Brian White on Diplomacy.

Brian white has illustrated a very clear picture of what diplomacy means and raises some key issues regarding the nature and development of diplomacy. He distinguished and elaborated the traditional diplomacy and new diplomacy by looking into its structure, process and agenda. Along with the changes in world politics and international order diplomacy was on its course by evolving into new shapes through changing, adopting itself. Diplomacy refers to a process of communication and negotiation between states and other international actors. In this process every actor acts on their behalf and seek to fulfil their objectives. Diplomacy existed since 2500 AD but it took a new shape in 15^th century when it was institutionalised. The changing of diplomacy is ongoing as the international events and changes create a new frame and diplomacy needs to adopt its objective according to it. White mentioned diplomacy as policy instrument within the government. The government make important decisions regarding their foreign affairs. Diplomacy is the one of the set of main instrument to implement these decisions and activate its process towards achieving specific goal. There are four major functions of the diplomatic process: such as Information gathering, policy advice, negotiations and consular service.

The traditional diplomacy were mainly bilateral and between state to state and maintained secrecy. But the new diplomacy is multilateral and it involves lots of new actors that have emerged in the international politics in modern times. As a result the way of negotiation and the arrangement and procedure of diplomacy has changed in its nature. After reading whites essay I found there are three stages of diplomacy.

1. Traditional diplomacy until the first word war

2. New diplomacy until the beginning of the cold war

3. Cold war diplomacy.

Firstly the significance of diplomatic failing s to prevent First World War demanded the changes in traditional diplomacy. This led to the emergence of new diplomacy.

In the Second World War the shortcomings of new diplomacy proved that just changing the nature and being less secretive is not going to make diplomacy succeed in international affairs.

The emergence of modern states and diplomatic missions in most of the states lead another watershed to the diplomacy. The cold war diplomacy and the new world order had to embrace new style of diplomacy such as nuclear diplomacy, summit diplomacy, crisis diplomacy.

Diplomatic instruments contain three options military, economic and subversion. This is called mixed diplomacy. Military force can be portrayed as an option to give muscle to negotiations. Trade option can be used as either ‘carrot’ or ‘stick’ which means it can influence the opposition’s decision either by offering them trade facilities or withdrawing it. Subversion is another option which rather harsh and focused into overthrowing the opposite states government by different means such as supporting their rebel group and operation intelligence to weakened the government.

Changes to the state based diplomacy are another element of white’s essay. In this era of globalisation and intensified technological advancement has changed the diplomatic pattern into more multilateral shape. Hence he raises the question to what extent the state and state system remain or should remain in global diplomacy?

Brian white also mentioned the vulnerability of the developing country in competition with the developed world. They are in disadvantages of weak embassies and diplomatic institutions as new born states. He has also asserted the danger of diplomatic missions as a new problem for the states. Globalisation and its huge advancement have enabled the distant enemy to perpetrate a states interest into their embassies. This has made the process and effectiveness of foreign affairs more difficult.

Traditional Diplomacy Outmoded?

The art and practice of diplomacy is an ever evolving discipline. It is questionable whether one can distinguish between ‘old’ and ‘new’ diplomacy as two separate forms of diplomacy. Indeed many changes have occurred in world politics and technological innovations have also had an effect on the conduct of diplomacy, but pronouncing the traditional forms of diplomacy dead all together does not reflect the reality. Traditional forms of bilateral diplomacy conducted by more or less professionalised staff of foreign offices and embassies have developed throughout the past centuries and, although Kissinger and Brzezinski in the 1960s and 1970s thought the resident missions were useless, these continue to exist today. Many of the tasks of resident missions and professional diplomats have, however, changed over the past years, in part due to the invention of the telegraph, the telephone, aircrafts and the internet.
The emergence of summit diplomacy and the increased involvement of state leaders in diplomacy have furthermore transformed diplomacy. Yet such summits could not take place without traditional channels of diplomacy, which allows for the planning of such a summit and which makes sure that the processes initiated at the summit are continued. Moreover, heads of state are not able to be at more than one place at the time and as they cannot spend all their time flying around the world, there is still a need for professional diplomats and foreign offices to maintain the day-to-day relations between states.
With the advent of the internet, which allows information to be available very fast and to many people, means that diplomats are no longer the only source of information about the country in which they are posted. However, there is still a need for the resident diplomat who can interpret information and hopefully get information from the most reliable sources and information that will not appear in the media.
The roles of traditional institutions and diplomatic relations have changed, but they have not become outmoded. Embassies are no longer only concerned with ‘high politics’ and official state matters. Besides collecting and interpreting information, embassies also increasingly assist trade missions and take care of citizens of their home country who find themselves in problems. Although it can be argued that the increased involvement by heads of states in diplomacy has undermined the role and authority of professional diplomats, these are still important in conducting relations between states and state leaders would not be able to fulfil their new roles as diplomatic actors without the assistance of the traditional institutions of diplomacy. State leaders would be unlikely to reach any agreements at their summits if it was not for the preparatory work done by the staff of the foreign offices and resident missions.

Brian White on Diplomacy

“In general, however, it was quickly discovered that honesty rather than deceit is more likely to be effective in achieving objectives, whatever short-term gains might be made by more duplicitous behaviour.”

The above assertion of Mr White’s is a bold one and dismisses the realist principle of relative gains. The prisoner’s dilemma has been the basis of study, curiosity and indeed tv game shows. If we are to take this blog as an example of a social grouping that simulates relational trends we can apply these opposing principles.

White defines diplomatic gains as long term. Therefore to blog on White academically can only bring me relative gains as, if I was to dissect White’s broad analysis, my act would simply be a formative one. The points of my peers which have been varied, insightful and provocative would leave my own analysis in a diminished and relative position.

However, mine and your long-term diplomatic gains can only be defined as continued, broad participation in this lovely blog. Therefore to simply post on a subject that has been posted to death would render my blog unread and un-stimulating. I endorse Mr White’s claim and dismiss that of realist-based, relative self-interest. Join me in looking to the future and avoid the dry regurgitation of a textual analysis.

Traditional Diplomacy

Given the hasty pace at which the Internet Communications Technologies (ICTs) relentlessly continues to advance, one not only needs to bear in mind, but also come to terms with the spectrum of effects ICTs entails. Our lifestyles; societal/family relations; taste/preferences; hobbies/routines and to some extent it can be argued that one’s 'ontological' feeling in relations to various 'places' during a moment in 'time', will too ultimately change. The same applies to ‘diplomacy’, how new technologies generate pressure and limits to the traditional code-of-conducts; ultimately forcing there to be some degrees of adaptation as well as adoption (in terms of technologies diplomacy uses).

