The Evolution of Diplomacy

'The structure and behaviour of the diplomatic machine has always been a response to the needs of the players on the international stage.' (Hamilton, K. & Langhorne, R. (1995) The Prtactice of Diplomacy: Its Evolution, Theory and Administration. p. 67. London: Routledge.)

In their book, What is Economic Diplomacy?, Bayne and Woolcock (2003) use two definitions of diplomacy:

'The conduct of relations between states and other entities with standing in world politics by official agents and by peaceful means.'

And

'Diplomacy is concerned with the management of relations between states and between states and other actors.'

Bayne and Woolcock (2003) refer to the first definition as 'the classical concept of diplomacy', while they are describing the second as 'a more recent definition'. Today it is commonly accepted to distinguish between the 'new' and the 'old' diplomacy. The 'old' diplomacy is commonly characterised as being secretive, exclusive, and about high politics, and the 'new' as being open, inclusive, and with no distinction between high and low politics.

I believe that this division of diplomacy into an 'old' and a 'new' diplomacy is very vague and unsatisfying. I think that the evolution of diplomacy is an ongoing process and this process has happened and still does happen in accordance to the evolution of the international system. I therefore find it difficult to argue that one change in the nature of diplomacy is more significant than another. I actually think it is misleading to talk about a 'nature of diplomacy', as I think diplomacy is an ever-changing and unique practice. I therefore believe it is more important to look at different historical events and periods within the international system, which have affected how diplomacy has been and is conducted:

(1) 1815 (The Congress of Vienna): 5-6 great powers dominated the affairs and diplomatic practices opf Europe. There existed 'an orderliness in the conduct of international politics (...)' (Hamilton & Langhorne, 1995:89).

(2) Woodrow Wilson's fourteen points. The first point shows how diplomacy became open and inclusive: 'Open covenants of peace, openly arrived at, after which there shall be no private international understandings of any kind but diplomacy shall proceed always frankly and in the public view.' (Hamilton & Langhorne, 1995:154).

The first of the two above points is often seen as the beginning of the 'old' diplomacy, while the second point is seen as the beginning of the 'new'. I believe there exists many more historical happenings and periods, which have influenced the practice of diplomacy. Firstly, because the practice of diplomacy dates further back than 1815, and it is therefore necessary to have at least one other period before the 'old' diplomacy. Secondly, I think it is possible to divide the so-called 'new' diplomacy into more than just one period. I believe so because I think, hence the quote at the top of this blog entry, the nature of diplomacy changes in accordance to the changes in the international system.

My suggestion for a division of the 'new' diplomacy will therefore be as following:

(1) First World War --> Second World War: shock after the First World War, League of Nations, attempts to avoid war from happening again, etc.

(2) Second World War --> Post-Cold War: A bipolar world with the USSR and the US as superpowers, clashes but never war, NATO, The Warsaw Pact, etc.

(3) Post-Cold War: uni- or multipolar world, 9/11 terrorist attack, internationally organised enemies with no state behind them, a rise in power of NGOs, transnational cooperations, etc.

I do appreciate that the division I have produced can be divided into even more points. I believe that there exist countless events, which affect the way diplomacy is conducted. I will therefore, as mentioned earlier, suggest that there is not one 'nature of diplomacy'. I believe that diplomacy is dependent on a lot of different factors, and every single diplomatic practice differ in one way or another. This is because of the differences in details of negotiations, the relationship between states and/or other actors, the personality and ability of the diplomats, etc.

With this blo0g entry, I wanted to stress how I believe that diplomacy is an ever-changing practice which is dependent on changes within the international system.