The terms old diplomacy and new diplomacy are very misleading and problematic when it comes to understanding the relevance of diplomacy. Diplomacy it self is a modern phenomenon, the establishment of embassies and a separate policy for foreign policy constitutes one of the most important innovations of european civilization. Resident embassies were first introduced in the mid 14th century,foreign ministries developed at a later stage and some would argue diplomatic protocol was consolidated in 1815 at the congress of vienna. From this you could argue that the old diplomacy is a relatively new development. However one can't ignore the influence and impact of technology on diplomacy The world has become more inter-connected through the spread of the internet and globalisation, and this has had an effect on the routines and procedures of diplomacy, but the basic principles of diplomacy as a basis for negotiations between nation states have an enduring validity. You could argue that this demonstrates a continuity and evolution of diplomacy rather than a revolution in the development of diplomacy. The work that foreign embassies do is still relevant today, with regards to promoting national interests abroad and providing valuable information for national companies that are looking to invest abroad. I personally think old diplomacy has contemporary relevance , because to say otherwise is to dismiss the relevance of diplomacy as a whole.
Sasson Sofer, Old and new diplomacy: A debate revisited
I would disagree about the fact that "old diplomacy" is relatively new due to the fact that diplomacy did continue even before 14th century. Although it was never maintained as such in Italy with embassies still it did consist.
ReplyDeleteBut it can be noted that the focus of diplomacy changed rapidly from maintaining traditional trade links to controversial links such as power links.