The Old Diplomacy and its Continuing Relevance

It has often been argued that the pluralization of international relations has lead to a substantial transformation in the practice of diplomacy. The role of the ambassador has gone from one of high politics to one of low, the framework of diplomacy has gone from bilateral to multilateral and negotiations have gone from exclusive to inclusive and open (Rana, K. 2005). With this in mind then, it would be easy to think that the 'Old Diplomacy' has no contemporary relevance in the practice of International Relations. However, many would disagree. One of the essential elements in the functioning of international society today is the role played by embassies, however embassies stem from the beginning of modern diplomacy, and from the start of the Westphalian system itself. In addition to this, the sending of emissaries to open negotiations was common practice among quite primitive peoples. In fact, it has often been noted that there is evidence of ambassadors as far back as the time of the Spartan-Athenian war, perhaps even earlier (Roberts, I. 2009). Further to this, it is fair to argue that the 'Old Diplomacy' acts as a basis for the 'New Diplomacy', and that many if not all of the 'New Diplomacy' practices have their foundations in 'Old Diplomacy', ensuring continued contemporary relevance of the 'Old Diplomacy'.

One recent example of the continued use of 'Old Diplomacy' in a 'New Diplomacy' context can be seen in the Copenhagen Summit. This was intended to be a multilateral, inclusive conference on climate change, with representatives from many different states all negotiating together.















However, this was not the only negotiating to be done. As you can see in the picture below, the two leaders of the most powerful states in the world were holding private, exclusive talks and negotiations, in order to try to realise their own interests.

This is not a typical feature of 'New Diplomacy', but in fact is a practice of the 'Old Diplomacy', and for me acts as a good example of its continuing relevance.






Image can be found at: http://pubs.acs.org/cen/_img/87/i51/obama_wen.jpg

References:
Rana, K. (2005) The 21st Century Ambassador: Plenipotentiary to Chief Executive. (India: Oxford University Press.)
Sir Ivor Roberts (ed.), Satow's Diplomatic Practice, 6th Edition. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009) Chapter 1.

traditional diplomacy, what's the relevance?

The many changes that occured over the past since the eighteenth century did affect the nature of diplomacy considerably, from "old" to "new" diplomacy and there are many evidence to support them. However, it would be naive to undermine the role of old standard methods of international negotiations, especially the role of institutions such as embassies. Diplomacy is no longer limited to high level government officials sitting opposite each other in negotiations(Diplomatic courier article). It is often said that with the development of communication, the role and function of an ambassador have been diminished even more so with the introduction of summitry and shuttle diplomacy. Indeed the international relations have been faced with various challenges that affected the diplomatic community globally but the structure of the old diplomacy remains in format. The old principle of that negotiations depends on reliability and confidence is an eternal principle that has not lost its significance (Nicholson,h. vol40 n1,1961). Globalisation has led to evolution in diplomacy and technology has favored easy and quick exchange of information and negotiation between states but the fact remains that old institutions such as embassies are still indispensable. The representatives still play a key role in those negotiations, for example in the study of local conditions, assess areas of susceptibility, form personnal relationship with local officials in the country where they are based, in order to advise the men at the top on how far to trust their counterparts. Again it is about the creation of confidence and credibility which are the basis of traditional diplomacy. The meeting between israeli ambassador, Ron Prosor with the foreign ministry heads following the use of British passports in the Hamas commander assasination, just goes to show how important these institutions are , the presence of representatives could help negotiate an issue more promptly. The New dipolmacy is more of a make over of the "old", with a more modern approach and with adaptation to contemporary demand.

Nicholson,h., "Diplomacy there and now"in foreign affairs, vol40, n1,1961
Joel Hainsfurther,"will globalisation end?", diplomatic courier 2010

"Old" or "New" what's the difference?

