Would there ever be an egg without the chicken?

Explaining the contemporary relevance of the Old Diplomacy.

Due to the rapid wide development and consequent changes of our lives introduced throughout the 21^st century, the conduct and character of Diplomacy as such has naturally changed. Globalisation, IT progress, summitries, international organisations, NGOs, journalists and secret agents performing a sort of low diplomacy work instead of the actual diplomats, the threat of a global cyberwar - those are just a few factors that have had impact on the traditional diplomacy.

But are really resident missions over? Do states no longer need embassies in the form of official physical buildings? Is the once widely used diplomatic secrecy policy obsolete?

Looking at the historical evolution described by Berridge and Leguey-Feilleux in their textbooks, one can clearly see that diplomacy has been altering since the very first day it appeared. Yes, significant adjustments appeared over time, such as the replacement of the envoys by permanent embassies in the second half of the fifteenth century (Berridge, G. R. 2005: 109). As Berridge clearly points out, ‘The transformation of diplomacy into a profession was a slow and fitful process’ (2005: 112). However, there was no point in the history where diplomacy completely changed its character, leaving all tradition and original rules behind.

Let’s have a look at the features the ‘New Diplomacy’ has retained from the ‘Old’ one.

First of all, the protocol. Needed as a basic procedure to make meetings easier and enable the officials to concentrate on problematic issues, the protocol is still necessary and therefore commonly used. Here comes an example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z8VRLEPWnyY&feature=related.

In addition, as special envoys and later resident diplomats in the medieval times were expected to be of a certain social status in order to represent the prestige of the prince, we have well-trained and in case of the US Ivy League Schools-educated diplomats today.

It emerged naturally that as the number of nation states increased, bilateral diplomacy shifted to a ‘multilateral’ one, after the First World War in particular (Berridge 2005: 114). On the other hand, bilateral diplomacy cannot be viewed as completely forgotten. Even if unsuccessful, bilateral diplomacy is still used. The Arab-Israeli conflict is a good example.

http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=95181207

Another retained factor is immunity. As set by the VCDR (Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations), diplomatic agents still remain immune from the criminal jurisdiction of the receiving state. One of the examples would be the case of the former KGB official Andrei Lugovoi, who is believed to cause the polonium poisoning and consequent death of Alexander Litvinenko. In attempt to end the sanctions imposed by the Labour Government 4 years ago, as well as heavy visa restrictions on Russian officials visiting London, Russia has recently proposed William Hague the honour of direct talks with Dmitry Medvedev. The Crown Prosecution Service is demanding the extradition of Lugovoi, whom it wished to charge over murder. Russian response is that would be against their constitution. Here comes the link:

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/8bd9b2d4-d313-11df-9ae9-00144feabdc0.html

Berridge points out the argument that the technology of travel and communications has advanced to a degree where resident embassies are no longer needed. The international mass media, internet and phone calls might be sufficient. The counterargument to this is the role of local representatives, diplomats who acquire the local culture, language, and become familiar with domestic issues that have impact on a country’s foreign policy. The personal relationship, which career diplomats create between them, often influences the negotiation process. This can be clearly viewed for instance in Leonard Woodcock’s career.

http://chinabusinessreview.net/public/0103/wood.html

At last but not at least, the secrecy within diplomatic relations comes to mind. One could argue it has disappeared and is no longer used. But do/will we not need secret talks in case of a webwar? The cyber threats become more dangerous with every little IT advance. How about the blast in Siberia in 1982; the penetration of Central Command in late 2008 (wars in Iraq and Afganistan); or the online violations performed by Russia during the conflicts with Estonia and Georgia? In fact, it is not precisely known what capacities such attacks may have and who would win a hypothetical cyberwar. Iran, Russia, China, American CIA, or...someone else (The Economist, “War in the fifth domain”, July 3^rd 2010)?