There is a varied understanding of what marks ‘The New Diplomacy’, for the purpose of this blog the ‘New Diplomacy’ will be marked from around the start of the League of Nations in 1919. So, does the ‘old diplomacy’ model have any contemporary relevance?
No doubt the old model of diplomacy has both merits and failings. I will start by identifying some of the ways in which the old diplomacy was what can be deemed as flawed. The old system of diplomacy was wholly conservative and the diplomats were aristocratic elites who had first hand experience in the subtle art of negotiation. The diplomats were generally concerned with pursuing their country’s national interest over global interest. Most negotiations took place between two countries and due to the nature of the negotiation were done in secrecy.
Today, we witness a progressive change in the nature of diplomacy with many smaller states and non state actors involved. Many negotiations take place through the great centres on the UN and the EU as well as through conferences. There is a wider recruitment of diplomats and more openess. However, the growing changes in diplomacy do not rule out the foundations of the ‘old style diplomacy’. Bilateral negotiations do still take place and are sometimes necessary in order to reach agreement.
One must also bear in mind, that the world we live in, though maybe becoming increasingly globalised. Every country has a different culture and understanding of doing things, this maybe crucial in understanding that old diplomacy does have contemporary relevance. The duty to pursue a country’s own interest is remains at the heart of the diplomacy. The role of a diplomat yet remains, to get the best of the other fellow, therefore working with them to get the best for both countries.
No doubt the old model of diplomacy has both merits and failings. I will start by identifying some of the ways in which the old diplomacy was what can be deemed as flawed. The old system of diplomacy was wholly conservative and the diplomats were aristocratic elites who had first hand experience in the subtle art of negotiation. The diplomats were generally concerned with pursuing their country’s national interest over global interest. Most negotiations took place between two countries and due to the nature of the negotiation were done in secrecy.
Today, we witness a progressive change in the nature of diplomacy with many smaller states and non state actors involved. Many negotiations take place through the great centres on the UN and the EU as well as through conferences. There is a wider recruitment of diplomats and more openess. However, the growing changes in diplomacy do not rule out the foundations of the ‘old style diplomacy’. Bilateral negotiations do still take place and are sometimes necessary in order to reach agreement.
One must also bear in mind, that the world we live in, though maybe becoming increasingly globalised. Every country has a different culture and understanding of doing things, this maybe crucial in understanding that old diplomacy does have contemporary relevance. The duty to pursue a country’s own interest is remains at the heart of the diplomacy. The role of a diplomat yet remains, to get the best of the other fellow, therefore working with them to get the best for both countries.
i agree with your point, where in old diplomacy negotiations were done in secrecy.
ReplyDeleteWhere as nowadays there are many other actors involve, such as the UN and the EU.
I agree with you Zen that old diplomacy had certain secrecy and that many negotiations took place and still taking place however some of the negotiations are done in secrecy in another words reality is hidden behind the curtains.
ReplyDelete