My Understanding of Diplomacy

My understanding of Diplomacy has changed dramatically since the beginning of the semester. I perceived diplomacy very much in the terms of  what i would now describe as pre-Wilsonian, namely as the secretive conversations between two or more states with regard to shared issues. I had the opinion that, to quote Ambrose Bierce

'Diplomacy, the patriotic art of lying for one's country'

This of course is not what diplomacy stands for today. As the world has globalized and countries have needed to cooperate and converse on a level never before needed, diplomacy has moved from the shadows into the forefront of politics. There is not a single area of governing that is not covered by diplomacy, from security and economics (as shown by this years G20 summit) to the environment and even 'selling' of a country.  Without diplomats  countries would not have eyes and ears on the ground, to carry out and influence policy. Without embassies there would be no first port-of-call for nationals abroad. It is necessary for the homogeny and smooth running of international relations. The recent communications between Havana and Washington for example would have been very difficult without diplomacy, leaders may not want to meet face to face for fear of an embarrassing impasse and communication through a single third party could easily turn into a dangerous game of chinese whispers. 

The subtlety of modern diplomacy has allowed countries to wield 'soft' power in situations which may otherwise have been settled through military power, boycotts  or volatile public statements. The ability to cajole and even threaten delicately, to make another state aware of the steps you are willing to take without having to take them has, it can be argued made the world a safer place.

To quote Theodore Roosevelt on the subject

'Speak softly and carry a big stick; you will go far.'

  The final important aspect of New diplomacy in my opinion is the role the public play. Public diplomacy allows countries to talk directly with the inhabitants of other states, it allows people to hear things 'straight from the horses mouth'. The other side of this is that publicized summit diplomacy puts public pressure on governments to come to agreements. This level of public involvement in politics is, in my opinion a defining factor of the age of New Diplomacy