Imagen-The Strategic Importance of Diplomatic Civility in U.S.-China Relations

Introduction

In a recent episode of the podcast discussing international relations, the hosts explored a seemingly simple yet profoundly important question: Is it appropriate for China's president to attend a U.S. presidential inauguration? The discussion, though brief, unpacked critical principles about diplomacy, conflict prevention, and the delicate balance of power between global superpowers. The speakers made a compelling case that maintaining civil diplomatic relations, even—or especially—with rival powers, is fundamental to global stability and security.

Key Points

• Maintaining civil relations with rival powers like China is crucial for global stability
• Direct communication between world leaders helps prevent dangerous misunderstandings
• The historical precedent of the JFK-Khrushchev direct line during the Cuban Missile Crisis demonstrates the importance of leader-to-leader contact
• The U.S. is effectively in a cold war with China, which makes diplomatic engagement more important, not less
• Presidential engagement with leaders of adversarial nations like North Korea and Iran is strategically valuable
• Using intermediaries for communication can create problems and increase the risk of conflict
• Public displays of respect, like attending inaugurations, help maintain diplomatic channels

The Case for Diplomatic Engagement

The podcast host was unequivocal in their response to whether China's president should attend a U.S. presidential inauguration: "100%. I do not understand people that want there to be stoked animosity between us and the world's other biggest power." This statement cuts to the heart of a fundamental principle in international relations—maintaining channels of communication, especially with potential adversaries.

The speaker highlighted an uncomfortable reality: "We already are effectively in a cold war with [China]." Given this tense backdrop, the argument is not for less engagement, but more. "You don't want to exacerbate that," they emphasized, suggesting that diplomatic posturing that increases hostility only makes an already precarious situation more dangerous.

Learning from History: The Kennedy-Khrushchev Hotline

To illustrate the importance of direct communication, the speaker referenced a pivotal moment in Cold War history: "There is a reason that JFK and Khrushchev had a direct line between the White House and the Kremlin that started during the Cuban Missile Crisis."

This historical example is particularly instructive. The Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962 brought the world to the brink of nuclear war. The establishment of the Moscow-Washington hotline came as a direct response to the realization that communication delays and misunderstandings could lead to catastrophic consequences. As the speaker noted, "They found that the go-betweens were causing problems."

This historical lesson applies directly to contemporary U.S.-China relations. When stakes are high, direct channels of communication between leaders become not just valuable, but essential for preventing dangerous escalations based on misunderstandings or miscalculations.

The Value of Leader-to-Leader Diplomacy

The podcast discussion expanded beyond China to advocate for broader diplomatic engagement: "Any president having direct relations with the most important leaders in the world, I think, is critical."

This principle extends even to nations with whom relations are particularly strained: "He should be talking to people like the leader of North Korea. He should be talking to people in Iran. We should be talking to these leaders—100%."

The emphasis here is not on agreement or alignment of values, but on the pragmatic necessity of communication itself. Diplomatic engagement doesn't signal approval or endorsement—it represents a recognition that lines of communication must remain open, especially when ideological differences are stark.

Civility as Strategic Necessity

Underlying the entire discussion is a crucial insight: civility in international relations isn't merely about politeness—it's a strategic imperative. As the speaker put it, "You want them, as much as possible, to be civil. You want them to be able to reach across the aisle."

This civility creates space for dialogue even amid disagreement. Ceremonial events like inaugurations provide structured opportunities for leaders to interact in ways that maintain diplomatic relationships without requiring policy concessions.

Conclusion: The Paradox of Rival Power Diplomacy

Perhaps the most compelling insight from the podcast discussion is the apparent paradox it highlights: the more adversarial a relationship between major powers becomes, the more important direct, civil engagement becomes.

While public opinion might favor tough stances and limited engagement with rival powers like China, the historical record and strategic logic suggest otherwise. As tensions increase, so does the potential cost of miscommunication or misunderstanding.

The question of whether China's president should attend a U.S. presidential inauguration thus becomes more than a matter of ceremonial protocol—it becomes a test case for a broader principle of international relations. In a world of nuclear powers and complex global challenges, maintaining civility and open channels of communication isn't just diplomacy; it's an essential safeguard for global security.

For the full conversation, watch the video here.