‘Diplomacy’ traditionally stood as a mechanism of ‘representation, communication, and negotiation’ through which states conducted their businesses. As far as history recalls, bilateral diplomacy dates back to roughly 2500 BC, with the ‘trade treaty’ between the Pharaoh of Egypt and the King of Babylon (Winham 1992 in Bayne). Diplomatic relations took place in form of bilateralism, involving two entities i.e. state vs. state, whether representatives of states or heads of states. 'Diplomacy' can also be employed to describe relations between and among tribes, states and empires. These relations often emerged resulting from mutual interests, common ideologies, needs to enhance ‘security, trades, and ultimately the formation of an alliance among the two.

The above-mentioned often took place through ‘temporary envoys’ which often appeared to be ineffective and involved high expenses. Nonetheless, a ‘concrete’ and permanent system was established in Medieval Europe (Italian city-states), where two chief actors were established. Through highly coordinated work-networks the ‘resident diplomat’ (ambassador), ‘mission’ (embassy) and the home ministry of foreign affairs (MFA) jointly handle the interests of its state, as well as maintain a polished-representation. Resident diplomats are equivalent in being the ‘front-line’ of diplomacy; he/she is regarded, as the ‘direct representative’ of his /her sovereign entity hence requires equal treatment and recognition.

A virtue in ‘old diplomacy’ was the degree of secrecy and exclusiveness it incorporated. This was facilitated by the very nature of bilateralism, which limited communication to only two parties at any given time. The embassy (stationed in foreign territory) became the ‘co-manager’ of bilateral relations, reason being that there was no equivalent branch in any government, which had an ‘all-round-the-clock’ overview monitoring the totality of relations in any foreign capital. Thanks to embassies and their sub-branches, ‘bridges’ have been built for purpose of reinforcing the relations and interests between the two parties.

Regardless of contemporary advancement in the fields of ICTs, MFAs worldwide remain and continues to represents the ‘hub’ of an up-dated dynamic global network (21st century). Due to ‘globalisation’ and ICTs, the MFAs worldwide constantly have to face, and deal with newly emerging actors: inter-state and non-state, both of whom will eventually hold legitimate roles/duties in foreign affairs.

Nonetheless, MFAs continue to conduct their affairs based on their traditional norms: they give instructions to embassies; they co-ordinate meetings and negotiations; they collect, report and disseminate relevant information.

However, both the 'media' and 'press' intensification, plus their very presence at various government events, diplomatic gatherings and summits, are indeed creating accumulating obstacles to the ‘purpose’ and effectiveness of individual state’s businesses. The rapidity of, and frequencies, media broadcasts have caused politicians and diplomats to maintain ‘alert and aware’, so as to avoid likelihoods of manipulation/disaster on their image and credibility.

Last but surely not the least, is the issue of ‘information’, due to today’s variety of channels and the notion of ‘freedom of information’, what reaches the state or MFA will sooner or later reach the general public, as well as the foreign public. Neither the feeling of ‘confidentiality’, nor the power to ‘control’ what will be leaked are any longer in states grips.

Diplomacy all began as a simple 'one-lane' relationship (state vs. state), it involved regular gatherings between the heads/representatives of states. Much the same continues to happen in present time, however, it is occurring in a new dimension, with new elements and an increasingly interwoven network.

Today, one may argue that due to the interconnectedness and interdependence, it is somewhat near impossible for two states to create and sustain an exclusive relationship, 100 % impermeable from external influences, and the temptations to divert in order to achieve higher gains.

Brian White on diplomacy

White says that diplomacy is a term difficult to explain in one way only. It is important to indicate that there are two main perspectives: macro and micro. Macro perspective looks at diplomacy as a whole, it is a communication process in world politics. From micro perspective diplomacy is understood through a range of instruments used by players to practise foreign policy.

First of all lets focus on macro perspective. White divides diplomacy into five major stages. Each characterizes diplomacy in a slightly more evolved and different way. There is: traditional diplomacy, new diplomacy, cold war diplomacy, after cold war diplomacy and diplomacy after 9/11.

White presents diplomacy beginning with traditional diplomacy. It took its first steps in Ancient Greece, where the city-states were communicating between each other. However modern global diplomatic system has its roots in the fifteenth century as White says.  First embassies where set up in Italy. Then proper structure, process and agenda could evolve. In traditional diplomacy, communication was held between states, thus embassies were important part of every state. Characteristic for traditional diplomacy was its secrecy and bilateralism. While that, diplomacy has not only been a regular process but also regularized one. As White indicates two principals emerged. One of the rules describes a quote 'don't shoot the messenger!' and it means that diplomats should be able to conduct their business without fear. Second one says that the ambassador should be treated exactly like the monarch, as diplomats were formal representatives of kings. That was a diplomatic protocol. Foreign policy that times was just about kings' personal ambitions. And diplomats were sent to 'lie on behalf of his country'. However it was quickly discovered that honesty is more efficient. Traditional diplomacy got to the top in nineteenth century, as the century of peace in Europe.

After the First World War things have changed and there was a public strong demand to keep diplomacy negotiations more open. The public did not have to necessarily be involved in the process but at least public had a need to be informed and conscious about situations. It was in the opposite to the traditional diplomacy that was characterised with secrecy and exclusiveness. New diplomacy create an opportunity for international organizations to enter public arena (the League of Nations). Important was a policy of states, they changed their form from night-watchman state to welfare state, where public security, social and economic wellbeing of citizens were important. Key issue was military security, 'the First World War was the end of all wars'. Because of topics discussed on the international panels, diplomacy started to be very specialized, diplomats were no longer only players, because also non governmental actors involved.

After the Second World War, the new age of diplomacy was created. Because of new countries which joined the international arena, which weren't familiar to diplomacy rules, it was decided to gather all regulations and in 1961 in Vienna established the Convention on Diplomatic Regulations. However mainly all discussions were focused on the East - West relations because of the Cold War. New way of diplomacy communication was for example 'hot line' between Washington and Moscow leaders. Direct communication was also used in various summits which initially had only symbolical meaning. New issues to agenda were  environment and technology. Cold war diplomacy divides into tree main streams: nuclear, crisis and summi diplomacy.

After cold war public was very optimistic about the role and success of diplomacy and negotiations. However soon after US operation in Kuwait another operation in Yugoslavia failed. Basically diplomacy after cold war was characterised with multilateralism, global scope and complexity. Diplomacy's agenda of issues was wider than ever before.

Another phase was diplomacy after 9/11, so called 'the war against terrorism' with its unilateralism. Public opinion was very pessimistic about the Bush policy. After tough negotiations Bush created a broad coalition to invade Afghanistan, however this situation was different from all others because Al Quaeda was not formal actor.

As White mentioned on the beginning, diplomacy mainly is described as a process of communication and as instruments of foreign policy. Briefly on micro perspective: every foreign department is connected to a network of embassies. There is a machinery which is about, both making and implementing foreign policy. Its main instruments are: gathering information, advising policy, representing and negotiating and providing consular services. Sometimes these pure diplomacy does not make the accurate effect and so mixed diplomacy is used. Its examples are: military force, economic measurements and subversion.

