Traditional diplomacy

Since 15th century Italy, the establishment of permanent embassies has been a feature of diplomacy. Despite the advancements in technology that have led to e.g. forms of direct personal diplomacy (such as telephone conversations or video conferencing between political leaders), the traditional role of embassies is still an important feature of diplomacy today. Embassies have many functions including for example, serving as an important base from which a country’s foreign office can lobby e.g. another country’s business and media opinion leaders. But also embassies represent a physical point on a map, which could help people to be aware of how interdependent the world is today and could be related to ideas of inclusion. The continued existence and importance of embassies is one instance to show how new diplomacy and traditional diplomacy are not so far apart, and how traditional diplomacy is still relevant today.
Also, ‘Continuous negotiation’ is an important part of the French system (relating to traditional diplomacy), which carries on today.
Diplomacy has changed over the years though, and it is worth noting some of the aspects of traditional diplomacy which could be seen to have become outmoded today.
The first aspect to consider is the agenda of diplomacy. It has been traditioinally narrow, and concerned only with issues of high politics. Also the agenda only reflected the ‘preoccupations of political leaders themselves’ (White). These aspects have been improved upon by the more multilateral diplomacy of today, having wider agendas to include such things as economic and social issues etc.
Also, the secrecy of traditional diplomacy and its basing within the ranks of the social elite, along with the fact that diplomacy was mostly bilateral in an increasingly interdependent international system, meant that there was a call for changes to certain aspects of traditional diplomacy. This could be seen by the old or traditional diplomacy’s failure to prevent WW1.
Even though the League of Nations didn’t prevent WW2 (as the Concert of Europe hadn’t prevented events that ultimately led to WW1), the League did start a process of the development of a more wide ranging and inclusive form of new diplomacy.
Another factor which could be attributed to certain aspects of traditional diplomacy being able to be seen as outmoded, relates to the rate of change of international interactions today, due to globalization, and all of the global concerns that require open and collective action at present. This includes concerns regarding human rights, environmental issues and terrorism etc.
Traditional diplomacy which was mostly bi-lateral in nature, could be said to have been appropriate to its time, for example due to, among other things, the distances between states and the speed of communications, in earlier centuries.
Overall, diplomacy has had to adapt to change, and it seems that although traditional diplomacy could be said to be outmoded in some ways, it certainly has to be remembered that a lot of the ideas of traditional diplomacy are still a part of the practice of diplomacy today.