Traditional diplomacy: Do you think the ‘old’ diplomacy has any contemporary relevance?

I would say that new Diplomacy, is not really that new, but rather a developed version of the Old Diplomacy. 

The ‘old’ diplomacy was conducted mostly on a bilateral basis( state to state agreements and negotiations). However the roles of traditional institutions and diplomatic relations have changed, with globalization, new technologies and  non-governmental organisations(NGOs).  " Even if foreign policy professionals regard themselves as leaders in the practice of diplomacy, they have to admit that they share that practice with a lot more players. Diplomacy has become democratized. The technology allows more people to play, many of them non-experts or interest groups with individual issues to pursue, as it increases the size of the playing field by an almost exponential amount, and it changes the rules every day"(Richard Grant)

The internet, which allows information to be available very fast and to many people, might mean that diplomats are no needed, however the accuracy of the information is not always clear." the diplomat is more likely to trust reliable sources known to him\her already. The diplomat will want to rely on informed advice from colleagues in embassies around the world,who will themselves be discovering the information on their screens."(Richard Grant)

Even though the outline of immediate events is useful, it can also cause problems. " The genocides in Rwanda and the conflicts in the Balkans in recent years were both known to the world quickly, some of it in real time, but that did not help individual governments, or international organisations, to react with corresponding speed. In both cases, the knowledge of the events rapid and world-wide was met with an uneasy political reaction across the developed world, which combined to make the policy reaction slow and cumbersome."(Richard Grant)

 

"The new technologies will not usurp the rationale for diplomacy and for diplomats, but there is evidence that the flows of information are putting pressures on existing structures and procedures of information management. There will continue to be a need for intermediaries in the interaction of states, whether it be a bilateral, regional or multilateral framework. We should not confuse the message and the messengers.

What is clear is that the way diplomacy is conducted is changing and changes implies adaptation. Foreign services across the world are all faced, to one degree or another, by the challenges of the changing environment."(Richard Grant)

The rise of summitry and the involvement of political leaders has also changed diplomacy( G8 summit). The involvement of states leaders undermine the existence of diplomats.

Relevance of Traditional Diplomacy at Present

Since I have mentioned in my previous blog that the “new” diplomacy is simply an adjusted version of “old” diplomacy to new emerging world trends, the following blog will be followed in the same nature stating that the “old” diplomacy definitely has much of contemporary relevance. Relevance of traditional diplomacy at the present will be illustrated in four main features of traditional diplomacy that are still in practice in contemporary diplomacy.

Firstly, the foreign office being the brain and the ambassadors being the “eyes and the ears”, diplomacy is conducted on a hierarchical bases, given that most of the times ambassadors have a very limited role in policy formulation and decision making. Recommendations given by the ambassadors are not always followed, but in cases even neglected. Moreover, actions of the ambassadors overseas are generally restrained and overly controlled, which is seen by the diplomats themselves as very constraining and damaging to the missions they undertake.

Secondly, as secrecy is born with diplomacy, it is still seen as even a necessity during the diplomatic negotiations. As mentioned in my previous blog, even though the “new” diplomacy is known for it being more open and public, secret diplomacy is still in wide use. As seen on the video last week, there are still many things that diplomats prefer not to talk about. As in the case of spying, even though diplomats themselves may not act as spies, but there is a still possibility that they might engage in the work of the spies, which may of course interfere and damage the mission of a diplomat.

Thirdly, traditional ceremonial procedures of traditional diplomacy are still continued in contemporary diplomacy. For example, it is the duty of an ambassador to attend social events of their hosting states and not only. Thus, social functions of a diplomat are still seen as a necessity as it was in traditional diplomacy.

Finally, one of the most interesting ones is the public diplomacy. Taken for example, the Byzantine method of promoting their prestige by taking hostages from different states and treating them lavishly, after which these hostages upon returning back to their lands “presumably impressed with the splendor of the imperial capital, they dazzled their compatriots with what they had seen, inspiring awe and respect”. (Leguey-Feilleux, 2009, p36). This resembles a contemporary use of public diplomacy, the purpose of which “is not only creating a better understanding of the political objectives of the sending state and fostering support for its policies, but also creating an appeal for all aspects of its culture.” (Leguey-Feilleux, 2009, p-191) For example, the United States of America promotes its own prestige by sponsoring student/teachers/workers exchange programs, having a network of US libraries in foreign countries and etc. (A bit of a resemblance with the use of soft power in order to achieve one’s means.)

References:

Leguey-Feilleux, Jean-Robert (2009) The Dynamics of Diplomacy Lynne Rienner Publishers, London.

Riordan Shaun, (2003) The New Diplomacy Cambridge: Polity.

Does Old Diplomacy Have Contemporary Relevance?

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.

