Having ideals is a fine thing but we need to stay realistic. Is it at all possible to create rules that benefit everybody, given that countries differ in development status, culture, values, etc? I have no idea. We can try, we should try, but don't get too surprised if things fall apart sometimes, and when things fall apart it's unhelpful to point fingers.
Particularly around IP law, which is what China is most flagrant about ignoring. Nothing in IP law comes from any sense natural principle. It is all arbitrary judgements.
It makes sense for America to claim IP is important since they own most of it, but it is wise for China to ignore their arguments as far as they can get away with it.
As you say, countries without IP have an interest in having weak IP enforcement, but China has significant IP now, and is enforcing IP rights (not just of Chinese firms, but also of foreign firms) much more rigorously than before.
Those in positions of dominance risk their power when they ignore these questions. Unfair practices can increase dominance in the short-term but what happens in the long-term when more and more people recognize the practice as unfair? What happens when we get to a point where most of the world consider western nations/corporations to be stewards/enablers of oppression and injustice?
Such hubris.
So the heads of two powerful nations are to decide the fate of humanity - where is the morality in that ?
And why does there have to be an endgame ? and who are we to decide ?
US does behave amorally tons of times, so does EU, so does everybody else. US slapping super massive tariffs on non-US products (airplanes for example) ain't fair to european manufacturers by any definition, and if we aren't allies anymore, then who is. US stealing trade secrets via NSA, spying on all foreign politicians, dissent, supporting dictators and so on.
The thing is, out there is mostly unrestrained capitalism - everybody for themselves, and help even between allies normally only comes if its mutually beneficial. US has very little moral ground if any in this topic.
You talk about anti-competitiveness, but isn't that just a matter of perspective and not an absolute moral high ground? When Microsoft was accused of anti-competitive behavior, it was because Microsoft used existing cash and influence to squat smaller parties like flies and gain dominance. In the same manner, we can argue that Facebook could squat other smaller social media networks in China as flies because Facebook was already big, and thus Facebook would be the one being anti-competitive.
I won't argue with you about US interests. But I can't agree with taking the moral high ground.
> "Free trade is a trade policy that does not restrict imports or exports."
You can argue that China is not engaging fully in the free trade principle. But in my opinion it still doesn't make sense to turn this into a moral high ground thing, because all countries have import and export controls to some extent, because in the end all countries look after their interests.
And not everybody agrees that the free trade principle is a good thing (note: this is not my personal opinion). See the rise of populism in Europe, and the number of people who yell that the Poles or refugees or whatever are "stealing our jobs". Now that I think about it, don't you have the same issue with US people complaining about Mexicans?
Turning this into a moral issue is, in my opinion, a childish view of how the work works. I am saying: let's recognize that this is plain geopolitics and interests, and not about morals.