Lessons from an Ambassador

Former Ambassador Carla Sands came to Harvard to discuss China's influence and her views on the 2024 election.

Last month, the Salient was pleased to welcome businesswoman Carla Sands for a discussion of her experiences as U.S. Ambassador to Denmark. In addition to stories about her time representing the U.S. abroad, Sands warned students about China’s growing influence on the world stage and argued in favor of President Trump’s reelection.

Sands addresses students in the Salient office.

Sands’ portrayal of contemporary foreign policy challenges was one shaped by the threat of a revisionist China. She claimed that the United States is engaged in a new cold war. Making reference to Michael Pillsbury’s book The Hundred-Year Marathon, she further argued that Chinese leaders understand themselves as engaged in a protracted ideological and geopolitical struggle against the United States. Their strategic thought is dedicated to that end; we need to recognize this reality and prevent their continued rise. Even more immediately, she said, we need to do a better job of preventing China’s theft of American intellectual property, such as the plans for the F-35, and investigate alleged financial connections between President Biden and the CCP.

These were not merely academic concerns for Sands. Despite her Nordic posting—not a region one might have assumed to be a top Chinese priority—she described countering Chinese diplomatic advances as a major part of her job. For instance, she lobbied the Danish government to keep Huawei out of its 5G network, an effort that was ultimately successful. Huawei, a Chinese telecommunications firm, came under serious scrutiny from officials in the Trump Administration because of fears that it would help the CCP to spy on or disrupt Western communications networks.

Sands’ portfolio also included liaising between the U.S. government and Greenland, a Danish territory. She emphasized the value of Greenland as both a store of vast mineral resources and a strategic location for the control of the Arctic and North Atlantic. The island remains relatively undeveloped, however, making it a ripe target for Chinese influence operations. Indeed, several Chinese efforts to build facilities in Greenland were stopped during the Trump administration. As such, Sands said, Trump’s 2019 effort to buy Greenland had more merit than was initially acknowledged by most observers.

Sands also reminded the audience that the struggle for influence between ourselves and China, has not been entirely characterized by diplomatic successes. This is particularly true regarding our relationships in the developing world. As Sands put it, woke conditions placed on foreign aid, like requirements for increased abortion access, offend the socially conservative beliefs of many nations. In contrast, Chinese trade and development deals are usually purely economic, which may make them more attractive to some foreign leaders.

Sands also forcefully made the case for a second Trump administration. Building off of her remarks regarding her personal experience serving in the administration, she praised the former president’s diplomatic strategy, noting that he prevented conflict with North Korea and reduced free-riding by other countries in international agreements with the United States.

She discussed domestic political issues as well, criticizing President Biden’s economic policy and lauding Trump’s by comparison. One key distinction between the two, Sands said, is that Trump prioritized energy independence, which she described as both helpful to the American economy and an important strategic measure given geopolitical uncertainty. She also chastised Democrats for undoing some of Trump’s policies in that regard.

Sands’ talk was rounded out by a nod to the controversies—such as the short-lived tenure of Claudine Gay—that have consumed out campus as of late. She called on Harvard to return to its guiding principle of Veritas, and in so doing to stop attacking traditional values. While woke ideas are concentrated at Harvard, she noted, they are not contained here. As the priorities and public statements of the current administration show, Harvard is not the only institution whose foundations have been dangerously weakened by progressive ideology.