traditional diplomacy

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

The ‘old’ diplomacy is a traditional approach to the management of the relationships between states and other international political actors. It stands on a bilateral basis which means that only two states are included in the dialogue that was usually happening in secrecy. The only possible outcome in this system was a mutual agreement of settling a conflict or a dispute. The agenda was not very wide, usually the actors of the talks were negotiating the shift of a territory from one state to another or the other possible topic was an acquisition of another throne. Also peace and war issued were an essential part of negotiations. The old system of diplomacy was characterized by ceremonies conducted through the protocol.
In my point of view, especially when I consider the period of time few centuries ago it seems to me that the fact that negotiations were conducted as secret meetings does not necessarily have to be of a negative nature. We need to remember that those times were fairly dangerous as the security was not organized on such a high level as it is today, also the public and public opinion was taken differently as the division between educated and uneducated was significant and that is why it could not be considered as a whole. I believe that even when the negotiations would be publicized in some way the public opinion influence on the decisions would not have the same importance and impact on the outcome as it happens today. Also because of the state-to-state organization of talks the outcome was quite clear as there were only two real possibilities: an agreement or a disagreement. Today because of the multilateral basis it might be difficult to find a solution for certain questions, especially in cases when the decision needs to agreed unanimously as some states agree on the resolution but other states do not.
This is not to claim that the traditional organization of diplomatic practice was more simple and convenient than the new diplomacy approach. Surely the trends have shifted over the long time so as the circumstances in which diplomacy is employed also the way it is used and put in the practice needs to be updated to fulfill the needs of our time. This means that today the general public is more interested in what is happening with the state and its organization and position among other states and so the people wants to be more involved and let to have a word into the decision-making so the shift from secrecy to ‘openness’ of the diplomacy might be seen as a reaction of the world changing.
However, whether the old system has more advantages or disadvantages, it was a pioneer system that enabled the following generations to take examples from and possibly improve it to shape it in a requested way of practicing.