According to many writers there are two distinct explanations about the relevance of the old diplomacy in a modern era. One of them explain that the end of World War II has been the turning point for a new diplomacy , and the second tend to prove that diplomacy was more in a process of evolution rather than dramatic changes. To give an opinion on it i believe that this whole debate on “old” and new” diplomacy” should be more considerate as a process of “continuity” and evolutionary rather than an important change in the expansion of diplomacy. Although new procedures and new actors are present nowadays, the same basic concept of negotiating and keeping relations between states is still relevant in the new diplomacy. Furthermore in this idea of evolutionary process, diplomacy appears to be more flexible in the last century with the revolution of technology that plays a major role in the relation between the states with the new means of communication that have facilitate their interaction. It can be absolutely wrong to say that no changes has occurs in the diplomatic system for example the presence of a resident embassies is one of the main innovation in the Europe civilisation, the open negotiation of the states, the involvement of new actors and the separate bureaucracy for foreign policy has proven that the diplomatic system has shifted but i believe that the “old” diplomacy is more a new development of the system rather than a complete change in its structure.

Source:

http://www.jstor.org/pss/20097144

Old is GOLD But today is SOLD

It is very truely said that Old is Gold. Nevertheless, The threat to today's world is War which the most paniciking the weapon which will shake the World peace. On the other hand diplomacy is the weapon of first choice. At the same time it must be realized that Diplomacy and War two different sides of same coin. We learn from the past , implement in present for better, safe and secure future. Here I really mean to say is the because of old diplomacy excited in past we can frame new diplomacy by plus and minus points from the old ones. In other words, Both the expressions ' Old and New are born from each other but in reality their is no relations, commented Jules Cambon. The following video in very funny manner explains the protocol of British Diplomacy traditionally i.e about 500 years and their strategic plans.

Somehow, It is very true that Under the old diplomacy, global policymaking was more strictly the purview of governments. Also going through article guardian artcile 'This is not any old summit. Poker diplomacy has to end' also opens another window of our mind. I will be posting one more example soon , I just couldn't get hold of that article but as soon as I have it will be posting it, but my question still remains who do they both exist ?

Hence, everthing that shines and sparks is not a gold. There are lot many articles which I gone through that confused me to decide contemprary relevance of old Diplomacy.

‘Old’ diplomacy? - Yes !

It would be extremely ignorant to say that when the world is changing, the technology advances and we have access to the Internet and 24/7 world news, the institution of diplomacy and the diplomatic methods remain untouched by these forces. Just, please, check out these two images. Only by looking at these diplomats’ clothes and items around them we can see that things have certainly changed :)

Indeed, the old style of diplomacy does not have much in common with the contemporary diplomatic practices just like clothes of these two fellows from the image above have nothing in common with Armani suits.

To your surprise, I will not dedicate this blog to the study of the development in diplomatic fashion trends but I will focus on the revolution in communication technology as, in my opinion, with no doubt, it redefined diplomatic practices. Here, I mean the real-time television. This development, namely, has enabled the communication to become a major player in the arena of foreign policy. Already M. Albright, while having been U.S Ambassador to the UN, claimed that ‘there is no question that television has become the sixteenth member of the (UN) Security Council (Ammon, 2001:68). Moreover, just having a look at the example of the Gulf War, the real-time television brought literally war into people’s homes. A viewer could follow events at the same time when they occurred in a real time. Have a look at these short movies:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wlC60Kef9Mg&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJGs2BDKq5g

The real-time television has with no doubt challenged diplomats’ methods of information gathering. Moreover, during the Gulf War, the key foreign policy-makers admitted that media were, in fact, their primary source of information (Ammon, 2001). The statement of one US diplomat will be the best summary of this point: ‘There is a diminished value in classical diplomatic reporting. If you had a choice between reading the [diplomatic] cables in your box and tuning into CNN three times a day, you’d tune in to CNN’(Ammon, 2001:67).

In addition, more generally, the innovations in communication technology have enabled masses to be in constant touch with world affairs whereas earlier only elites were the best informed. Moreover, the revolution in communication technology has enabled people to participate in processes of policy making and this is probably the most important phenomenon which changed the ‘old’ diplomacy forever. Namely, under old diplomacy, global policymaking was strictly at the hands of governments whereas in the era of the Internet people have their say in politics and can influence policies which do not suit their interests.

Sources:
Global television and the shaping of world politics: CNN, Telediplomacy, and Foreign Policy, Royce J. Ammon, 2001

Grant R., ‘The Democratization of Diplomacy: Negotiating with the Internet’, Clingendael Discussion Paper in Diplomacy, No. 100, 2005, available at: www.clingendael.nl/cdsp/publications/discussion-papers/archive.html