Finally, White realises that diplomacy in developing states is different, and sometimes plays not the same roles as in developed countries.

Agnieszka Moldach

Brian White on diplomacy

White in his essay has pointed out that one of the key changes taking place in the nature of diplomacy is its shift from a mere instrument of state behaviour of both developing and developed nations. He elaborates that diplomacy was used to emphasize the traditional dominance of states as international actors, however, even the most powerful states are no longer the only important international actors in a global diplomatic system. White is of the view that bilateral state to state diplomacy has increasingly has been supplemented by multilateral forms of diplomacy. This multilateral diplomacy, he elaborates, is conducted by a mixture of state and non-state actors. According to White, international organizations perform very much in the same way as states. Intergovernmental organizations like the UN or non-governmental organizations like the multinational corporations can communicate and use their resources to influence the outcome of negotiations. White is of the view that these actors have a greater ability to influence the diplomatic process at a global level than smaller states. At regional level, according to him, complex multilateral types of diplomacy have been developed which have reached their most developed form in Europe and is evident by the foreign and external policies implemented in the EU. White has termed these developments as important ones as they raise key questions about the extent to which the state and state system remain, the main vehicles for global diplomacy.

Brian White - Diplomacy

Brian White’s article on Diplomacy is a fascinating article which uses both historical and modern concepts to clarify the term Diplomacy. He starts in the article from a historical concept, stating that diplomacy has been around for centuries, right down to 2500 BC.
He underlines that diplomacy is a way for countries to communicate to one another, that countries negotiate with each other to avoid conflict, and that they attain their interests at heart by negotiations to one another. There are two sections in this article that Brian pays much attention to, the first is the traditional diplomacy, and the second new diplomacy. By traditional he means that it’s a mutual concept of both parties on how they interact with one another and that there is no upper hand from one nation to negotiate with another, in other ways no preconditions.
Brian outlines Europe as a key example of traditional diplomacy, and that Europe’s triumph today, is much down to its ability to negotiate with one another after both world wars, and by and the operations of embassies, gave nations the ability to seek mutual and national interest. Then there’s the new diplomacy, and if any what is new about it.
White also makes a valid argument that the United States has abandoned the cause of diplomacy and has taken a road of unilateral approach. The events of 9/11 has changed the United States whole concept of global security, using key arguments of not only the invasion of Afghanistan, but also the invasion of Iraq in 2003, and he outlines the United States decision to not pursue a diplomatic initiative has shown that while some countries pursue the path of diplomacy, others only chose it on their convenience, or when their interests is undermined. In summary Brian White’s article diplomacy touches on several ideas from history to present, and that if anything, it shows that although through globalization the world has changed, forms of traditional diplomacy is still a key factor in international affairs.

White On Diplomacy

White start by trying to sort out what is diplomacy, because of the fact that, usually it is a broad term, used in different context, which does not mean the same; for example, it is often say that foreign policy is the same as diplomacy, which is not. Foreign policy is a decision making process; what to do, whereas diplomacy is the process trough which to implement the policy, the decision taken, into the foreign country. Diplomacy is as White says the “defining institution” of conflict and cooperation, as it tries to avoid conflict, by creating cooperation between states, which will lead to a greater dependency between them and push aside the idea of war.
One’s we understood what diplomacy is mean by, White carry on by explaining what constitute diplomacy, and what is the difference between the “old” diplomacy and the “new” one. He cut them on three parts: Structure, Process, and Agenda “broadly related to who was involved in diplomacy, how diplomacy activity was organized, and the substance of diplomacy”. The “old” diplomacy structure, related on the communication between two states, produce the institutionalization of diplomacy. Embassies were created to entertain the long-term cooperation, diplomats become a professional career and foreign department ministries were formed in the home-country. The “new” diplomacy still relates to the network created by the “old “one but states are no more the only actors, international organizations (NGOs and IGOs) such as the United-Nations, as well as, multinational cooperation are now playing in the field. White underlines the change in the State itself, as it passed from a “night-watchman State” to a “Welfare State”. How diplomacy does as such organized then?
The “old” diplomacy was characterized by two features according to White; first, it was a state-to-state business, secondly, this bilateral diplomacy was conducted in secret. The organization of diplomacy involved ceremonial, which become regularized on what is known as “diplomatic protocol” to which is attached a “series of rights, privileges and immunities”. The “new” diplomacy can still be conducted bilaterally, but it become mostly multilateral, as states are not the only ones involved and secrecy become harder for the same reason. Now the Agenda set up, which seems the most important feature of diplomacy, to quote White “The preoccupation of diplomacy reflected the preoccupation of the political leaders themselves”. In the “old” diplomacy, the preoccupations were mainly focused on war and peace, and how to gain more territory or more influence, and it considered “High politics”, whereas the “new” diplomacy agenda comprise more subjects, from economic, to social issues, as well as environmental problems, which is considered “low politics” but are the major issues to deal with nowadays.
To conclude, I think that if we carry on of this idea of “old” and “new” diplomacy, then today diplomacy is no more that “new” because after and since the “cold war” new problem had occurred, which has no answer with this kind of diplomacy, and for example, White stated the fact that diplomacy is today more done by political leader, or head of State than diplomats, or the fact that diplomacy is undertaken by military solutions, so why not an “contemporize” diplomacy or a “21 century” diplomacy ?

Brian White on Diplomacy

Brian White explains why there is no short definition of the word 'diplomacy', as there are many different types that have evolved over the centuries and because of this it is nearly impossible to explain. However, White breaks it down quite simply explaining each type and function diplomacy has on world politics and how it's evolved since the ancient and medieval times. It can be said that there are two types of perspectives on world politics 'macro' (the larger picture) focusing on states and world politics collectively and 'micro' (the smaller picture) which focuses on actors and the states. Diplomacy has two main functions in dealing with conflict; to use communication as a means to negotiate a conflict or the use of an economic or military force to achieve its policy.

The forms of diplomacy evolved from the ancient and medieval times of representatives corresponding with each other to resolve conflict, to the Renaissance in Italy when the residence of a permanent diplomatic institution was established. Then came the Traditional diplomacy which had distinctive features: Structure, Process and Agenda. Its structure consisted of communication between modern States rather than with international organisations, these processes developed a certain diplomatic protocol whereby diplomats had to behave in a certain way, they had rights and immunities and were entitled to safeguarding due to their position. The agenda dealt with the issues concerning these diplomats in a bi-lateral way and this was successful for a time, although after WWI due to the breakdown of communications and a failure of traditional diplomacy to stop this from happening, they sought to correct the traditional way by creating the new diplomacy which was more open and less secretive than before and state members and non-state members were also involved in world politics so it was balanced means of communication. The twentieth century saw it becoming a ‘welfare state’ and interested in its citizens.

