Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think generally US has carried that role in past until 2016. Either by partnerships or by holding a gun to other people’s head, US has exercised a self preservation strategy which had some effect on remaining world. For eg. Obama admin had narrowed down Ebola and contained it[1]. That indirectly was beneficial for rest of the world. Unfortunately the last administration deserted from these responsibilities thereby…
I think this is bit charitable, to say the least. Long before Obama the "US-led international order" was also screwing up on Global Warming. Only Hitler could unite most the rest of the world, and only then because that was near the peak of colonialism so world power had never been so concentrated.
Similarly, just because the US' leadership is both absent and therefore ineffective in an area does not imply that were the US' leadership present, it would still be ineffective.
Certainly, per the parent comment, we have examples of the US' past leadership in this context leading to a very different outcome. We know that leadership was abdicated (and in fact, actively eviscerated) during the prior presidency.