White's writing on "Old" and "New" Diplomacy

Brian White’s Chapter on diplomacy not only offers us a definition of the term but also raises some interesting points and possible contradictions that seem to be synonymous with the subject. His definition of diplomacy as a ‘political instrument’ as well as the brief history of the practice which  he lays out in the opening paragraphs of the chapter leaves  the reader with the image of a regulated system of  embassies and diplomats, organised over hundreds of years who’s job it was to represent the political aspirations and goals of their home states. White however makes the claim that this traditional or “Old Diplomacy’  began to change  not only in terms of what diplomats attempted to achieve but how they went about it in the opening decades of the 20^th century. The failure to overt the First World War  led to the view that this style of secretive diplomacy, carried out predominantly by members of the aristocracy was no longer a satisfactory political tool. The major reasons given for this are the changing role of the state (no longer solely concerned with the physical protection of populations but also with economic and social factors) and the fact that ,as well as dealing with other states governments have increasingly been forced to deal with both non-governmental and intergovernmental organisations.

White further defines this ‘New Diplomacy’ in his differentiation between Cold war and post- Cold War diplomacy.  The Cold War highlighted the necessity to use diplomacy as a tool to avert conflict  (for example the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962).  It was also in this time that attempts were made to place diplomacy within the framework of international law, establishing ‘universal rules and principles’.   The optimism held by many with regards to the effectiveness of diplomacy at the end of the Cold War is however questioned by White with specific reference to the ‘War on Terror’.  White draws our attention to the fact that Cold War diplomacy focused on the ideological East-West divide and was dominated by superpowers, viewing small states purely in terms of  what part they could play in this divide.  Diplomacy in the post 9/11 world however must now take into account not only individual states but the concept of an ‘enemy’ with whom diplomacy in the old sense of the word may not be a viable option.

White also highlights the changing role of diplomacy in regards to Foreign Policy. He suggests that the role of the diplomat abroad, amongst other things, involves the implementation of  foreign policy. However these policies are often at least partially influenced by  what information diplomats abroad gather.  This, when linked with White’s analysis of ‘Diplomacy by Subversion’ leaves a worrying, yet somewhat cynical, image of diplomats’ orchestrating coups and undermining the political workings of another country. This may be seen as a complete turn around from what has been a major role of diplomacy since it’s beginnings, the resolution and   cessation of conflict through politics instead of more potentially violent means.