The return of multi-polarity constitutes the major ongoing contemporary transformation in the international system. It has influenced almost every important sphere of human activity. It is inevitably compelling a change in international relations and domestic relations within nations. Whether this change will make the world more peaceful and secure or less stable and more volatile will depend upon how individual nations react to this transformation. Associated with this change in the distribution of capabilities in the inter-state system are the positive and negative forces of globalization that are impacting domestic, regional, and global politics. The positive forces are characterized by the tendency for cooperation. The negative forces are marked by the tendency for competition and conflict.Countries that have welcomed the multipolar trend are also the countries that are promoting cooperation amongst nations. Countries that oppose this trend or find it disturbing are promoting competition and conflict in major domains of the world system. In the current historical conjuncture, these competition-driven states are those that have traditionally occupied long-standing positions of advantage in the Westphalian system. It is ironic to note that these countries that now look askance at globalization once were champions of globalization themselves not long ago. The reason for their current negative behavior is the relative change in their position of privilege.The current multipolar trend differs in terms of the direction of systemic cultural diffusion from the old multipolar Eurasian system that prevailed from the mid-18th century till the outbreak of the First World War in 1914. The direction of social and cultural diffusion in the older multipolar system was primarily eastward. Cultural diffusion in the present multipolar trend is increasingly headed westward. The Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) represents the major initial stage of this diffusion. As the westward direction becomes more established with the passage of time, newer forms of diffusion are likely to emerge. The states driving this eastward diffusion as well as the states supporting this movement are the key cooperation-driven states in the world system.It is well-known that the historical experience of eastward diffusion was checkered. While it led to tremendous material progress, it also produced unequal distribution of the fruits of this progress mainly due to its preference for the strategies of domination and zero-sum power politics. The co-occurrence of growth and power politics had had the effect of making the latter respectable because it was seen as a necessary condition of growth.This form of agonistic inter-state politics has been concomitant with competitive domestic politics in the states that have dominated the eastward diffusion. For these states, competition among nations is seen as a natural externalization of the conflict among domestic social groups and the struggle among domestic interest groups is seen as a natural internalization of the friction found between states. Constant iteration of competition based on the continual adherence to a closed world-view that has been in turn informed by the notion of universal conflict has created the path-dependence of power politics. This poses a particular problem for cooperation-driven states because fashioning win-win strategies to escape the trap of aggression and conflict means that the competition-driven states are going to discourage and resist such efforts. This means practicing altruism will be difficult in the international system for some time to come, even though it is a potent form of obviating conflict.While it may be possible for two states that have shunned competition for cooperation to promote win-win outcomes and even take altruistic action in their mutual interaction, it would be challenging for cooperation-driven states to create such outcomes with regard to competition-driven states because of the latter’s intransigence. The inability of conflict-driven states to outgrow their Hobbesian heritage is one of the key factors contributing to the persistence of power politics and conflict.[1] The regression now being caused in the international system appearing specifically in the form of different types of conflicts and increased instability in major regions of Eurasia is mainly due to the resistance of such states against the westward diffusion under the new multi-polarity.Stability and peace in the international system, therefore, depend largely upon how competition-driven and cooperation-driven states order their mutual relations and their domestic relations in future. The vision for the new type of international relations put forward by the current generation of Chinese leadership can act as a reliable guide for cooperation-driven states in this dual ordering.[2]In so far as organizing the domestic relations of states are concerned, at least four broad types of domestic orders can be identified in the contemporary international system. Each order is distinguished by the sphere that plays the leading or directive part in it.[3] In the first type, the laissez-faire or market-led domestic order, market provides the motive force for development, with the overall subordination of the state and the society to the market. This order first emerged in the Great Britain and then became established in the countries of North America and Western Europe.In the second order, the state-led domestic order, state provides the directive and developmental impulse to market and society. This order exists in varying forms in countries like China, Japan, Russia, South Korea, Singapore, and Turkey.In the third order, society-led domestic order, the associational realm of society plays a key role in the development of state and market. This order can be seen at work broadly in those countries of South America like Bolivia and Venezuela where social movements succeeded in controlling national governments and providing political leadership.In the fourth type, non-directed domestic order, neither of the three spheres succeed in assuming a leading role. This order can be found in many Sub-Saharan countries.These domestic orders become relevant for cooperation and competition in international politics once we observe that the actions of most nations with free-market domestic orders paradoxically promote competition and those of most nations with state-led domestic orders promote cooperation in international relations. Countries with society-led and non-directed domestic orders favor competition and cooperation in international relations