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.