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.