Brian White on the nature and development of diplomacy

Brian White provides the reader with an overview of the development of ‘diplomacy’ dating it back as far as 25oo BC, however, he emphasises that the structure of traditional diplomacy as we know it was first established in the fifteenth century with the introduction of permanent resident embassies. He defines ‘diplomacy’ as a process of communication carried out between two parties – in this case two states – where ‘diplomacy’ is just one of several tools, or “policy instruments” used to implement the desired foreign policy.
White analyses the concept of traditional diplomacy out from 3 categories; structure, process and agenda. The main feature of structural aspect is the establishment of regulated institutions for diplomacy – in this case the institution of embassies – with states as the main actor. Furthermore, did ‘diplomacy’ become a more regulated and professionalised discipline. In terms of process he points out that traditional diplomacy was conducted on a bilateral basis, and the agenda discussed was concerned with ‘high politics’ featuring territory, war and peace.
In terms of the development of ‘new diplomacy’, this emerged in the eve of World War 1 after the failure of traditional diplomacy - (which indirectly may have caused the war in the first place due to the secrecy and hidden alliances). Brian White examines ‘new diplomacy’ the same way as ‘traditional diplomacy’ analysing the concept out from structure, process and agenda. In terms of structure states remained at the centre of the analysis, however, new non-state actors have entered the scene impacting on the process of negotiations as well as the agenda. Furthermore, where new institutions for diplomacy created like the League of Nations. The process changed in terms of new moods of negotiations like groups negotiating on a multilateral basis with decisions taken in plenum. Finally, the agenda for diplomacy changed in order to include issues of ‘low politics’ as well as ‘high politics’ being concerned with issues regarding economic and social welfare.
Brian White concludes that the globalisation do challenge the traditional notions of state-based diplomacy, however, he argues that the states are adapting to these new challenges and have not necessarily become less significant in the international system. The conclusion provided by White seems very appealing as I agree that despite the changes, or rather evolution, of ‘diplomacy, they are not necessarily mutually exclusive, but can still be applied when the context deems it appropriate.