Diplomacy also changed from a bi-lateral way of dealing with issues to a multilateral way which now included issues such as environment, nuclear arms, and technology. The ‘Cold War’ also brought about new types of diplomacy such as; Nuclear Diplomacy, Crisis Diplomacy and Summit Diplomacy three ways to deal effectively with states that possess nuclear weapons and aren’t afraid to use them or threaten other states with them to get their own way. After the Cold war issues such as poverty began to arise ‘development diplomacy’ was another means of communication between third world and core nation however it wasn’t really fair since these developing countries had no means to ‘bargain’ with western powers, ‘War against terror’ was a challenge for diplomats to deal with after 9/11 and the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq.

Thus over time the role of diplomacy has evolved and is necessary in world politics, many new functions have their roots in the traditional diplomacy with slight adjustments, non- governmental actors have more of a role in the diplomacy of world politics and they are necessary in their role to protect their citizens as in the case of the teacher who went to Saudi Arabia, I think and called that teddy bear Mohammed and as a result was going to be punished, she was then helped out of the country and back to England.

(Something to think about… Why did they help this teacher and not the three English men, of Pakistani descent I think, who were sent to Guantanamo?)

White on diplomacy - new and old

White starts with a brief account of the history of diplomacy, which is by no means a recent concept. Some sort of diplomatic activity can be traced back to the kingdoms of the Middle East in the 25th century BC, and diplomatic relations also occurred between the city-states in ancient Greece. In the 15th century the city-states in renaissance Italy got the idea of actually leaving an envoy in the receiving country instead of having them travelling back and forth.
Later on the French developed this system further, and a certain unofficial protocol developed which included a tradition of mutual (relative) honesty and (relative) trust. During the 19th century diplomacy was relatively successful, ad peace was maintained in Europe. Then came 1914, and the disaster that was the First World War, and faith in the “Old Diplomacy” waned. In order to avoid a new Great War, a “New Diplomacy” was developed, which was not so much something completely new as a new and improved “Old Diplomacy 2.0”.
The main differences were in line with the general optimism and idealism of the period right after World War One. They included a greater openness and transparency, a tendency to negotiate on a larger scale with more countries involved, and a shift in focus; in addition to the high politics of kings mainly concerning territory, issues such as civil rights and environment were put on the agenda.
In the bipolar political climate of the Cold War, diplomacy was mainly focused on avoiding a nuclear conflict and on preventing countries from joining “the other side”. After the end of the Cold War it shifted again to become truly global, and thereby also very complex and fragmented due to the multitude and diversity of both actors and issues.
This development indicates that diplomacy, as a tool for states to conduct their foreign policy, has developed with the rest of the system, and adapted to the situation and the historical context. Some argue that it has lost its meaning today, but I disagree. In my view it still has an important role to fill as mediator between people, even if the states do not necessarily play the key role anymore.

Brian White On Diplomacy

Brian White underpinned the comparisons of traditional and new diplomacy characteristics by the framework of their structure, process, and agenda and offers a fascinating study of diplomacy. On one hand traditional diplomacy organized by bilateral basis and the process normally undertaking in secrecy to deal with the issues of 'high politics' between the statesmen. on the other hand features of new diplomacy more open and public and encourages multilateral process and deals with issues of 'low politics'

White described diplomacy as the process of communication and negotiation. according to White traditional diplomacy differ from the ancient and medieval by the communication process in which in the traditional diplomacy the communication process was between modern states. previously in the ancient and medieval the communication was held between different forms of political organization, religion, and monarch. The core features of traditional diplomacy the relations and activities are state based. and this activity leads to diplomacy being institutionalized and professionalized. in traditional diplomacy negotiation are held in secrecy which are state to state basis. And due to excessive secrecy traditional diplomacy was prone to criticism. In fact supporters of democracy blamed the excessive secrecy of traditional diplomacy caused the war and they hoped that new diplomacy would be the turning point after 1918.

The relevant issues of new diplomacy was the emergency of new actors and their participation in world politics. although states are the main actors but due to the involvement of new actors bilateral basis of diplomacy are undermined. And also states approach to the administration and regulation of their members of the community [citizens] whom resides in foreign territory seen dramatic change in which traditional diplomats less priority. And White argue that new diplomacy is more open than traditional diplomacy. Furthermore the most important features of new diplomacy are the stress placed on 'low politics' such Economy[trade], Environment, and welfare issues.

The changing nature of diplomacy clearly seen in the period of after the Second World War. The decline of traditional diplomacy was evident. this can be argued that negotiation has been undertaking in the multilateral basis in which states and non-state actors has been involved in issues such as environment, technology, trade, and arms control.

finally White pointed out that the end of cold war and the demise of Soviet Union had given flicker of that would probably be achieved many things by the process of communication and negotiation. The successful approach to ousting the invading of Iraq forces from Kuwait in 1991which was supported by the UN resolution seemed tangible evidence that organized multilateral approach would be the future model. But the promise was short lived and it was not as international community hoped. And White argued that ''the failure of diplomacy to resolve the breakdown of order in the former Yugoslavia illustrates the intractable nature of many post-cold war problems on the international agenda.

White explained the nature and development of diplomacy clearly from the inception of traditional diplomacy to the in the beginning of twenty first century and concludes by arguing that ''diplomacy have changed and it remains highly relevant process in the contonmporary world politics''

white on diplomacy

B. Whites chapter about Diplomacy gives a very useful overview about this topic, starting from the historical development of diplomacy traced back to 2500BC up until today. He divided the chapter into ‘Old Diplomacy’ and ‘New Diplomacy’ and highlights at the end of the chapter he analyses the new challenges to diplomacy like terrorism. Whites regards diplomacy as a key tool to stability and order in world politics.

To define the wide usage of the term diplomacy he divides it in ‘macro’ and ‘micro’ perspective of world politics, while ‘macro’ refers in a wider sense to a ‘process of communication’ and negotiations between states and non-state actors in global politics. Diplomacy at a ‘micro’ level refers to state policy, where diplomacy is used as ‘policy instrument’ especially in foreign policy ‘rather than a global process’.

White refers to Old Diplomacy as a time where diplomacy was bilateral and state based, therefore the public was not involved and diplomacy was carried out in secrecy. Diplomats or Embassies became an important instrument for state interest and was connected to the home foreign office. Later on it became professionalized and Extraterritoriality and Immunity became important characteristics of it. This laid the foundation of diplomacy today.

