William Appleman Williams, in his book "The Tragedy of American Diplomacy" (1959) analyzed American imperialism and argued that the United States in the 1950s, while undoubtedly was the richest country on the planet, in its attempt to expand beyond Pacific to create an Open-Door trade Empire with the goal of achieving world domination, could not ?tolerate? even a defensive Soviet Union. For Williams, this choice at that time was a morally disastrous choice for the US because this policy was incompatible with American traditions and values that advocated a "society of equal" which separated the New World from the Old.

In the early 21st century, and especially after Trump's election, the US seems once again unable to ?tolerate? anything collective, even if it is their own creation, such as the international organizations (WTO, UN, etc.). a.) or the collective security agency (NATO) and of course a fast-growing power such as China. Today, the US, no longer have the relative power of the 1950s, and in the same time promote nationalist isolationism which is expressed by the phrase "America first" and which seems that they have consciously renounced their global role and the "divine mission" as they used to say that they carry out on behalf of humanity.

American foreign policy over time, as described by Russell Mead (2001), is a product of a unique democratic composition: the Hamiltonian pursuit of commercial advantage of American overseas businesses, the Wilsonian duty to extend the values of freedom to the world, Jefferson's concern about safeguarding the virtues of democracy from foreign temptations, and the Jacksonian bravery to any challenge to the honor or security of the country. In fact, of the four traditions, only two had a lasting gravity (Hamiltonian and Wilsonian tradition) in American foreign policy.

On the other hand, Kissinger, a true expressionist of realism, believes that not only the realist Roosevelt but also the idealistic Wilson have been defining the core of US foreign policy over time. US foreign policy would come to combine both of these, but the Wilson trend would always be dominant in order to facilitate the implementation of realistic US goals. As Kondilis points out, the idealistic allows one to raise the highest claims of power while denouncing, at the same time, any pursuit of power and any violence. In addition, Kissinger in his book Diplomacy says that we must "make the world safe for democracy" a logic that is transformed into the concept of "collective security" which, in turn, would become the external shield of "national security".

This idealistic notion acquired metaphysical features after the Spanish- American War, with the US being considered "destined" to assume the "divine mission" and acting on behalf of humanity. Almost all presidents of the United States adhered to Wilson's idealistic notion. Speaking at his inaugural speech (January 2009), Obama said, "God continues to invite Americans to their destiny: to bring, by His grace, the great gift of freedom to future generations. This is the source of our confidence: the knowledge that God invites us to determine an uncertain destiny. "

Today's US foreign policy, as formulated by the NSS (2017) seems to have departed sharply from any Wilson concept that traditionally characterized American diplomacy and instead reintroduced the basic principles of the NSC-68 (as was the case during the Cold War) that is, the pursuit of geopolitics over political interests (when there is a distance between them as is the case today). The United States today seems to have renounced any idealistic element that historically characterized American diplomacy that given them the moral legitimacy to act on behalf of humanity. As Kondylis (1992) states, "Only a morally legalized power is capable of exercising power, and only morally legalized power can sustain a power." US has lost its legitimacy.

From the time of Truman to Kissinger, the United States, in the name of their "divine mission" towards humanity, they had embedded in their foreign policy, the concept of containment of any force did not adapt to the existing world order. According to Gaddis, containment was a product of the Cold War, and it was a battle between the Good and the Evil. Even during the Cold War the Wilsonian concept prevailed, idealistic values were proposed worldwide, and the ?race? as promoted by US was about freedom and democracy rather than the pursuit of economic interests as the Hamiltonian concept advocate and claiming the superiority of capitalism over socialism (as economic systems).

Today, the international system is in a transitional unstable multipolar system where the established power, the US, is mainly opposed to the rapidly emerging power, China. As it seems clear now, the US has already once again activated the "tool" of containment vis-a?-vis China, first in economic terms through the "trade war" and in technology, mainly through tech decoupling and the main objective is being to delay the development of artificial intelligence (AI) from China, or " prohibit" countries to obtain 5G networks of Chinese companies citing security issues.

US concern over China's development of Artificial Intelligence is strong and understandable to some extent as according to Pwc's macroeconomic analysis (which is used by recognized think tanks such as Brookings etc), AI technology will increase Global GDP by $ 15.7 trillion (14%) by 2030, with China accounting for 26.1%, North America (US, Canada) 14.5%, meaning that in economic terms it will change power balances between the major powers while also having significant geopolitics dimensions. On the other hand, as far as 5G networks are concerned, it is generally accepted that Chinese companies have the fastest and most economically integrated 5G networks in the world, making them the most competitive, while the US has no alternative.

The US return to nationalist isolationism has triggered unexpected behavior in its foreign policy and seems possible to become an unreliable partner for many countries in the near future. It is clear that the US is now almost exclusively advocating its geopolitical interests, often ignoring the fair rights of its traditional allies in order to maintain good relations with states that have greater power, even if they do not comply with international law. A typical example is the "abandonment" by the US of their traditional allies, the Kurds in Syria, the depreciation of NATO and other. Also, US behavior often causes artificial instability in many parts of the world (Greece- Turkey) in order to lead countries at high risk and as result ?run? and seek "security" from the US over "exchanges".

In this context, a different type of containment than in the past is in progress. During the Cold War, the US was "acting", as used to say, for the good of mankind, so countries were willing to be gathered around US, but today containment is almost exclusively about the US interests and the main goal is US to maintain its supremacy over any other country that could change that condition. In order to achieve this goal, Trump has replaced almost every idealistic element of American diplomacy with the

Jacksonian conception of "bravery towards every challenge for the honor or the security of the country", which is often mentioned by the American president as "America first". So today, US’s effort to contain China is almost exclusively for the protection of American interests, the “race” is not universal anymore and, moreover, has no idealistic character, and this is why the states, in fact, are not willing to take part in this competition of power and those who do so are rather 'forced' to follow US. Marx in his book "Critique of Political Economy" states that people are becoming aware of the conflicts that take place within the financial world, in the ideological realm. During the Cold War, the United States had set the ideological threat, but today ideological threat does not exist because China does not represent any ideological threat to the world.

Parallel, much of American society does not seem to be in line with current US foreign policy priorities. An interesting example is the view that Stephen Hadley (Security Adviser of Bush’s administration) publicly expressed during CSIS event titled "US forging strategy towards BRI" (April 2019), who said that the US should not "dictate" the behaviors of societies and states, in relation to 5G, what US administration have to do is provide better alternatives to humanity so the societies willing to choose the US proposals.

Today, the United States has lost one arm of its foreign policy, one that legitimizes every power. The "Tragedy of American Diplomacy" refers to the US’s failure to maintain its long-term "destination" as Kissinger, in his book The World Order, states. Kissenger says that "history does not show mercy to those countries that ignore their commitments or their identities to pursue a seemingly easier path. America, as the main expressor of the pursuit of human freedom in the modern world and as a necessary geopolitical factor for the justification of humanitarian values, must maintain a sense of purpose. But the world order cannot be achieved by the efforts of a single country. In order to form a truly global order, its participants must, without losing their own values, acquire a second culture that is global, structural and jurisdictional, a perception of order that goes beyond the point of view and the ideals of any particular region or nation. " The US and China are pillars of the global system and it is for the good of humanity to find that delicate balance between them.