The danger is that Western politicians will overreact to the hos- tile rhetoric, stir up public opinion, and shut off contact, thus miss- ing the opportunities that such rhetoric conceals. A better policy would be for Western leaders to keep a clear head, respond calmly to rhetorical attacks, and give up nothing of substance, while remain- ing alert for the change in the weather that will come as the new president realizes the incoherence of his own plans and is pushed back toward an ambivalent partnership with t
The idea of long term patency in diplomacy is brought up with this article which also stresses how important it is to separate between rhetorical and real policy conduct. It was important because it suggested that leaders may miss genuine engagement chances because of their emotional responses to hostile words. Treisman gives normative recommendations for Western policymakers while giving his viewpoint in a subjective manner. The main conclusions are that effective diplomacy requires an understanding of difference between rhetoric and reality and that judgment should be given importance over response in foreign affairs. This also explains why the way the West reacts to negative comments which either increase tension or create partnership.