New Diplomacy developed after the diplomatic failure of the First World War. White points out that two new features of diplomacy were: first, diplomacy should be made more public and second the establishment of international organisation, like the League of Nations. Disputes could be settled and it could act as deterrent to avoid war multilaterally. Developing countries have the most underdeveloped diplomatic service and international organisation acts as a compensation of it.
A significant development in diplomacy is that it is no longer state based. Non-state actors become more important and had to be involved in the diplomatic system. Diplomacy is therefore more inclusive today, but on the other hand it transformed diplomacy into a more complicated mechanism.
The Cold War diplomacy was dominated by the avoidance of a global nuclear war between the two superpowers USA and Soviet Union. White argues that it was a dangerous form of diplomacy. But after the end of the Cold War, optimism spread around diplomacy, that it could resolve all major international conflicts. This optimism disappeared quickly with the occurrence of new problems.
Nowadays with diplomacy it is hard to tackle terrorism, like Al Qaeda, because it is not located in a specific country, it is more a global network. Therefore ‘Old’ and ‘New’ diplomacy is not really affective because it is difficult to negotiate and communicate with them. White argues that the US reaction of the 9/11 underpinned diplomacy in that way that the US used unilateralism instead of multilateralism.



Seminar: ‘old diplomacy’ vs. ‘new diplomacy’

We had the discussion in the seminar if such a thing like ‘New diplomacy’ exists. In my opinion the term ‘New diplomacy’ is misleading. It emphasises that the style of diplomacy changed completely. Especially after the WWI and now terrorism challenged diplomacy, and therefore it has changed, but old attributes of diplomacy continued. Therefore it is not something completely new it has been adjusted to modern politics. In my opinion it would be better to call it ‘transformed’ or ‘modern’ diplomacy.

Main changes taken place in diplomacy

The diplomatic failure to avoid the first World War open the path for a “new diplomacy” in which secrecy gave away to openness enabling the public to play a stronger role in controlling and influencing states relations. The creation of the League of the Nations and later the United Nations has brought new players into the diplomatic realm, as well as serving to further establish a departure from the traditional method of relations.
The end of the Cold war and consequently the restructuring of the international system brought a fresh atmosphere in the relations between the two superpowers, as well as their relations with other states, moving away from previous policies of containment, deterrence and the naked pursuit of the national interest. This resulted in a change from the security driven policies of states to an emphasis on citizens’ welfare (low-politics). As states changed interests and non-states actors gained relevance, the process of negotiation also evolved with non-governmental organizations contributing to shape the new multilateral diplomacy away from the old bilateral way of relations.
The modern technological development of communication have also underpinned a monumental disruption on the traditional patterns of diplomatic relations between states, especially concerning the national interest’s pursue.
However, the episode of 9/11 has undermined the positive mood of diplomatic cooperation and persuasion in favour of a unilateralist use of military force whenever US vital interests are at stake. Their doctrine of pre-emption is a departure of its Cold War diplomatic policies of containment and deterrence. Furthermore, the war on terror has excessively relied on the use of “hard-power” in detriment of “soft power”, making the attainment of durable global peace more improbable. The US invasion on Iraq, only serves to strengthen the claim of realists, where institutions play a marginal role in influencing foreign policy outcomes. According to realists, institutions are merely tolls used to control outcomes as to benefit the great powers.

Brian White on diplomacy

Brian white kicked off the topic by describing diplomacy as “infuriatingly vague” in the study of world politics. My understanding of that is, given the nature of world politics which is complicated and all about the self interest of states, the word diplomacy is somehow deceitful as it implies a position of compromise and negotiations whilst in reality, each side is in it for self-gain whatever that may be. So, White refer to diplomacy as a “tool actors use to achieve their ends and implement their foreign policy”.

He touched upon the media who give reference to diplomacy as e.g. British, American or Arab diplomacy, highlighting what they meant i.e. countries have their own distinct way of conducting their foreign policy as opposed to a common method of conducting diplomacy

He also pointed out that diplomacy is not a new cliché but has been around for centuries. “1st diplomatic document 2500BC b/n two kingdoms”. What Brian White showed in this chapter is how Diplomacy evolved just like everything else. From medieval to traditional or old to new – and how each period had embraced or rejected any change that diplomacy had to face.

It is particularly interesting to know how the structure and process of diplomacy has been since time began. Historically monarchs and aristocrats took the position of being diplomats in a very personalized manner which eventually become “institutionalised and professionalised” allowing embassies and their activities as and extension of their state hence enjoying all the immunity, protection pomp and ceremony as they represent the sovereignty of their state.

Another aspect White raised on the nature of old diplomacy is that it is a bilateral process involving two parties. One of the reasons behind that was secrecy but that was to change as time went. The high light of the new diplomacy began after the Second World War. This is a particularly interesting period as there was a lot of change in world politics. Europe was coming out of a devastating war so a new and urgent diplomacy was needed if they were to prevent another war. Secondly, the decolonialisation of the developing countries and their new found independence meant a new multilateral approach to diplomacy was needed however that was overshadowed by the development of the cold war. This period gave diplomacy a whole new twist; the ideological fight between the two camps, the Soviets and the Americans meant the whole world was divided into one or the other camp. Great powers were too pre-ocupied to see the many tragic events in the world as diplomacy and foreign policy during this period was embroidered around who was on whose side.

When the cold war ended, it was yet another chapter as democracy meant people who were held together by ideology, now want to exercise their right to self governance. This of course saw the disintegration of Eastern Europe and the Soviet Empire with some terrible consequences in places like the former Yogoslavia.

So diplomacy had been a mixture of old and new, often secretive but at times it allows multilateral actions from non governmental organisations and institutions such as the UN- depending on the cause however the main actors of diplomacy remain to be states pursuing their interests.

Hirut

The New Diplomacy

Brian White's Chapter on Diplomacy in the Baily's and Smith text book, highlights the reality of Diplomacy, he explains in detail how Diplomacy evolved over a period time. In the beginning of the chapter White breaks down the term Diplomacy in to two perspectives, Macro and Micro, and discusses what they mean. He explains that Marco mainly focuses on World politics a kind of global process, mean while Micro diplomacy pays attention to Foreign policy and the national interest. White also takes us back in time with is knowledge regarding to Traditional Diplomacy, which focused on bilateral secretive meetings with diplomats from foreign lands. Furthermore he mentioned that only aristocrats could become diplomats. White again broke diplomacy in to two parts old and new, he began by mentioning a new type of diplomacy. This form of diplomacy introduced itself after the cold war or WWII and it is now known as the new diplomacy. White expresses that this new form of diplomacy is more opened and has more actors than the old style of diplomacy. He also mentions that the new diplomacy has its negatives, due to the fact that new diplomacy has so many actors i.e the UN many bigger and powerful states will be able to manipulate these organizations for their own economic and political interests and in addition to this keep a strong hold on weaker states.

