Impressions of the "new" diplomacy

“The game didn’t change; it’s just that more players are included in it,” and, I think, that’s the main difference between “old” and “new” diplomacy. Today not only do we have diplomats and foreign ministers in the diplomacy field but also Head of Government/State, who aim to play a primary role. This occurred during the end of WWII with the apparition of Summit between Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin, and it’s had intensified during the Cold war and had as result to let Head of State/Government think that their complete involvement is necessary. The other result of these Summits it’s multilateral, more states can participate, which engender the creation of multilateral conferences, where not only Head of State/Government are there but also Non-State Actors such as NGOs. This opening of the diplomacy field to non-state actor is an acknowledgement of their statute as player, even though they do not have the same weight as State actors. This openness brings diplomacy out of its “elite” and untouchable scold which is accentuated by the impact of globalization and the speed of communication. States had to open to the new technology and by doing so to the public in general, so diplomacy is no more mysterious, needing specialist and high profiled individual. Even if the public in general has no weight in the decision-making process, public opinion matters. So in my opinion the most important aspect of “new” diplomacy is that it is more open and transparent or at least try to be (forced to be as well sometimes).