The most significant change between the old and new diplomacy

Diplomacy is key in International Relations. It is the way of negotiating and coming to an agreement. One which will most of the time benefit both or more parties. Diplomacy has not so much changed throughout the years, but evolved. The idea still remains the same as it did before. To reach an agreement without resorting to drastic measures and avoiding serious conflict.
The way in which diplomacy has 'changed' or evolved has been the process of it. It is no longer secretive and exclusive as it used to be. It has become more inclusive and open to the public. It can be said to be more transparent. But this 'transparency' can be argued since the information given by the media to the public can be controlled, withheld and regulated by the parties involved.
Another difference between the old and new diplomacy is the role of non-state actors nowadays. Non-Governmental Organisations have a role in the decision-making process since their voices are actually heard and taken into account. In addition, the process has to be made in such a manner that the public will not be angered or disturbed, because people are more aware of what is going on due to the media coverage provided. This drives diplomacy to be more 'diplomatic' than before. Public opinion has become important in recent years.
Diplomacy is an art, since it is in the end about getting what you want but without force and in a peaceful manner.

Modernized Old Diplomacy?

Diplomacy is the interaction between the states through communication and negotiation, which requires “the application of intelligence and tact to the conduct of official relations between the governments of independent states”.(Roberts, 2009, p-3) It is the ability to find the balance and wise use of the most important means of diplomacy: persuasion, compromise and threat of force, that conducts “the key process of communication and negotiation in world politics and as an important foreign policy instrument used by global actors”. (White, 2005, 387). Whatever means is used however, the main objective of diplomacy lies and always laid on the “promotion of national interest by peaceful means” (Morgenthau, 1904, p329). Objectives of diplomacy are primarily the assessment of the power available from all perspectives and the ability to acutely employ the means in order to achieve the desired intentions.

Diplomacy in its nature and objectives has been the same throughout its origins until nowadays and the changes that have taken place as a matter of time being has resulted because the world politics has transformed in such a way that diplomacy needed a new way of achieving its means. The following I consider as the most significant changes in the nature of diplomacy.

First of all, since the traditional way of conducting diplomatic relations in secrecy allegedly resulted in World War 1, a need for a more open and publicized diplomacy emerged. This is one of the significant changes. Even though the need has emerged, it does not mean that diplomacy has become completely open and transparent. The rehearsed outcomes of the negotiations during the League of Nations for the public for example shows how the actual decisions are originally not the ones that are shown to the public. On the other hand though, the United Nations has reversed this issue and made diplomacy more transparent nevertheless the concern that diplomacy is still conducted on a secret basis.

The League of Nations and the United Nations denote the other significant change in the nature of diplomacy, that is the emergence of non state actors: international organizations, non-governmental organizations, intergovernmental organizations, multinational corporations and etc. In the new parliamentary diplomacy these new non-state actors also play a significant role.

The development of communication and technology is another most significant change in the nature of diplomacy since it resulted in a greater interdependence between the states and easier communication.

Moreover, in addition to “high politics”, the major change in the nature of diplomacy is the greater concern of governments with “low politics”, that is the transformation of governments from “night-watchman states” to “welfare states” that include the economic and social welfare issues.

Finally, one of the major changes in diplomacy is the transformation of world politics in global scope. The addition to the agenda of the issues such as the relations of now not only between the West and the East, but also Global North and the South, the global environment concerns, technology, terrorism and arms control all have the major influence on the change of the nature of diplomacy.

References:

Roberts Sir Ivor, (2009), (ed.) Satow’s Diplomatic Practice, 6^th edition, Oxford State University Press, Oxford.

White, B. (2005), “Diplomacy” in J. Baylis and S. Smith (eds.) The Globalization of World Politics, 3^rd ed. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Morgenthau, Hans, J. (1904), 5^th ed. Politics Among Nations, Alfred A. Knopf, INC, New York.

Leguey-Feilleux, Jean-Robert, (2009), The Dynamics of Diplomacy , Lynne Rienner Publishers, London.

New Diplomacy

The shift from old, to new diplomacy was due to the changes that occurred in international political system after the end of the cold war. The status of states as sole primary actors in the international political system diminished, thus, the boundaries of states’ sovereignty that emphasized and characterised the old diplomatic systems had to be redefined, due to pressures emerged from new Non – State actors as Non – Governmental Organisations and other international forces operating within the global political sphere.
Globalisation created an environment that was conducive for international forces to significantly defaced the national sovereignty with, a global concept. As such, traditional diplomatic structures of secrecy that elevated national security and trade as absolute responsibility of the state, to bilaterally or multilaterally interact with other states on the international platform evaporated because of the challenges mounted on the principles of state sovereignty by Non- state actors with a diversity of objectives, actively and aggressively engaged in diplomatic interaction on issues of environment, humanitarian, international health, and human rights on a global stage.
It can also be argued that, technological advancements in both traditional, and new media tools contributed to the dismantling of secrecy of the old diplomacy to openness of new diplomacy. The globalisation of information technology such as the internet and media networks might have forced states to reformulate diplomatic policies that can absorb and mitigate the impacts of globalisation to the sovereign of Nation states.


Bolewski, D. (2007): Diplomacy and International Law in Globalized Relations, Heidelberg, Springer

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.