THE RELEVANCE OF OLD DIPLOMACY
The term “New” diplomacy, we use to describe the diplomacy which is used today, is a reasonable term beacuse the diplomacy has changed after the Worl War 1 but in a way how new is it? As the new diplomacy shares the fundamentals of the old one, it is inevitable to see relevance between them.
Although we can not ignore the improving technology’s effect on diplomacy such as; it made the communication a lot easier between the countries as Per Augustsson, during our visit to Swedish Embassy, said: “ Before, when the letters were carried by men on horses, it was uncertain that the message was received but today we can even follow the events from Financial Times.” On the other hand not all the information can be shared or the important decisions can be made by
the phone or through the internet. As an example; Turkey and Armania had a meeting to solve their problems in Switzerland, 10.10.09.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8299712.stm
Secondly; with the “New Diplomacy” the importance of embassies has reduced ( beacuse of the new ways of communication) and the secrecy has no longer exists ( at least it supposed to be). However, in some aspects in terms of the relations between countries bileteral embassies are still considered as key points.



http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8550928.stm

For example; when US congressional panel has voted in favour of ‘Armenian Genocide’ (05.03.10), Turkey has called their Washington ambassador Namık Tan back to Turkey to disscus. As we can understand from this, in some occassions embassies are still very important, otherwise why would Turkey called their ambassador back. Also there is another point of this issue which is even though there should not be ‘secrecy’ and things should be open to public there is not much information about what’s going on and ‘the discussion’, so yes, I think ‘old’ diplomacy has contemporary relevances