Actually, when the history of the New Cold War is written, they will remember Matt Pottinger as the DNSA who ran America's initial COVID response and focused 100% of his energy on using COVID to bash China's system (instead of trying to shore up America's defenses)
From the CGP - Matt Pottinger and Robert O'Brien ran America's initial COVID response from January to at least January 31. Key text below: Pottinger understood this was the NSC's moment to repair its damaged reputation (thanks to Bolton deleting the NSC biodefense team)
2/
At least January 31, since, according to this March 30 WaPo article from Pottinger's close friend Josh Rogin, Pottinger was in charge of the COVID-19 meetings until at least late February
Put another way, Pottinger *volunteered* himself and the NSC for this job. For at least 3 (and potentially up to 6) critical weeks, Matt Pottinger ran America's COVID response. But what did he focus on? Not masks. Not tests. Not contact tracing. No. All he did...
4/
...was 1) shut down travel between the US and China, 2) think of ways to blame the virus on China, 3) try to figure out ways to defund the WHO, and 4) push the conspiracy theory that the virus originated in a Wuhan disease research lab
5/
Nearly all of the sheer zero-sum stupidity of how the Trump administration reacted to COVID can be laid at Matt Pottinger's feet. But instead of making amends, what has Matt been doing since then? Why, trying even harder to blame China for COVID, of course
6/
What's tragic about this isn't just 225,000+ preventable US deaths from Matt's attempt to play hero. No, it's that his desire to deflect this massive cock-up and to create a Cold War 2 drove him to sell one of the biggest of Big Lies ever - that it was all China's fault
7/
All of the 3,000+ racist attacks Asian-Americans have experienced from the "China Virus"; all of the permanent despair Chinese-Americans now face; all of the unknowable future deaths from this new Cold War we are hurtling into - can be laid at his feet.
He needs to own it.
8/
I have many other gripes with Matt: his sanctimonious facade hiding a deeply venal and glory-seeking psyche, his insufferable belief that he alone knows all the answers, and his inability to move beyond a 12-year-old's Manichean worldview even at age 46, but...
9/
...the fact that he decided to pin 225,000 deaths that HIS ACTIONS CAUSED on China (and Chinese- and Asian-Americans) makes me question whether he should even be considered a human being anymore
So, @timeswang, this is why you should not hold him as some positive example
First, China hasn't done a "hardline switch", because that implies political liberalization was the status quo when it definitely wasn't. China has been, is, and will be a Leninist state, and any recent shift is simply mean reversion
1/n
In fact, the China of 09 was an aberration: it had top-level leadership (Hu/Wen) who wanted more liberalization when most of the Party didn't, and it pumped so much stimulus it helped reflate the entire global economy (when China has historically been quite parsimonious)
2/n
I was in China then. I saw 1st-hand how Chinese banks and SOEs saved GE/JPN toolmakers, Korean electronics companies, US banks, and Western govts and corporates in general - and while letting Western NGOs flourish and engage with Chinese civil society.
3/n
Couple things to add here: this came right after Keith Krach visited Taiwan, where he discussed 'realigning supply chains' with both Tsai Ing-Wen and TSMC head Morris Chang. US policy is now to 1) protect TSMC vs Chinese competitors and 2) regulate who TSMC can sell to
The US will then use carrots (continued US subsidies, orders from US cos like QCOM AAPL NVDA) and the stick of 'protecting' against TSMC's Chinese competition to control TSMC by proxy.
The US wants China to set up substitutes to TSMC. That makes their stick more credible.
2/n
With TSMC firmly in the US orbit, the US believes it can then control the global diffusion of other technology such as 5G, AI, AR/VR, driverless cars, and robotics, as all of them benefit from leading-edge semicon fab capabilities
3/n
1/4 With the latest sanctions, the US is changing its strategy in Xinjiang from ethnic destabilization to sanctions-based suppression of economic activity
2/4 Timing wise, the US knows the world fashion industry is slumping this year so they will be cutting suppliers left/right/center; so the US gave a powerful incentive to cut Xinjiang-based textile suppliers via the sanctions + withdrawal of ESG audit firms
3/4 The goal of US sanctions is still the same as with ethnic destabilization: prevent Xinjiang from developing and tying Central Asia/Russia with firms on China's east coast. This matters b/c the US doesn't want China to fill the post-NATO Afghan power vacuum
Heard that Xi told Trump on Feb 5 that China was seeing early success in containing COVID, and wanted the US air travel ban lifted 'soon'
Trump interpreted Xi's words to mean that the virus was not that bad and it wouldn't spread to the US, and felt betrayed when it did spread
Of course, we now know that by Feb 5, the US likely had at least a few hundred active cases, if not more. Neither leader seemed aware of that at the time. Also, Xi emphasized test/trace/isolation but it's unclear if Trump thought that knowledge would matter to the US
Instead, Trump got advice from national security specialists like Matt Pottinger, who told him Xi must be lying and China's numbers must be much worse, and that travel bans would substantively contain the disease.
(0/n): Serious Twitter thread time: I think the governing elites in both China and the US have a mental model of each other that is, in a few key political and economic respects, 10 to 20 (or maybe even 30) years out of date
(1/n): On a political level, until the 2017 <--> COVID timeframe, China generally saw the US as sometimes hypocritical and nearly 100% self-interested, but respected it as patient, confident, and competent, and critically, assumed it had a pro-business domestic consensus
(2/n): Specifically, China assumed that the US corporate class had political primacy, and was both able and willing to defend the Sino-US relationship from both natsec hawks, nativists, labor progressives, and human rights progressives.