To around up Whites expiation of diplomacy we discussed a few interesting issues in the seminar last Monday and there were some interesting things that were said. We all agreed on Whites definition of diplomacy and the transition, but many things were highlighted for example the fact that diplomacy has become so opened that many diplomats take calls outside the UN building because they believe their phones are being tapped into. Also the fact that just like the World Order diplomacy is also evolving and progressing. In my eyes diplomacy is changing and I have to agree with Whites historical background of diplomacy. "educational"

Brian White on Diplomacy

Brian White describes Diplomacy from two perspectives : macro and micro. The first one relates to the role of diplomacy into the global system as a tool which main role is to maintain stability. The micro perspective portrays the role of diplomacy as instrumental , serving as an additional tool in the pursuit of the state-actors interests. Diplomacy as such is an ancient method of communication that has evolved and changed through time. The traditional diplomacy is marked by the institutionalisation of diplomacy which means that representation of nation sates was now embodied in official entities such as embassies. The main criticism of that diplomacy was the deceitful methods used to achieve the personal interests of the ruler rather than the national interest of the state. The New diplomacy established after the first world war was very much a demand for more effective means not only to maintain stability but also to avoid major devastating wars. The emergence of non sate actors in the 20th century and international organizations such as the UN transformed diplomacy into a more complicated mechanism where pressure from non state actors and differing interests prevented diplomacy from being secretive. During the cold war diplomacy was mainly preoccupied with avoiding a nuclear war , the bipolar division of the world focused mainly on ideologies ignoring other issues such as the poverty and development in the third world countries which will pose a serious strain on the global system in the post-cold period. The events of 9/11 and the “war against terrorism” launched by the USA underestimated the importance of diplomacy . The unilateralism prevailed over multilateralism. The failure to establish the so-longed “democratic” government in Iraq is a good example of the failings of the unilateral approach. It is now obvious that hard power can no longer remain as the main tool in advancing a state interests. The return to soft power and diplomacy is essential.

B. White Diplomacy

White in his chapter provides a clear , more detailed views on diplomacy and how it has developed over the years. He describes 'diplomacy' as a process of communication that takes place between two states. White describes the historical development of diplomacy referring back to 2500 BC when the earliest diplomatic documents were discovered. There several issues concentrating on the differences between Old and New Diplomacy. However , the main change was that the Traditional diplomatic negotiations and agreements were undertaken in secrecy, whereas the New diplomacy allows citizens to know what is happening in the world. It's more open to the public.
White analysis traditional diplomacy on three categories : structure , process and agenda. The main changes were the diplomatic agents acting on behalf of the states were institutionalized , meant that embassies were established and it became much more convenient. Another point is that, traditional diplomacy was largely organized on a bilateral basis, usually when two states developed a relationship , it became normal to exchange permanent embassies. Finally , the fact that diplomacy was an instrument which is used to reflect the preoccupation of political leaders themselves.
The new diplomacy is more open to public , however , the structure remained the same , except the emergence of new actors were becoming complex. During the Cold war, diplomacy took a new form which required close control of diplomatic relations in order to prevent nuclear conflict. The success of an end of Cold War gave hopes to many people that there is always a solution even to a war, but unfortunately this was short lived with the terrorist attack known as 9/11. White believes its very difficult to negotiate and communicate with a group like Al Qaeda because its not a state or even non state actor, but rather an transnational network.
Finally , diplomacy has played a vital role and continues to make an important contribution to cooperation and order in world system.

The nature and development of diplomacy.

Diplomacy started out centuries ago, but the traditional ways of diplomacy are said to start when the use of permanent residences for diplomats begun. This is important since it brought a more institutionalized form of diplomacy and enhanced forces of persuasion to its actors, since connections became closer. Pressure for a less secretive and more democratic forms changed the processes of diplomacy in Europe in the early 1900-century. A move from only state to state bilateral agreements to complex system of multilateral negotiations occurred (mainly because of problems causing/not hindering World War One). Furthermore and highly important; non state actors where given more space in international politics. The advantages of using old diplomatic ways are that the structure is already in place and negotiations are low in expenses. Though altering to the use of summits and of different kinds of sanctions to persuade is not expensive either, though its sensitive to use other diplomatic instruments (other than negotiations) since they are use of a “force” even if it is not military. However, as Brian White states, diplomacy alone “cannot guarantee international cooperation”. New diplomacy has also formed new subgroups of diplomacy, since there now is a larger need to have specialised sections for different kind of situations and negotiations; if there is a crisis- military, environmental of even decease related, or if its about economics- aid or trade, as examples. All these new actors (both in form of decolonized states and of NGO's), new issues (with wider impacts because of globalisation) and new ways of communication that has developed have deeply altered the old ways of diplomacy. States are trying to assimilate since the old big actors are afraid to lose their powers in world politics completely, which could perhaps even make the system of world politics collapse it self? But states as actors will probably be highly important for a long time and probably their institutions of diplomacy as well. Alterations will be added depending on world situations and the actions of different actors and how other actors respond to that.

Brian White on Diplomacy

Brian White points out that diplomacy is a key process of communication and negotiation and that it is an important foreign policy instrument. He sees that from a macro perspective, there is a process of communications between international actors, including dialogue and negotiation, which has the aim of cooperation within world politics. From the micro perspective, diplomacy can be viewed as a policy instrument rather than as a global process. It is an instrument whereby international actors can pursue their goals.
If diplomacy is used directly, this is pure diplomacy. If used with the use or threatened use of other policy instruments, e.g. military, economic, or subversion, this is mixed diplomacy, and can be more effective.
White considers how diplomacy has changed since the fifteenth century according to structure, processes and agenda. When looking at traditional diplomacy White points out that it is from the fifteenth century that permanent embassies were first established. Diplomacy was professionalized as an occupation. Diplomacy’s process was usually bi-lateral and done secretly. The agenda was mostly about ‘high politics’.
White shows how the failure to prevent WW1 created a desire for new diplomacy to be more open and democratically controlled. The result was that multilateral diplomacy increased (e.g. the creation of the League of Nations). Also the scope of diplomacy’s activities changed from a ‘‘nightwatchman state’ to the ‘welfare state’’. New diplomacy’s agenda included ‘low politics’ e.g. economic, social and welfare issues. Also, highly specialized issues came onto the agenda. The limits of this new diplomacy were revealed by WW2.
White then talks about Cold War diplomacy, which involved the superpowers and their allies’ need to avoid a nuclear war but also their desire to win the Cold War. Specialized issues developed during the Cold War, including environment, technology and arms control. White identifies types of diplomacy during this time, e.g. nuclear diplomacy, summit diplomacy and crisis diplomacy.
Diplomacy is used to further foreign policies, in order to achieve national interests. The making and implementing of foreign policy requires a basic diplomatic machinery (e.g. a foreign department and overseas embassies). Diplomats aid policy making by providing information and advice about the country they are based in. White explains that diplomacy involves persuading others to do what you want. Diplomacy has comparative advantages over other instruments, including cost, availability and that it is widely regarded as legitimate.
The war on terror, since 9/11, has meant that diplomacy must take into account both hard and soft instruments of power. Diplomacy is now global in scope, but it is also more complex and fragmented due to a wider agenda and multiple actors being involved. Today, increased levels of interdependence and e.g. communications technology have made diplomacy less about negotiation skills and ‘winning’ and more about a management process and adjustment.
White concludes that although the forms of diplomacy have changed, it remains a highly important process to enable international cooperation to be achieved.

