopolitical reality. Leaders like Xi and Anwar Ibrahim show that it is possible to navigate complex challenges without sacrificing integrity or dignity.

In this critical moment, leaders must choose – perpetuate a system that prioritises hard power and profit, or rise to the occasion with vision and integrity? The high stakes – war and conflict, geopolitical instability, poverty, climate change – demand nothing less than transformative leadership that addresses the real needs of the people.

https://johnmenadue.com/asian-vision-of-peace-a-bulwark-against-america-first/