Understanding Of Diplomacy Today

History tells us that men have sought to solve problems by various routes and Hamilton reveals to us that “the beginning of diplomacy occurred when the first human society decided to hear the message than to eat the messenger”. What Hamilton argued describe the continuous struggle for power and dominance to this very day.

However, we can generally make sense of the old and new diplomacy in relation to ‘macro’ defined as the big picture and ‘micro’ which is defined as the small picture. The macro perspective tries to make sense of world politics as a whole in relation to its leading organizations such as the United Nations, World Bank and World trade organisation. On the other hand, micro perspective tries to explain world politics from the point of view of the actors involved in world politics. Similar to the pursuit of power, the promotion of the national interest, self help which is the principle of action in an anarchical system where there is no global government. This is realist’s view, that each state actor is ultimately responsible for ensuring their own wellbeing and survival.

Traditionally the micro perspective focal point was the states and the governments that act in the world politics. However, this is no longer the case since there are other emerging actors involved in the process of the world affairs in this day and age.

By emerging, many would agree that this is what defines the course of the new diplomacy. This is been my first and foremost impression or understanding of diplomacy in relation to nation states long held traditional diplomac resistence in the international system where non governmental organisation, multinational corporations and new world actors such as celebrities are rapidly emerging.

The continuous process of new representation in the world system is where states bilateral diplomacy is coming under some form of strain. It is difficult however, to argue whether or not the new messenger is been heard, used or even going to be eaten by their parent countries. Note that the structure of the new diplomacy is governed and in most cases sponsored by the old diplomacy to the extent that states and government remains the principal actors in the world. In that case emerging new actors cannot make any significant impact without the backing of their governments.

Many argue that globalisation undermines and doubt that states should remain the dominant form of political community in an era of mounting global problems which requires global solutions. Arrangements to sign treaties, agree and disagree remain a political issue. The crucial question to conclude is whether or not political communities and their domestic and foreign bilateral diplomacy which is to this day the most important instrument of negotiation will become less nationalistic in interests, security and economic prosperity because of globalisation. Sensitive cabinet meetings, secrecies and backchannels do not always work. But would it be on the interest of national security and welfare to exclude the rising new world actors and public diplomacy. Arguably that may not be the case and for that reason diplomacy today means building both strong bilateral and multilateral association in order to finding mutual interests. There is a tendency that the new diplomacy masks the traditional diplomacy but many would agree with the fact that the driving force of the new diplomacy resides heavily on the traditional diplomacy.