Traditional Diplomacy

Traditional diplomacy dates since the fifteenth century (Ancient Greece) we see significant relations between states in Europe hence Ministries of Foreign Affairs had to promote the national interest peacefully through the appointment of Ambassadors along with officials in diplomatic posts for the representation of the sending state interest. They gain power to persuade and engage in negotiations on behalf of the state in the receiving state. Whilst the receiving state accredited the officials (As is still the case today) they received ''immunity'' to protect the affairs of their government. Today weak states can have their immunity being 'lifted' when members of an embassy commits a serious crime, we have seen this with the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) Ambassador to France Ramazani Baya who was incarcerated. However, immunity enables the use of 'Old' diplomacy to conduct secret negotiation avoiding the receiving state or a political party to be aware of ongoing negotiation that needed to be dealt successfully without dangerous consequences. Why?

First of all we have to acknowledge the nature of the 'bilateral' negotiations, they are not 'bad' nor 'good' most government considered to hide these processes from member of the public as well as politicians to avoid the seizure or perhaps the sabotage of a successful agreements. I believe the contents in the documents for the negotiations are mostly for development issues, human rights, security, high politics and the most significants for to the promotion of concord between states, wars issues and possibly territory.

In the traditional system of diplomacy ceremonies proceeded through protocol (for example) an Ambassador presents the letters of credence addressed from the head of state of his/her nation to the president or king of the country were he/she is being sent, during the ceremony the official is usually accompanied by diplomats. Moreover during the aftermath of the Second World War there was a rise of multilateral bodies such as the European Union and the United Nations were conferences takes place between political actors discussing general matters such as illegal immigration and economic crisis.

Furthermore, traditional diplomacy continues to be old-fashion because states remains in contact with other states no 'bilateral' but 'multilateral' where they conduct negotiations with organizations such as NGO's and International Organizations were we see the negotiations is very broad. My views about 'New' diplomacy is that i believe is open we see this in New Zealand when members of the public are requested to raise their comments on particular issues of policy which will then be taken into consideration by the government. In some respects 'New' diplomacy has some traditional principles of 'Old diplomacy it does appears to bring order in comparison with 'Old' diplomacy. 'New' diplomacy satisfy the requirements of globalization, i still believe with the continuing unstable political climate and challenges in some parts of the world 'Old' diplomacy will continue to play a major role in world politics.