Joseph Stiglitz se je pri  nizanju razlogov, zakaj bodo ZDA izgubile to hladno vojno proti Kitjski, osredotočil predvsem na moralne razloge. Na eni strani na globoko patologijo ameriške družbe, ki se kaže v strankokraciji dveh elit, globoko usidranem rasizmu, ogromni neenakosti v dohodkih in možnostih ter posledični visoki stopnji kriminalitete in številnih masovnih pobojih, itd., zaradi česar ZDA ne morejo več biti vzor nikomur kot dežela svobode in uresničitve sanj. Na drugi strani pa na veliko hipokrizijo v odnosih s preostalim svetom, ki se kaže v pridiganju, kako naj druge države ravnajo, same ZDA pa prek svojih korporacij ali intervencij v tujini ekploatirajo druge države. V sebičnem nacionalizmu, ki se je pokazal tudi v obliki “cepitvenega apartheida”. V kmetijski politiki, ki je nasprotje pridig o nujnosti proste trgovine. V zanikanju klimatskih sprememb in nesodelovanju v aktivnostih proti njim. ZDA so izgubile kredibilnost, nikomur ne morejo več pridigati ne o demokraciji in ne o spoštovanju pravil in ne morejo več biti voditelj “svobodnega sveta”.

Meni pa se zdijo ključni trije drugi dejavniki. Prvi, ki ga Stiglitz le bežno omeni, je, da za razliko od ZDA, ki v druge države izvažajo ideologijo in moralne pridige, podprte z vojaškimi intervencijami, pa Kitajska ne izvaža moralnih pridig in vojaške agresije, pač pa jim gradi infrastrukturo. Brez pridiganja in ideologije. S tem državam pomaga pri razvoju, pa čeprav iz sebičnih razlogov. Ameriški imperializem je kratkoviden, poganjan s kratkoročnimi korporativnimi interesi, kitajski imperializem pa je dolgoročno naravnan. Tak kot je morda bil ameriški po drugi svetovni vojni z Marshallovim programom za obnovo porušene Evrope, s sponzoriranjem evoropske integracije in multilateralnim procesom zniževanja trgovinskih ovir.

Drugi dejavnik pa je, da so ZDA naredile dve veliki strateški napaki. Prva je preselitev proizvodnje na Kitajsko, s čimer so omogočile gospodarski vzpon Kitajske. Druga je napad na Irak, ki je prek dviga cen nafte in plina Rusiji omogočil ponovni gospodarski in vojaški vzpon po bankrotu leta 2008. Oboje je bilo motivirano s kratkoročnim pohlepom ameriških korporacij. Toda v teh dveh procesih v zadnjih treh desetletjih po padcu železne zavese, ki je ustoličil ZDA za edino velesilo, so si ZDA – poganjane s kratkovidnimi kroporativnimi interesi – same ustvarile dva mogočna nasprotnika. Dve gospodarsko in vojaško močni velesili. Proti Kitajski so ZDA nemočne v tehnološki vojni, Kitajska je prevzela tehnološki primat in ta naskok še povečuje. Zato ameriška trgovinska in tehnološka vojna proti Kitajski, ki se je začela z Obamo in se intezivirala pod Trumpom in Bidenom. Proti Rusiji pa so ZDA nemočne v vojni v Ukrajini. Ne glede na to, koliko vojaške pomoči in orožja ZDA dostavijo šibki ukrajinski vojski, slednja ne more Rusije pregnati iz etnično očiščenih zavzetih ozemelj. Niti ne more sprostiti ukrajinskih črnomorskih transportnih poti za izvoz hrane.

Iz kombinacije obeh pa sledi tretji, najmočnejši dejavnik. S trgovinsko in tehnološko vojno proti Kitajski ter z vseobsežnimi gospodarskimi sankcijami proti Rusiji so ZDA ustvarile novo nenaravno zavezništvo med obema. Nov gospodarski blok, ki kontrolira večino svetovne proizvodnje večine potrošniških dobrin, ki kontrolira večino ključnih surovin in ki kontrolira velik delež svetovne ponudbe hrane in energentov. ZDA danes, in tukaj pride do izraza Stiglitzeva poanta, niti nimajo več zaveznikov, ki bi jih lahko prepričale, da sodelujejo v hladni vojni proti Kitajski in Rusiji. Tudi EU bo kmalu spoznala, da ameriško usmerjane sankcije proti Rusiji škodujejo zgolj Evropi ter revnim afriškim državam.

To hladno vojno so ZDA izgubile. Zaradi arogantnosti navzven in dominantnosti kratkovidnega korporativnega interesa, ki kontrolira ameriški politični establišment.

In seeking the world’s favor, the US will have to make up a lot of lost ground. Its long history of exploiting other countries does not help, and nor does its deeply embedded racism – a force that Trump expertly and cynically channels. Most recently, US policymakers contributed to global “vaccine apartheid,” whereby rich countries got all the shots they needed while people in poorer countries were left to their fates. Meanwhile, America’s new cold war opponents have made their vaccines readily available to others at or below cost, while also helping countries develop their own vaccine-production facilities.

The credibility gap is even wider when it comes to climate change, which disproportionately affects those in the Global South who have the least ability to cope. While major emerging markets have become the leading sources of greenhouse-gas emissions today, US cumulative emissions are still the largest by far. Developed countries continue to add to them, and, worse, have not even delivered on their meager promises to help poor countries manage the effects of the climate crisis that the rich world caused. Instead, US banks contribute to looming debt crises in many countries, often revealing a depraved indifference to the suffering that results.

Europe and America excel at lecturing others on what is morally right and economically sensible. But the message that usually comes through – as the persistence of US and European agricultural subsidies makes clear – is “do what I say, not what I do.” Especially after the Trump years, America no longer holds any claim to the moral high ground, nor does it have the credibility to dispense advice. Neoliberalism and trickle-down economics were never widely embraced in the Global South, and now they are going out of fashion everywhere.

At the same time, China has excelled not at delivering lectures but at furnishing poor countries with hard infrastructure. Yes, these countries are often left deeply in debt; but, given Western banks’ own behavior as creditors in the developing world, the US and others are hardly in a position to point the finger.

I could go on, but the point should be clear: If the US is going to embark on a new cold war, it had better understand what it will take to win. Cold wars ultimately are won with the soft power of attraction and persuasion. To come out on top, we must convince the rest of the world to buy not just our products, but also the social, political, and economic system we’re selling.

The US might know how to make the world’s best bombers and missile systems, but they will not help us here. Instead, we must offer concrete help to developing and emerging-market countries, starting with a waiver on all COVID-related intellectual property so that they can produce vaccines and treatments for themselves.

Equally important, the West must once again make our economic, social, and political systems the envy of the world. In the US, that starts with reducing gun violence, improving environmental regulations, combating inequality and racism, and protecting women’s reproductive rights. Until we have proven ourselves worthy to lead, we cannot expect others to march to our drum.

Vir: Joseph Stiglitz, Project Syndicate