Impressions of the ‘old’ diplomacy?

In a certain sense I think that if, there is a “new” diplomacy, then that means that it comes from a need of change, in the way diplomacy was conducted, which was not satisfactory or may be not up to date with the way the world is now. But in the same time, I do not think it is outmoded, or not completely. Yes we do not use anymore diplomacy as an exclusively bilateral and usually secret tool. But bilateral diplomacy and secrecy is still a big part of it. What I mean is that “old” diplomacy is not like a used tissue that we trough in a bin and never think about it again. “Old” diplomacy more likely set the ground and “new” diplomacy is just an evolution, another step of it, because the institution set by the “old” diplomacy are still here used and useful, of course The ICT revolution shrank it a bit, but its still remained an important part of it. I think what has became outmoded in another sense, is the role of the diplomat. In the “old” diplomacy, a diplomat was an important person, a professional, which was view with the respect and ceremonial due to his statute. Nowadays, diplomacy is more often conducted by “amateur” than by diplomat, which are leaved in the dark, those “amateur” are in major part heads of states, as well as non-state actor.
So in my opinion, diplomacy has just evolved to adjust itself, because the game didn’t change, it’s just that more players are include in it.