Great-power policy discourse structurally requires an us-versus-them world split

Evidence

Kissinger’s discourse must for that reason alone establish a polarity between the United States and the world; in addition, of course, he speaks consciously as an authoritative voice for the major Western power, whose recent history and present reality have placed it before a world that does not easily accept its power and dominance. Kissinger feels that the United States can deal less problematically with the industrial, developed West than it can with the developing world. — Edward W. Said, Orientalism, 140

Categorization

• XREF: This contemporary extension of the Orientalist binary into Cold War foreign policy discourse anticipates how the same framing recurs in later race-thinking and nation-building readings. — connects to: Social quantification is a core policy goal and geopolitical arena in China — Nick Couldry & Ulises A. Mejias, The Costs of Connection: How Data Is…, 50; the MOC “The Tongue of Power: When Language Becomes the Battlefield of Empire”
• corroborated: 2 independent passages support this claim — Edward W. Said, Orientalism, 140