The nature and development of diplomacy.

Diplomacy started out centuries ago, but the traditional ways of diplomacy are said to start when the use of permanent residences for diplomats begun. This is important since it brought a more institutionalized form of diplomacy and enhanced forces of persuasion to its actors, since connections became closer. Pressure for a less secretive and more democratic forms changed the processes of diplomacy in Europe in the early 1900-century. A move from only state to state bilateral agreements to complex system of multilateral negotiations occurred (mainly because of problems causing/not hindering World War One). Furthermore and highly important; non state actors where given more space in international politics. The advantages of using old diplomatic ways are that the structure is already in place and negotiations are low in expenses. Though altering to the use of summits and of different kinds of sanctions to persuade is not expensive either, though its sensitive to use other diplomatic instruments (other than negotiations) since they are use of a “force” even if it is not military. However, as Brian White states, diplomacy alone “cannot guarantee international cooperation”. New diplomacy has also formed new subgroups of diplomacy, since there now is a larger need to have specialised sections for different kind of situations and negotiations; if there is a crisis- military, environmental of even decease related, or if its about economics- aid or trade, as examples. All these new actors (both in form of decolonized states and of NGO's), new issues (with wider impacts because of globalisation) and new ways of communication that has developed have deeply altered the old ways of diplomacy. States are trying to assimilate since the old big actors are afraid to lose their powers in world politics completely, which could perhaps even make the system of world politics collapse it self? But states as actors will probably be highly important for a long time and probably their institutions of diplomacy as well. Alterations will be added depending on world situations and the actions of different actors and how other actors respond to that.

Brian White on diplomacy

White presents a broad picture on the changing nature of diplomatic protocols. Originally, it served as a ‘channel of communication’ between state-state, ‘diplomacy’ constituted a bilaterally based and exclusive network. Contemporary diplomacy on the other hand, has advanced into an ‘inclusive’ system, incorporating greater assortment of entities; today, diplomacy can be regarded as a complex and ‘fragmented’ network, indicating the degree of multitude of actor’s interactions. ‘New diplomacy’ incorporates onto its agenda fresh concerns over ‘economic, social, environment, arms control, welfare’, all of which classify under ‘low politics’. Today’s diplomatic affair engages in a wide spectrum of concern, thus requiring specialized actors assigned to tackle up-to-the-minute issues.

States as White indicates, no longer hold the governing seat in the house, their ‘sovereignty’ are frequently under intimidation and the likelihood of barter. New entities such as international organisations, translational corporations as well as, non-governmental organisations are gradually taking up substantial roles within the field in order to achieve their desired ends. Non-state actors possess an overwhelming ability to influence state’s interests and decisions; whether via manipulation or propaganda, these non-governmental entities are slowly but surely renovating the very essence of world affairs.

Diplomacy as the author describes, can be regarded as a tactic/skill sought in order to secure certain agreements; via means of ‘persuasion’, in order to reach a point of ‘compromise’ are some of the vital skills with diplomatic conduct.

However, ‘pure diplomacy’ is not always the adequate measure to obtain specific ends, and here is where the resort of ‘mixed diplomacy’ steps onto stage. ‘Mixed-diplomacy’ involves the application of intimidation, pressure, or threats in order to reach certain ends. The usage of ‘propaganda’ or involvements in intelligence activities is also equivalent to a type of ‘mixed diplomacy’; they are ‘option’ sought to influence foreign societies as well as their governments.

White draws attention on the additional roles of ‘consular services’, not only do they support and protect home citizens whom reside abroad, but they are also assigned tasks associated with the host state’s ‘trade and commerce’ relations. Furthermore, embassies have recently been evaluated based on their abilities to ‘boost home export promotion’ and strengthening trade transactions.

All in all, the role of ‘diplomacy’ has transformed into a highly demanding job, they gather information for their home state; represent their state abroad; role as negotiators; provide consular service abroad as well as, promote trade and export for their home country.