depending upon the nature of their relations with free-market nations or state-led nations.Cooperation-driven states will succeed in building the new type of international relations as envisaged by the Chinese leadership if they can develop long-term partnerships with the majority of countries that have free-market domestic orders as well as attract an increasing number of countries with society-led and non-directed domestic orders to take analogous positions on key questions like global trade, interdependence, poverty alleviation, the reform of the international system, and the eradication of conflict. What predisposes the cooperation-driven countries to play this role is the ability of their state-led domestic orders to foster the conditions necessary for balanced domestic development in which economy and society are not overshadowed by the directive domain of the state. The challenge of maintaining this domestic balance gives such states the experience and exposure required for meeting the demands of global peace.These types are also important in so far as addressing the asymmetry of power distribution in international politics is concerned. Structural realism or neorealism, the dominant theoretical strand of power politics, is based on the one-sided assertion that “differences” between states “are of capability, not of function.”Theory of International Politics, Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 1979, p.96.">[4] This assertion ignores that differences in capabilities eventually lead to functional differentiation among states through the assignation of core, peripheral, and semi-peripheral functions to various states in the world system. What this means is that each state “duplicates the activities of other states,”Theory of International Politics, Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 1979, p.96.">[4] as pointed out by neorealism, but at the same time each state performs different functions in the world system depending on whether it is situated in the core, periphery or the semi-periphery of the system. This functional differentiation serves to maintain the difference of power among states. When we see that the domestic orders of most underdeveloped countries are either society-led or non-directed, those of most advanced countries are market-led, and those of most countries, which have developed rapidly out of the periphery and have either become or are on their way to becoming core countries, are state-led, we understand better the strategies and mechanisms required for promoting win-win international development.Cooperation-driven countries cannot build the new type of international relations so long as difference in capabilities perpetuates functional differentiation among states. China, as the leading cooperation-driven country in the world, is helping reduce power asymmetries and promote a more inclusive world through using its superior capabilities to assist countries with lesser capabilities but it is going to be a long-term global process. The process of collective learning by doing to give up zero-sum politics may induce competition-driven states to become cooperation-driven peacefully during this secular trend but there are no solid guarantees that this conversion will pan out.Leadership has always been a key factor in domestic and international politics but it has become ever more crucial with the increase in the linkages between political, social, economic, and cultural domains caused by the sophistication of Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) on the one hand, and the proliferation of new forms in these domains on the other. This means inter-state or intra-state political competition or cooperation now influences both the domestic economies of states as well as their mutual economic relations more rapidly and more extensively than was the case, say, fifty years ago. Or the ramifications of a social movement in one country can affect not only the political culture of that country but can also influence populations in other countries.If the opportunities for cooperation have multiplied, then so have the risks of competition. The risk intensity and the potential for opportunity utilization depend upon the caliber of national and global leaders. It is interesting to see that the levels of leadership competence and proficiency differ across the four types of domestic orders. High levels of individual intelligence do not automatically translate into high levels of leadership competency. The moral dimension of human action plays a critical role in the cultivation of advanced leadership skills. This dimension allows prudent and confident utilization of technical and technological means for problem resolution. Deep understanding of this dimension enables leaders to limit the spatial extent and temporal duration of the negative forces of competition as it allows them to increase the extent and duration of the forces of cooperation. This is the key ingredient of successful social change management.A society whose leaders cannot combine instrumental skills and moral awareness are left vulnerable to different kinds of shocks. Such leaders fail to understand the state, society, and the market as complex adaptive systems. The result of this failure is misidentification of the causes and the effects of events leading to flawed policy and decision-making. The fundamental contradiction of such policies and decisions is that that the steps taken to tackle problems or make improvements in one apparatus of the state or sector of the economy create further problems in other parts of the state and the economy.And Suddenly the Inventor Appeared: TRIZ, The Theory of Inventive Problem Solving, trans. Lev Shulyak, Worcester, MA: Technical Innovation Center, 1996, p.15.">[5] If left unaddressed, this problem-solution-problem dialectic spirals out of control to become self-generating. This logic of problem proliferation lies at the root of many contemporary crises across many parts of the world.If this process is not reversed, it can make reform extremely difficult and technically unfeasible even if it is politically feasible, especially in countries with society-led and non-directed domestic orders. In the contemporary world, with the exception of the national leadership of the state-led domestic orders, leadership of other types of domestic orders has in general dealt rather ineffectually with domestic and global problems. In so far as certain leading countries with advanced market-led domestic orders are concerned, sub-optimal leadership responses may be a result of the dominance of “inverted totalitarianism” which “represents the political coming of age of corporate power and political demobilization of the citizenry (original italics)” in these domestic orders.Democracy Incorporated: Managed Democracy and the Specter of Inverted Totalitarianism, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2008.">[6] In market-led societies, reform may be technically feasible but politically unfeasible due to this condition. The international system will become increasingly unstable if the social change management skills of the leadership of advanced countries begin to deplete.This shows that leadership skills may exist independently of the level of development of countries. It also shows that the behavior of leaders is linked to the nature of the sociopolitical systems or domestic orders in which they are embedded. A sociopolitical system rewarding conflict will nurture skills required for the promotion of conflict. A domestic order prioritizing cooperation will incentivize a different set of skills.Leadership also minimizes or maximizes the prospects of peace or conflict by the manner in which it shapes and manages the expectations of domestic and international actors. Chinese leadership has demonstrated advanced skills in terms of centering domestic and global perceptions and behaviors on the values of harmony, peace, stability, and prosperity. This has served to strengthen the rules-based international order. China has also been exceptional in externalizing the benefits of its domestic development. Developmental cost internalization is another area of expertise of the Chinese leadership. The greater the extent to which states can internalize the cost of development, the greater will be the likelihood of stability in the international system.Rank disregard for internalizing developmental costs was one of the key causes of conflict during the previous era of multi-polarity which caused its disintegration. This disregard still persists in important parts of the world but there is now a greater awareness of its implications. This lack of attention is the result of a leadership culture informed by the shared knowledge of the fear of dispossession underlying an overweening sense of entitlement. This shared knowledge engenders aggressiveness and insecurity in individual and collective behaviors.Though the tradition of win-win domestic and global cooperation led by China is creating a new pool of shared knowledge for collective utilization of common resources through collective practices, yet the success of this effort will depend upon the extent to which Eurasia can cease to be the arena of zero-sum politics. New forms of cooperative development will need to be promoted in the political, economic, social, and cultural domains for deepening and accelerating the multipolar trend. The aim should be the integration and diversification of these domains based on the concentration of transferable resources and practices in each domain. This will mean, for instance, that a political strategy should at the same time function as an economic and cultural measure and vice versa.It will also require, among other things, diverse and dynamic partnerships between the Islamic world and China which are already being developed through bilateral and multilateral platforms. Based on the principle of mutual non-interference, these partnerships may lead in time to the mitigation of the present factionalization of the Islamic world. This will be good for the overall global peace. These partnerships are also extremely important because the only other geographical entity, apart from China, to be classified as a civilizational state by an eminent Chinese thinker is the hypothetically integrated Islamic world coalesced into a modern state.The China Wave: Rise of a Civilizational State, Hackensack, NJ: World Century Publishing Corporation, 2012.">[7] As one of its strategic goals, this partnership should aim at the rehabilitation of the centuries-long tradition of knowledge production and socio-political construction in the Islamic world which is sure to provide highly original, viable, productive, and contemporary solutions and strategies for current crises and issues.The Islamic world right now may not be in a position to restore this tradition on its own but a Sino-Muslim partnership can do it. In addition, the fact that most major countries of the Islamic world occupy the significant central and southern portions of the Eurasian landmass and act as important connecting links between its western and eastern extremities will also help two-way diffusion of the efforts for Eurasian stability and peace. These efforts may turn key Eurasian regions like the Middle East and South Asia from constituencies of fear into hubs of harmony.The current period of multi-polarity will be durable if it is defined by the integration and the consistent application of the principles of gradualism, sequentialism, and comprehensiveness. Gradualism will help increase the adaptive capacity of societies for the establishment of new ways of doing things. Sequentialism will help the alignment of multipolar strategies with the dynamic intrinsic logic of emergent situations. Comprehensiveness will ensure: that all domains of human actions are embraced by corrective measures; that such measures cover all aspects of the problems; and, that they deal with the critical aspects of these problems before they address secondary aspects. It is heartening to note that the Chinese approach to domestic politics and international relations is gradualist, sequentialist, and comprehensive as understood here.This approach, however, has to guard against the purposive preservation of anachronistic elements and residual practices of outmoded traditions in domestic and global politics. The insidious quality of these elements and practices is their modern form but their obsolete content. They appear to be essential for free and fair domestic and global development but since their essence is retrogressive, they inevitably disrupt the process of development. Those who purvey these elements will misconstrue any setback in the efforts to secure cooperation for common prosperity in the international system as an inherent sign of the weakness and unsuitability of collaborative strategies of cooperation-driven states. These elements and practices will also be endlessly packaged into many attractive ideological forms for domestic and global consumption but their net effect on humanity’s progress will continue to be negative. The best guarantee against such attempts is the intensification of multidimensional cooperation for consolidating the multipolar trend in the world system.