Traditional Diplomacy

Traditional Diplomacy.

With democracy having such a long history, stretching back to around the 5th century, it is bound to change over time. Traditional diplomacy, being the exclusive realm of the aristocracy and highly secretive was at the time seen as being very necessary.

With the advent of the First World War and the destruction it brought, a new approach was required whereby diplomacy was more open and a common approach required to ensure the likes of the Great War never happened again. In attempting to bring a common bond to diplomacy President Wilson’s 14 points gave birth to the idea of a “League of Nations”.

Whilst the League failed to prevent another world war, I believe that it laid the foundations for the United Nations and was a major change in the manner in which diplomacy was and is conducted. Further to this, the First World War altered many of the social divides and preconceptions that existed previously in the Western world.

The idea that diplomacy has switched from old to new to me seems far fetched. I feel that diplomacy, like any organization has evolved and moved with the times. Following two world wars the world needed

To me the current form of diplomacy contains elements of its past, in particular secretive negotiations. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing. When dealing with particularly sensitive areas one would want discretion instead of the media and its ever presence allowing detail to be passed around the world in a matter of minutes. On the other hand diplomacy has become more inclusive with many aspects more open to both the public and other organizations such as Non Governmental Organizations (NGOs) and Multi National Corporations (MNCs).

In my view diplomacy has never been more important and must continue on its evolutionary path. The suggestion that it is outmoded or unnecessary is wrong. With the rise of fundamentalism and hatred towards the West and particularly the United States, relations between states must be maintained through diplomacy.