Traditional Diplomacy:What are your impressions of the ‘old’ diplomacy? Has it become outmoded? – by Ernest Andreyevich Reid

Traditional Diplomacy:What are your impressions of the ‘old’ diplomacy? Has it become outmoded? – by Ernest Andreyevich Reid

As we have learned from the authors the likes of Brian White, Joseph Nye and Jan Melissen, diplomacy has come a long way since 2500 BC Ebla-Hamazi relations. Let us first look at the old diplomacy and its key aspects. This will be followed by an analysis of the change that has taken place in the diplomatic field over last hundred years and an assessment of the degree to which the ‘old’ diplomacy has been outmoded.

The ‘old’ diplomatic system seems to have been a relatively strong foundation during the Westphalian world order (that is not to say that order has ‘vanished’ as Sian Riordan has suggested in ‘New Diplomacy), which has seen diplomacy institutionalised and professionalised. Let us examine it in three dimensions:
· First of all, the Structure – the ‘old’ diplomacy seems to be based on a state-centric approach, whereby the states are the only actors on the international arena.
· Second, the Processes – for a long time diplomacy has been all about secrecy, which was possible to maintain through bilateral processes of negotiations.
· Third, the Agenda – security has been at the top of the diplomatic agenda, which has been traditionally set by the state leaders.

Of course, a lot of fundamental aspects of the traditional diplomacy are still there, and indeed they are here for a reason. Diplomatic protocol is one of them. The ‘don’t shoot the messenger’ policy is so clear it does not have to be justified. Heads of state still insist on playing a key role in diplomacy and foreign policy, undermining diplomats’ autonomy. The ‘old’ diplomacy is certainly a viable and well-organised institution.

Nevertheless, quite a lot of what is known as the ‘old’ diplomacy has been altered:
· States, even though still the main actors, are not the only ones, having been joined by global governance (e.g. United Nations) and non-state (e.g. Greenpeace) actors.
· Bilateral agreements and negotiations are still at the heart of diplomacy. However, a great step has been taken towards multilateralism.
· Diplomacy has become more open, as honesty has proved to be more fruitful.
· Security had taken a back bench, at least during the 1990s (the immediate post-Cold War period), but has been revived after the tragic events of 9/11. Nevertheless, economic, social and welfare issues have increasingly been dominating the diplomatic agenda.
· Public diplomacy has evolved, incorporating a number of powerful elements such as propaganda and public relations (although, debatable, when looking at difference of opinions on the matter between Joseph Nye and Geoff Berridge)

So, as we can see, ‘old’ diplomacy has remained the foundation for the present diplomacy, however, largely supplemented by new elements. Hence, the ‘old’ diplomacy has not been ‘outdated’, rather upgraded.