[Published on SCF July 30th, 2022.] In October 2019, Jake Sullivan, who became U.S. National Security Advisor in 2021, stated in an interview that the U.S. needed a clear threat to rally the world and play the role of saviour of mankind and that China could be that organizing principle for U.S. foreign policy. In the 2019 interview, he acknowledges that the problem was that people were not going to believe that China is a global threat, that their view of China is too positive and that the United States would need a “Pearl Harbour moment,” a real focusing event to change their minds, something he calmly stated that “would scare the hell out of the American people.”
I've been wondering why the insistence on Pelosi in Taiwan. Your analysis, Cynthia, is the first thing I've seen to make sense of it. If her 'trip' doesn't happen, it will be because of strategic rather than moral reasons.
The prospect that US is deliberately instigating an incident over Taiwan in order to change attitudes at home and abroad against China and for US, ... this follows the same same pattern as what they have done in Europe, arming Ukraine to force Russia into a war that has cut Russia off from all of Western Europe and made then turn to the US once again. Its the same game plan. US is doing what it deems necessary to maintain empire, its world dominance. That is what the State Department does. That is its mission. And they have had a lot of practice. They are good at it.
It was that freaky interviewer Jordan Schneider who referenced instrumentalising a Pearl Harbour event, which Sullivan immediately rebutted:
"...as one senator said to Harry Truman 'You gotta scare the hell out of the American people'. This would require an active bipartisan effort to basically turn China into the enemy in the eyes of the people. I think that is a profound mistake."
In the interview Sullivan says he sees American foreign policy as saving the world from threats like climate change and Ebola, and he references the film Independence Day as an (dorky) example of how a single event could spur America to bring the world together and overcome an existential threat. It's naive and dumb and laughably remote from US foreign policy in practise, but he didn't say the thing you said he did.
I've been wondering why the insistence on Pelosi in Taiwan. Your analysis, Cynthia, is the first thing I've seen to make sense of it. If her 'trip' doesn't happen, it will be because of strategic rather than moral reasons.
Cynthia,
The prospect that US is deliberately instigating an incident over Taiwan in order to change attitudes at home and abroad against China and for US, ... this follows the same same pattern as what they have done in Europe, arming Ukraine to force Russia into a war that has cut Russia off from all of Western Europe and made then turn to the US once again. Its the same game plan. US is doing what it deems necessary to maintain empire, its world dominance. That is what the State Department does. That is its mission. And they have had a lot of practice. They are good at it.
If Pelosi's plane does go down, I bet Pelosi will not be on it.
It was that freaky interviewer Jordan Schneider who referenced instrumentalising a Pearl Harbour event, which Sullivan immediately rebutted:
"...as one senator said to Harry Truman 'You gotta scare the hell out of the American people'. This would require an active bipartisan effort to basically turn China into the enemy in the eyes of the people. I think that is a profound mistake."
In the interview Sullivan says he sees American foreign policy as saving the world from threats like climate change and Ebola, and he references the film Independence Day as an (dorky) example of how a single event could spur America to bring the world together and overcome an existential threat. It's naive and dumb and laughably remote from US foreign policy in practise, but he didn't say the thing you said he did.
Pelosi has announced she's not going to visit Twain.