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 ?