Traditional diplomacy: What are your impressions of the ‘old’ diplomacy? Has it become outmoded?

As long as there have been human beings on earth, they have lived in communities. These communities have, from time to time, come into contact with other groups and had relations with each other – peaceful or otherwise. Most likely these contacts were nothing like the modern system of diplomacy, but it nevertheless served a purpose. So does the so-called New Diplomacy today, and I would argue that it is not so much an entirely new thing as a sort of “Old Diplomacy 2.0”. (Or maybe even Diplomacy 3.5.2?)
It seems to me that diplomacy is a tool for relationships between states (or other types of communities) and a very flexible tool at that. It can be adjusted according to the needs of a particular state, and be adjusted to the context in which it is being used.

So, for example, the Italian city-states used diplomacy primarily for commercial purposes, to pursue their own business interests. And in the anarchical and sometimes chaotic political climate of the renaissance, they pursued their interests ruthlessly and didn’t hesitate to deceive each other if it seemed beneficial.
In the 19th century, during the “century of peace” in Europe, diplomacy was mainly bilateral and undertaken in secrecy, but during the centuries a code of conduct had developed that included a protocol for the way diplomacy was carried out, and a series of rights and privileges for diplomats. However, with the spread of modern technology and the increasing spread and ease of communication and travelling, this system became increasingly outdated and dangerous – as demonstrated by the First World War. So many secret alliances had been formed and promises made that when something finally happened (the assassination of the Austrian Archduke Franz Ferdinand in Sarajevo), they happened too fast. Before they knew it, most of the European states were pulled into a war that nobody wanted.
Therefore, in the 1920s, diplomacy changed. It became increasingly open and multilateral, although the old bilateral and secretive type of diplomacy did not disappear.
Today the Old Diplomacy, with its bilateral negotiations, secrecy, resident ambassadors and protocol of pomp and circumstance is not outdated. It does, however, serve a slightly different purpose, and is complemented by other types of negotiations, such as EU summits or debates in the UN General Assembly.

Finally it is also important to point out that it is difficult to make statements about diplomacy in general – as a foreign policy tool states use it differently, according to their own needs and interests, which in turn change over time.
It does not seem too far-fetched to assume that great powers like the US or China use diplomacy in differently ways, or that the way a powerful nation like Russia or the UK use it differs from that of smaller countries with less influence, such as, say, Ghana or Estonia.