Joergen Oerstroem Moeller is a former state-secretary for the Royal Danish Foreign Ministry, he has a recent piece raising serious questions.

https://nationalinterest.org/feature/china-isnt-everything-america-must-retake-moral-high-ground-195175

I itemize the issues below. Quotes are from the National Interest article.

1. America's anti-China plan "might make sense from an American point of view—China has notably been one of the few issues commanding bipartisan support. It is less obvious that it is in the interest of the rest of the world, and it might be added, America’s long-term interest."

2. Given the the plan may not benefit US long term interest. Whether the US can follow through its own plan long-term is also a concern.

3. Being driven by US domestic politics of the moment, its plan is unilaterally concocted. Failure to consult allies makes its plan inherently incomplete.

"It is perilous to map out a strategy without scrutinizing the opponent’s response. An opponent cannot be counted on to follow a script, and their reactions might compromise an apparently impregnable plan. The United States must anticipate not only how potential adversaries and enemies will reciprocate, but also rally allies around a policy forged in the American workshop. Due to the complexity of global politics and dwindling American power, allies have become indispensable to amplifying its soft and hard power. The snag is that to do so Washington needs to involve them in decision-making; something the Biden administration seems unwilling to do."

4. The US should not expect allies to shoulder serious pain.
"The tactic appears to offer China participation in institutionalized economic globalization on terms dictated by the United States. Forcing China to choose between isolation from the global economy or acquiescing with rules written by the United States obviously favoring the author is, however, a non-starter.
....
That will surely result in Chinese retaliations forcing the United States to double down resulting in a downward spiral pulling global trade and investments down. Who will benefit from that? Is that what the world expects from a global superpower trusted and expected to be benevolent? Is that the United States many of us looked up to?"

5. America lacks moral suasion.
"A genuine global superpower must capture the zeitgeist, stick out as a nation indisputably delivering high living standards to its citizens and willing to forego selfish interest if necessary to shape compromises in international negotiations. It is not about raw power, nor is it to be seen as the indispensable nation as Madeleine Albright put it—it is about being recognized as the nation occupying the moral high ground."

6. How democratic is the US?
"Biden’s strategy is marketed under the label of democracies versus authoritarian nations. This is a commendable objective, but a good deal of people around the globe question the right of the United States to anoint itself as the unblemished democracy. The moment is infelicitous after President Donald Trump’s ostensible attempt to countermand the result of the presidential election and the storm on Capitol to execute the vice president and the speaker of the House."

7. Is the US still a competent global leader?
Many people around the globe ask the simple question whether American democracy has been able to deliver solutions. In the eyes of many people, America’s political system is identified with mismanagement of Covid-19, financial crises, high poverty rate, inequality, and concentration of power and wealth in comparatively few hands. If that is not enough, recent evidence by a former employee at Facebook that algorithms deliberately are calibrated to instill hatred and anger cast a shadow over the gold standard of democracy: freedom of expression.

Summing up the above points, "China Isn't Everything: America Must Retake the Moral High Ground."

