Old and New Diplomacy?

Before I go onto draw attention to any difference between ‘old’ and ‘new’ diplomacy, I would like to begin by quoting something out of Riordan’s book (2003) “Diplomacy is the application of intelligence and tact to the conduct of official relations between governments of independent states”.

The nature of diplomacy has had to change with the modernisation of nation states. The growing channels of communication and rapid technological advances have casted doubt on the existentence of diplomats claiming that diplomacy is in gradual decline. However, even today, in a crowded arena that includes non state actors and interdependence in a shrinking borderless world, diplomacy and diplomats still remain effective and relevant.

The distinguishing features of the old diplomacy are based around its state centric approach that put the state at the forefront of every matter. Diplomacy was all about secrecy therefore it was maintained through a bilateral process of negotiations and diplomacy was emphasised on security.

What is now known as the new diplomacy does share the founding principles of the old diplomacy. States remain the main actors in diplomatic negotiations but they are also joined by NGO’s and multi-national corporations. There is more scope for other agendas that effect social welfare and human rights despite security, trade and the environment being the most emphasised. With the nature of information that diplomats deal with cannot be entirely transparent, though there is a change towards more transparency in certain matters, after all diplomacy is the application of intelligence.

One cannot set stone and define old and new diplomacy as two different concepts and cast aside old diplomacy as irrelevant in modern times. The old diplomacy still exists and is effective, but there have been gradual changes that are necessary with the changing dynamics of a globalised community.