Traditional Diplomacy vs. 'A New World Order'

“Diplomacy is the application of intelligence and tact to the conduct
of official relations between the governments of independent states.”
(Satow, 1964: 1)

This term illustrates meaning and applications of diplomacy in general; in fact, this definition suggests the idea that the ‘old’ and ‘new’ diplomacy still belong to one unit.
Diplomatic art has been used for centuries, facing the greatest challenges such as global changes of environment; and regardless of its remarkable usage, it remains an argumentative ever changing theme. Although, it is obvious that the ‘nature’ of the modern diplomacy is incredibly unlike to one which was used hundreds of years ago, the modern world itself changes continuously; therefore, this question arises:
Are the ‘old’ and ‘new’ diplomacies ‘divorced’, or are they in progress?

To begin, firstly, there should be an acknowledgement to what caused this separation. In short, “modern diplomacy developed alongside the growth of the modern nation states.” (Riordan, 2003: 12). As the nations’ states gradually claimed its territorial domination, the need arose for a new way of relations with other nations states. During history, and mostly in nineteen century, it was known as the ‘Westphalian system’. Although, the Westphalian system has collapsed, its significant degree of structures and operating systems of diplomacy remained. (Riordan, 2003: 12)

Furthermore, the rises of global politics, multilateral communications, non-governmental actors, technological expansion, globalization, nuclear arms development, etc., have widened a gap between the ‘new’ and ‘traditional’ diplomacy. It seems that the traditional ageing structure and procedures, designed for the world which no longer exists, have been replaced with greater efficiency.
Even thought there are many distinctions between modern and traditional methods, there are equally noticeable similarities of structure and approach to international relation. The core structural similarity is the hierarchical policy-formulation, decision-making processes and the regime of diplomatic missions, both in terms of their relations with the foreign ministry, and within the missions themselves.
For example, in the ‘new’ and ‘old’ traditions, diplomacy is still ‘state centric’ actor. The key aim is achieving national interests by cooperation and negotiation, maintaining balance of power which is essential keeping peace and status.

Also, the embassies still have the significant role in national and international missions using diplomatic methods. Despite the fact that the multilateral diplomacy is a dominant in the globalised world, however, the bilateral communications are still widely practised. Such as bilateral cooperation, treaties, sanctions, etc., in relation to economic, political, militarily, environmental, etc., agreements. The awareness towards the ‘public’, ‘summit’ diplomacy is that there will always be the high sum of secrecy and eavesdropping mistrust among nation states.
For example:

"The FBI has arrested 10 people for allegedly serving for years as secret agents of Russia's intelligence organ, the SVR, with the goal of penetrating U.S. government policymaking circles." (Fox News; June 28, 2010)
Nevertheless, the ‘telecommunications’ diplomacy plays a significant role shaping the world politics.
“One of the major changes that communications technology has shaped in diplomacy has been the restriction in ambassador’s freedom of action.” (Riordan, 2003: 13)

In the ‘Diplomacy Theory and Practice’ (2005), Berridge is concluding that, radio and television broadcasts, and website messages, are not used for direct communication between governments, only during major crisis. Also, he states that direct telephone communication is not appropriate usage, even by heads of government and senior ministers, and their secure lines do tend to be called ‘hot lines’. It seems that advancing technology is not only helping in diplomatic practise, but also brings a lot of dangers towards succeeding in a mission; as well it increases mistrust and paranoia.

“Telecommunication is vulnerable to eavesdropping. Conversations are being interrupted by the intelligence agencies of major powers. Anxiety about the security of telecommunications helps to explain why states still employ special envoys and sometimes diplomatic couriers, who envoy significant production in international law, to deliver orally or hand-carry messages of a particularly sensitive nature.” (Berridge, 2005: 102)

Moreover, the United Nations (UN) is using video-conferencing to create ‘virtual meeting’ between discussants, however, even the smartest video conference, obviously can not duplicate entirely the personal meet. (Berridge, 2005: 103) Even Smith, one of the best known apostles of ‘virtual diplomacy’, believes that ‘negotiations are best completed face to face. (Smith, 1999: 21) This proves, once again, the importance of traditional practise in diplomacy, no matter modernisation, the traditional values are still appreciated.

To conclude, contemporary politics remains highly rooted in traditional diplomatic practises. Looking fairly at modern advantages and disadvantages, we can find that ‘old’ diplomacy is relevant in contemporary world with drastic challenges of modernisation and democratisation methods.

Bibliography:
Berridge, G. R. (2005), Diplomacy: Theory and Practice, 3rd edition, (Palgrave Macmillan, Houndmills)
Fox News, (June 28, 2010) Feds Bust 10 Alleged Russian Spies in U.S. from: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/06/28/feds-bust-alleged-russian-spies/
Riordan, S. (2003), The New Diplomacy, (Polity, Cambridge)
Roberts, I. (ed.), (2009), Satow’s Diplomatic Practice, 6th edition (Oxford: Oxford University Press)