Brian White on diplomacy.

Brian White raises some interesting and balanced points in his chapter on diplomacy. He describes diplomacy as being a process of communication between states and international actors. His piece begins by discussing the difficulty in defining diplomacy due to its differing meanings to different groups. In terms of the development of diplomacy, the most important point he makes is the change from the old style of diplomacy to the new diplomacy. White then suggests that this came about through the failure of traditional diplomacy to stop the First World War from happening. He advocates that there were two important features of the new diplomacy: 1) that diplomacy should be more open with the detail and deals made public. 2) the idea that an international organisation should be created to act as a forum and as a deterrence. These ideas laid the foundations for the way in which diplomacy is carried out today.

Other significant developments have to include the emergence of trans-national actors, forcing states to interact with them leading to greater participation in diplomacy, instead of states being the only players on the world stage. Diplomacy was becoming ever more inclusive.
White also suggests that as the Cold War developed, diplomacy spread to include states of former colonial powers, whom the superpowers were intent on extending their influence to. The Cold War era also highlighted the use of diplomacy to prevent a "global nuclear conflict". An extension of this can be seen today with the global war on terror whereby states, in particular America, are using their diplomatic power to persuade other states to fight terrorists on their own soil.

Above all, Whites text shows that diplomacy is a constantly evolving and expanding process, which has and will continue to be a vital political tool on the world stage.

Brian White on Diplomacy

Brian White was able to raise important issues concerning the nature and development of Diplomacy. He defined Diplomacy as the fundamental relations in attempting to establish a more stable and orderly global system. He firstly differentiated the two major perspective on Diplomacy. Such as diplomacy in the macro and micro perspective. In this sense, we can be able to understand Diplomacy as a system which not only evolve in the state-centric approach, but also in terms of understanding it from world politics, this comprising of all actors that make up the system, like non-governmental and international governmental organizations. He raises important arguments in Traditional diplomacy, new diplomacy, cold war diplomacy, diplomacy after the cold war, diplomacy & the war against terrorism and diplomacy & foreign policy.
In traditional diplomacy, he argued that “global diplomatic system has its origins from the fifteenth-century Italy where permanent embassies were first established. He was able to characterise the defining features of traditional diplomacy, such as the ‘structure’ which was the institutionalization of diplomacy, which means that diplomacy is no longer an “irregular activity undertaken by ad hoc representative” rather taken as a profession by diplomats. He also raises issues in the traditional diplomatic process which he argues involved a bilateral process that includes secrecy as a tool. Finally, he argues that traditional diplomatic agenda was narrow in comparison to later periods. In this sense, he was trying to point to the fact that diplomacy was an instrument which is use to reflect the preoccupation of political leaders themselves.
In New diplomacy, he revealed the changes that was different from the old one. New diplomacy is now more open to public scrutiny and control and paved way to the establishment of international organization. However, he argued that the structures remains the same, except for the fact that it has become more complex owing to the emergence of new actors. He also argued that the new diplomacy now focus more on ‘low politics’ ( economics, welfare) contrasting to high politics of the old.
Furthermore, he raises important issues on diplomatic relation during the cold war, which he termed ‘cold war diplomacy’ . His point here, is that cold war diplomacy was a bilateral process which distinctive feature was not to rely only on political and psychological terms, but to rely on reasoning, which means total war was avoided.
Also, important issues he raised about new diplomacy after the cold war and on terrorism is that, the optimism diplomacy created after cold war, was short lived, which means that though diplomacy helped in the ending of the cold war, however, challenges will always arise, such as the emergence of terrorism.
Finally. He argued that diplomacy has a major role to play or plays in foreign policy, because foreign policy implementation requires the negotiating skills of diplomats.

Brian White on Diplomacy

Brian White highlights both the issues and merits that can be associated with diplomacy. He also analyses the changes that have occurred within diplomacy and underlines its continued relevance as an instrument in world politics.

Firstly, White draws upon the difficulty of defining diplomacy, as it is very much dependant upon who wishes to define it. We can break this down into “macro” and “micro” perspectives which can help us to understand world politics. “Micro” perspectives can help us to understand the smaller parts of world politics by looking at the involvement of states and other actors. “Macro” perspectives refer to the larger scope (or ‘the big picture’) in an attempt to understand global politics.

White also describes diplomacy as a “process of communication” which includes negotiations between states and non-state actors such as global institutions, TNCs and NGOs.

White acknowledges that diplomacy was evident in the ancient world, however, traditional diplomacy took hold from the fifteenth century onwards, and by the nineteenth century all states had established permanent embassies that served to communicate with other states and also foreign departments at home – and therefore the profession of diplomacy was also born.

We can see changes in diplomacy when looking back over recent history – the failure of the diplomatic network to prevent the First World War meant that there was a sudden demand for a “new” diplomacy, which would be more inclusive and open to democratic control. It was to be less secretive and not be exclusive to the aristocracy. However, again this “new” diplomacy was subject to criticism as it failed to prevent a Second World War.

During the Cold War, diplomacy took a new form again which required very careful control of diplomatic relations in order to avoid nuclear conflict - the various types of diplomacy (nuclear, crisis and summit diplomacy) successfully brought the Cold War to an end without the use of nuclear weapons. However, it should be noted that there were many “close calls” during the Cold War where diplomatic relations between the USA and Soviet Union were weakened.

The success of the Cold War diplomacy in resolving conflict gave the world a new faith in diplomacy. It was felt that many, if not all problems to arise within the international system could be solved with the use of good diplomacy.

This unfortunately was short lived and with the events of 9/11, the role of diplomacy has once again come into question. White believes this is because communication, negotiation or indeed any form of diplomatic relations with global terrorist networks such as Al-Qaeda will clearly be extremely difficult and surrounded by controversy. This pessimism became very evident during the Bush Administration and his lack of use of diplomacy as a political instrument within the “War on Terror”.

Problems arise today within diplomacy, with non state actors gaining more political influence; it becomes increasingly difficult to determine who should remain the major players within diplomacy. Furthermore, the stunted diplomatic machinery of the developing world has restricted the way in which global diplomacy can work in a successful and fair manner.

