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''