Old Diplomacy and the Telephone

I believe that the 'Old Diplomacy' is much like the telephone - it may have newer versions of technological advances that have set out to replace, or at the very least improve it (emails and mobile phones respectively) but we still use it.

It was still the basis of direct communication over long distances.

If we take this analogy a step further, and call the mobile telephone 'New Diplomacy', we will find that ‘New Diplomacy’ evolved directly out of ‘Old Diplomacy’, and would be nothing and nowhere without it, the same way that a mobile telephone could not have existed without the original cabled telephones (the old ones - think pulse dialing telephones).

Viewing ‘New Diplomacy’ like that, then allows me to put forward the point that there are still elements of ‘Old Diplomacy’ that are highly valued and used as they were hundreds of years ago, and some of the elements might particularly be more valuable today then they were when they first started being used previously.

One of these elements that I would like to point out as an example is 'secret bilateral negotiations'. We currently live in a world in which the media has managed to elbow its way into almost every negotiation and high-ranking conversation, every conference and summit, every bilateral agreement. Unfortunately, we also find that increasingly privatized media means that content is filtered, exaggerated or explored according to the owners/publishers/editors/governments agenda. Moreover, current competition has ensured that there will always be more than one or two sides to every factual story.

If matters of a highly sensitive nature are being discussed between two parties who, for example, have had violent differences in the near past, they would be sure to want to discuss these matters in private until an agreement has been arrived at which they can then publicize. Compared to when secret negotiations were used in the past, the consequences of today’s media sensationalizing highly sensitive information could be more threatening now then they were then.

In addition, another of the more disputed elements of old diplomacy is the function of the embassy. While the ever-changing nature of technology has allowed information to travel much faster and practically obliterated the need to gather information through embassies in foreign countries, it is still important to interpret that information in a relevant manner. This can normally only be done by somebody who understands the context of the information source, e.g. the culture, language and society of the country which the information came from. So perhaps embassies are more necessary then we think, again, just in a different manner in which they were created.

It almost seems as though the ‘Old Diplomacy’ can be associated with a more realist point of view, since states are seen to be the only influential actors, and state security seems to constitute a rather large proportion of diplomatic intentions (dating back to the Italian system in the late 15th century).

Whereas ‘New Diplomacy’ can be seen as a more ‘liberal and globalized’ point of view, as it accepts the influence of non-state actors and focuses on different aspects such as trade and culture. Although I would argue, this is only possible after having been through the ‘realist’ phase because the intention of state security still constitutes a large part of diplomatic interaction.

Therefore proving that the 'Old Diplomacy' has not become outmoded. It has just evolved into the 'New Diplomacy', and we have to treat 'Old Diplomacy' as we do the pulse dialing telephones – with respect.