White concludes that in spite of the many shortcomings of diplomacy today, it should be noted that it continues to have great relevance within the International System in terms of co-operation and world order. While it cannot ensure the co-operation of all states involved it provides an opportunity for dialogue, negotiation and eventually progressive change. We can see examples of sophisticated types of diplomacy which have developed in Europe at a regional level, that show what good diplomacy can possibly achieve, but White once more highlights the difficulty diplomacy faces today in a far more complex system.

Brian White:Nature and development of diplomacy

Brian White defines diplomacy as “vehicle” used by international actors to sort conflicts, such as wars, it focus on the resolution of differences by conversation and negotiation, through diplomacy many conflicts have been avoided over the centuries. Diplomacy is also used to prevent conflicts, create stability and order.
Brian White commenced by defining the two major world perspectives on the world politics in diplomacy, the macro perspective that focus on the world politics as a whole and the micro perspective regarding the actors involved in the world politics, such as the state and the governments and how they act in order to achieve their ends.
The Traditional diplomacy and the new diplomacy are the two types of diplomacy introduced by Brian White. The first one started in Ancient Greece and evolved over a long historical period and had its origins in the fifteenth century in Italy, where the first embassies were established, the Italian model started been copied by many nations in Europe, and the embassies commenced to be a method of performing states interests.
The traditional diplomatic system can be characterized under the headlines of Structure, Process and Agenda, the first one emphasized the communication between noticeably modern states, through the years the head of states and governments members, found it very important to negotiate with other states regularly; the Process was organized mainly on a bilateral (two-party) basis, since two states developed a mutual importance relationship, it became normal to exchange permanent embassies, in order to defend and protect the country and its citizens interest in a foreigner country and vice-versa; finally in the traditional diplomacy Agenda the preoccupations of diplomacy echoed the preoccupations of political leaders themselves.
Concerning the New Diplomacy its structure remained identical with the traditional diplomacy, in the sense that states and governments are still the main actors, however there are two changes to be highlighted, the first one is that the states were no longer the only actors, they had to share the international stage with for example international organizations, intergovernmental and NGO’s, and the second one is that the government now has to provided not only physical security to its citizens but also had to be concerned in terms of social and economic well-being.
The new diplomacy processes are not only bilateral like in the traditional diplomacy but it also involves non-state actors, changing the nature of the new diplomacy as a process of negotiation.
Finally its Agenda enclosed a number of new issues, such as wider interests and responsibilities of governments, plus the interests of non-state actors, and ultimately reinforces the military security, where avoiding conflicts became a priority, especially after events such the 9/11.

B White on Diplomacy- By Francis Emongo

To begin, Brian White appears to make some interesting points here first he is discontent of the definitions of 'diplomacy' arguing that is vague, as it has various significations. He then describes that there is a micro perspective that present us with the definition of global politics with actors representing their nation state and their respective government. For example in world politics diplomacy takes place when a nation state communicates with another nation state while there is a 'crisis'. To resolve the issue diplomats lobby ministers or even world leaders to appease the supposed 'crisis'. 

During major international disputes or war to end the struggle diplomacy is the key as each party pursue constructive dialogue aiming the establishment of peace and order within the international community. Therefore we witness a 'state-to-state' relation, White then argues that traditional diplomacy had its roots in Ancient Greece during the 15th Century where there was the establishment of diplomatic mission where again we see the communication among states. So from this period Ministry of Foreign Affairs sent officials in post to represent the government to conduct negotiation with the receiving state. White then says negotiation had to take place but secretly and ''bilateral'' between two parties (e.g.) Britain and Oman. Why secrecy? well because in order for the supposed agreement to be successful no other party should be aware of the negotiation why? because they could destroy the negotiation bring it to an end. 

The truth is that within the negotiation there could be perhaps a policy change or even a 'regime change'. 'New' Diplomacy enabled each party to come to a compromise although Old diplomacy was the key secrecy. However, we then witness the establishment of the international organization- known as the League of Nation at the aftermath of the First World War trying to cease conflict and war. Later, we see 'New' Diplomacy having some similarities with traditional diplomacy as actors remained within the international community representing their nation state and they were also supported by officials who were sent to work at embassies overseas.

From this point government officials accredited in overseas posts were also conducting their negotiation with other actors from NGO's and so on. After the Second World War many states were now conducting their relations multilaterally through again NGO's and the newly United Nations in order to influence other states for changes in foreign policy, however multilateral diplomacy did not replace bilateral negotiations. Newly states states emerged in the international community formerly colonized by European Power now had their independence. Furthermore, White argues that ''cold war diplomacy'' emerged as there was a struggle of ideologies between two great super-powers the U.S.S.R and USA. It was the confrontation between East and West known as the 'Cold War'. Brian Whites argues, the war was between two nuclear armed states in which one state was pursuing to launch a nuclear bomb. However this was only a presumption as both nation avoided a nuclear war knowing the consequences of how disastrous the launch could cause.

Unprecedented crisis emerged during the cold war the 'Cuban Crisis' in 1962 over the Soviet missiles in Cuba created grave concern in the West but this issue let to politicians to use 'New' diplomacy resolving this issue without any grave consequences, the success of this was the use of direct communication between East-West which enabled a consensus leading to settlement. Today we have a ''terrorism'' which poses a significant threat as the perpetrating actor, Osama Bin Laden and his entourage Al Qaeda are difficulty to deal with and it seems harder to bring this issue to an end, the tasks that Western diplomats face today is tough but with the practice of 'Old' diplomacy there will always be successful negotiations that will bring order and peace.

Brian White on diplomacy:

To first start, Brian White is quite critical in his views of Diplomacy. By analysing the meaning of the term Diplomacy and how tricky it can sometimes be; he points out how important it is that individuals understand and properly differ the various types of Diplomacy (if one can state that to be the case). This is because there are always the misleading assumptions that diplomacy is said to be the same as global politics or even foreign policy ideas that he stated right when he said that it causes confusion and controversy.

White then goes on to distinguish ‘traditional’ from ‘new’ diplomacy, a comparison made by him relating to the three main ideas behind diplomacy shows that the bases are still more or less the same with the big differences being the alteration from bilateral to multilateral, and the formation of diplomacy as a specific profession. Reality, that in one’s opinion makes it no more than just a little change towards it and its new mentality because although it became public the public itself doesn’t get involved directly in solving diplomatic issues.

During the Cold War period, White saw diplomacy between superpowers become more significant than any other undergoing mission at the time as it was through diplomatic means that countries at war would negotiate. The Cold War era brought a sense of necessity to create global interaction- fact that gave developing countries a place in international diplomacy and politics as they became important allies for either the USA or the Soviet Union. But personally, one sees these developments in Cold War diplomacy as a mere need to use developing countries in order to achieve Western and Eastern political and economical aims. Similar ideas are been used today to try and irradiate terrorism; the Western political views are in contraction with the Islamic views making diplomacy a powerless instrument when trying to solve conflicts, attitude that is causing suspicion among all. So is diplomacy just another way of manipulating politics?