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

Traditional diplomacy may seem challenged by what is called the ‘new’ diplomacy. Although this process has been growing stronger in the past fifty years, it can be traced back to middle ages- some would even argue to the Ancient Greece. Therefore it seems inappropriate to condemn the old diplomacy on the basis that other ways exist, and it seems quite far from the reality.

 The debate, in my opinion, lies beyond this question. The issue really is not to pick a winner between the two forms of diplomacy, but to define the context in which they are used. The emergence of the new diplomacy appeared with the explosion of the means of information, but this is only because of the demand for these new political communications. And the reason for the use of public diplomacy is rather based on the will of the political leaders to pass a message to their audience. Government use the new diplomacy as a tool to influence foreign audience and as a means to communicate with its citizens, but also as a propaganda tool. As Nye points out, the explosion of the accesses to information provoked a lack of attention. Public diplomacy is much more charming and attractive, it is therefore used as a mirror for government actions.

Besides, new and old diplomacy should not be opposed as parallel or contrary measures, since they both fall under the field of soft power and usually seek the same goals. For instance, Kissinger used ‘old diplomatic’ measures to deal with security and strategic issues, nowadays governments prefer to meet in international summits and show the efforts engaged by their administration to the public. But that does not mean that the secrecy has disappeared, it simply reflects a change in our societies- and consequently in the way the politics are conducted. Furthermore, countries’ issues have, generally speaking, become global, such as global warming for instance. Therefore it seems adequate to deal with it through different approaches; this is not a change of policies or tactics, it is mere adaptation. And as Richard Grant noted, “Adaptation is not a matter of choice. It is a core task”.

In this context it also seems overstated to label the old diplomacy outmoded, as traditional forms of diplomacy remain the basis of diplomatic relations. Embassies and other diplomatic actors have seen their task evolve and sometimes change to suit the technological evolutions, and the transformations of the world politics. But this evolution to a more politically visible diplomacy was only made possible by the work of old structures. One depends on the other, and nourishes from it. If the new diplomacy could not exist without the old one, the old one benefits from the new diplomacy: used as a political tool, it allows governments to export their values and ideas and pressure other countries. To conclude, I would not challenge diplomacy tactics in such a Manichean way to find out if the new outmodes the old. But I would rather point out the benefits resulting from each of them, and notice that they have become inter-linked to such an extent that it is impossible to consider one without the other.