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

The issue of whether ‘old’ diplomacy has become outdated is best analysed in respect to the nature of diplomacy and the evolving nature in contrast to current practices.

‘Old’ diplomacy in practice is perhaps best illustrated via its use before the emergence of the ‘new’ diplomacy by the powers of the triple entente, France, Russia and Britain. Originally implemented to ward suspicions posed by Germany in the early 20^th century, the subsequent European tragedy arose as a result of continuous British practice of the Balance of Power concept; as such it most certainly did not deter those central powers from being somewhat aggressive.

The practices of ‘old’ diplomacy is characterised on a number of notable ways and reflected to show the degree of change that has occurred. The creation of confidence and acquisition of credit amongst respected individuals is certainly alien to some extent, in the modern system one cannot rely on such a system of trust. Conduct of diplomacy was entrusted to select elite who shared similar ideals. Although foreign affairs were class specific, the social aspect has remained an unchanged trend, the reason being that such occasion may support a number of important and influential people and thus as such it would only be prudent to host a select number. Furthermore there have been advances the difference between ‘secret’ and ‘open’ democracy, the argument for a more democratized process being that people should not be committed to government decisions of which were not made public. However the confidentially of such processes will most likely remain unchanged.

What therefore are those inherent continued practices? In a sense one could argue that the myth of egalitarianism is reflective in the attitude of major powers. Certain aspects of ‘old’ diplomacy are still practiced as evident with the support by America for the ruling elite in their South East Asian foreign policy, as well as Soviet Russia’s policies in Eastern Europe.

Furthermore the development of technology and communications very much diminishes the role of the diplomat to some extent. Consequence of the increase of internet use is that it may bring non state actors in play and a number of other communities and thus progressively show to be more effective. However the use of such advances such a jump also highlights a number of critical issues. For example the telephone may prove to be very imprecise and not very reflective, it is after all the purpose of a diplomat abroad to study its surroundings, acquaint with the local politicians, and as such there is more time for reflection.