On Tuesday, July 20, 2021 at 9:00:34 AM UTC-5, ltlee1 wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 20, 2021 at 2:44:36 AM UTC-4, zizibong wrote:
> > Posting what you said here "Well, the "free world" means the world of
> > liberal states, i.e. Western orthodox democracies.
> > China is not one of them".
> > US cannot lead the free world anymore as they have lost their standing due
> > to killing and sabotaging with lies of other countries.
> >
> > Other countries with so-called communist system is powering ahead with their
> > economy opens to the world. They have gained strong traction with their open
> > economy system, so that for everyone can come to invest and profit and
> > prosper with their businesses.
> >
> > Therefore, countries cannot accept US as leader of the world in free world.
> > The culture in the communist system is what US has been against in all their
> > years.. However, now, the communist system is just a brand only.
> >
> > Henceforth, US is in their "dream world" and will be agonising very soon in
> > the missing the tree for the orest.
> Trump wants to make America great again. And America is considered in decline.
> At present, the US is under new management. Hence Stephen Walt's question:
> Could the United States Still Lead the [Free] World if It Wanted to?
>
> Biden certainly wants to and his refrain is "America is back." The issue is whether America
> is in decline and will continue to. Stephen Walt did not directly address the issue of decline.
> But he is clear that the US is neither a model democracy nor wise to lead.. If the competition
> is between two individual nations, the US and China. The US is likely to lose. Of course, the
> same question could be reframed.
>
> Here come G. John Ikenberry. He is "a theorist of international relations and United States foreign
> policy, and the Albert G. Milbank Professor of Politics and International Affairs at Princeton University. "
> He reframes American decline as the decline of the US led liberal International world order. And this
> liberal internationalism world order is in decline or in crisis because of its success.
>
> In short, liberal international world order is an ecosystem developed and maintained by liberal
> democracies per their liberal value. Under the US leadership, Western democracies contribute to
> form a ecosystem of institutions and policies to assure the dominance of these Western democracies
> economically and militarily. Of course, their enemy was the USSR.
>
> Basically, it is a Cold War "us against them lose-lose system. But the USSR did implode. And Asian
> countries especially China are benefited by this system. So, it is a success. But success has its problems.
> Without the USSR as the big bad bear, the current world order has no unified social goal. The rise of China
> also informs the world that there is another way of doing business. Liberal internationalism also loses its
> authority. Hence the decline of the US led world order.
>
> But the liberal international world order could be reinvented and reinvigorated. America could lead the world
> as before and China could fall like the former USSR. The supposition is that the competition is ecosystem against
> ecosystem. Chinese internationalism is not liberal and it is still developing. It can't possibly match liberal internationalism.
> > "ltlee1" wrote in message
> > news:c73b0a8f-3edc-42b4...@googlegroups.com...
> > "Rather obviously, the term “free world” refers to those states that are
> > committed to a set of familiar liberal institutions: individual rights,
> > tolerance, accountability through free and fair elections, the rule of law,
> > freedom of expression, and the like. Exercising “leadership,” in turn, means
> > either being an attractive model for others to emulate or being able to make
> > intelligent policy choices, implement them successfully, and convince others
> > to follow suit.
> >
> > So the first question we need to answer is whether the United States is a
> > good model for other liberal states. The second question is whether its
> > policy judgments are ones that others should trust and follow, especially
> > with respect to foreign policy. On balance, the answer to both questions is
> > “no.”
> > https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/07/15/could-the-united-states-still-lead-the-world-if-it-wanted-to/
> >
> > Stephen Walt gives a list of reasons in the article on why the US is not any
> > kind of model democracy.
> >
> > Partial list: "flawed democracy" according to Economist's Democracy Index,
> > low voter turnout, dismal public trust in government, highest incarceration
> > rate in the world, low Social Progrss Index, highest levels of economic
> > inequality among the developed world, use of torture, illegal surveillance,
> > military commanders who could neither win wars nor "explain why these wars
> > could not be won and should never have been fought," "freedom of thought
> > and expression are now being threatened by extremists on the right and the
> > left who seek to silence or marginalize views they disagree with..." and
> > etc. All true.
> >
> > Stephen Walt also has serious doubt on US "collective political wisdom,
> > especially when it comes to foreign policy." And he supports his view with
> > a list of evidence:
> >
> > "The list goes on: Four consecutive administrations mismanaged the Middle
> > East peace process, and its wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and elsewhere
> > ended in costly defeats and disaster for millions of others. Meanwhile, the
> > United States continues to back a set of Middle East clients whose values
> > and political behavior are sharply at odds with liberal ideals. That list
> > includes Egypt and Saudi Arabia but also Israel, which Human Rights Watch
> > and the Israeli rights organization B’Tselem have declared to be running a
> > system of apartheid."
> >
> > Stephen Walt is absolutely right on both: 1) America is not any kind of
> > model democracy, and 2) America has yet to demonstrate its foreign policy
> > wisdom.
> >
> > But he is also wrong. VERY wrong.
> > Leadership unusually entails win-win. But in the Free and Funny world of
> > Orthodox Western Democracy. Leadership can also mean lose-lose.
> >
> > With lose-lose as its goal, the US is uniquely qualified to lead. 舍我其谁?