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

I share the general opinion that the 'old diplomacy' is not necessarily old, just as the 'new diplomacy' is not necessarily new. It would be more appropriate to refer to the 'old diplomacy' as 'traditional diplomacy'. Clearly, there have been changes in diplomacy over time, however, when looking back over the changes and significant events in diplomatic history - it seems that the line between 'new' and 'old' becomes rather difficult to define and therefore it is more accurate to explain the changes in diplomacy as an ongoing process, or rather that diplomacy has evolved. To claim that diplomacy changed from 'old' to 'new' in a simple move would be over simplifying.

In saying that, there are some notable differences between traditional diplomacy and modern diplomacy. Traditional diplomacy goes as far back as 2500 BC and Ancient Greece. This diplomacy entailed secrecy, exclusivity, aristocratic and arguably state centred. Often diplomatic relations were bilateral and dealt with issues of conflict, borders and economy. This form of diplomacy remained until the early 20th century. The failure of this diplomatic structure to prevent the First World War may be the first hint of a change in diplomacy, summed up in the Treaty of Versailles, The League of Nations and Woodrow Wilson’s Fourteen Points – all of which promoted a far more open, inclusive form of diplomacy that included the public rather than being restricted to a group of elites. Furthermore, embassies and ambassadors gained importance which allowed them to maintain diplomatic relations with host countries in a way that could allow them to influence aspects of foreign policy.

It is important to also acknowledge the affect that globalisation and a rapidly changing world has had on diplomacy. In many ways the aims of diplomacy have remained the same, however, problems that are considered to be global (global warming, HIV/AIDs etc) have ensured that bilateral diplomacy although very much still in existence (between the USA and UK for instance), the need for multilateral diplomacy alongside is essential.

Again, while there have been significant changes in the way in which diplomacy is implemented and used as an influential tool, its aims have changed very little. These changes have taken place over an extended period of time in which the world has experienced a great deal of change (The World Wars, Cold War and 9/11) and so claiming that there has been a swift and clean switch from ‘old’ to ‘new’ seems inaccurate. It would be far more accurate to say that the change from ‘old diplomacy’ to ‘new diplomacy’ has been a process of change and evolvement, and important to acknowledge that although there have been changes to diplomacy, elements of it remain the same as it always was.