The Changing Nature of Diplomacy

By: Narindra Krisna Murthi ( I72218054 )

Introduction
The terms old diplomacy and new diplomacy have been in common use for twenty
five years or more. First, we have to understand what is the main difference between old and
new diplomacy. Nicolson states that the old diplomacy was heavily biased and took personal
preferences into consideration1. During the days of absolute monarchy of Louis XIV and
Catherine II, a country and its citizens were a property of the ruler, foreign policy was in the
hands of the ruler. In such a political system, diplomacy was mixed with policy and the
negotiations become an issue of personalities. It was crucial that the diplomat was trusted
and liked by the sovereign of the country he was sent to. All the implications of the word
alliance connote old diplomacy.

On the other hand, Openness became a primary feature of new diplomacy. Roberts
states that new diplomacy was eager for openness and international organisation2. Unlike the
old diplomacy, the Author finds that new diplomacy connotes the twin ideas of replacing the
bilateral alliances of the past with a universal or semi-universal association of states pledged
to compliance with a set of general principles embodied in international law, and the
abandonment of power politics, that is, the use of force to settle conflicts between nations.
Such as Moomaw said, New diplomacy is international relations in which citizens play a
greater role3.

Diplomacy after World Wars

The author divides the era of post-war diplomacy into three periods. The post-World
War I , post-World War II and post- old War era. These three events have a big impact in the
changing trends of world diplomacy. First, after the first world war. World War I accelerated
many changes in diplomacy. The emergence of a new style of diplomacy that is more open
and more transparent after World War I was not as easily accepted, especially after World
War II. When our world conditions was bipolar, diplomacy more often carried out in private
or close diplomacy. It isn’t relate to the main character of old diplomacy itself.
Furthermore, new diplomacy is being used to address many issues such as human
rights, humanitarian assistance, labor rights, environmental issues, and fair trade. New
diplomacy began to be observed in the 1990s amidst easing tensions in the wake of the Cold
War and streamlined communication among activists in the burgeoning Internet Age 4. Cold
War, once again became one of the events that shifted the world political map, where China
emerged as a new power. Many countries then create various diplomatic innovations after the
end of Cold War, because of the third world countries, especially, do not want to be involved

1
Nicolson, H., 1963. Diplomacy. Oxford University Press: Glasgow
2
Roberts, I. ed., 2009. Satow's diplomatic practice. Oxford University Press: Glasgow
3
Moomaw, W.R. 2007. “New Diplomacy,” [Online]. Available at
http://fletcher.tufts.edu/ierp/pdfs/NewDiplomacy.2.pdf [2020, February 22].
4
Géraud, A. 2015. “Diplomacy, Old and New,” [Online]. Available at
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/1945-01-01/diplomacy-old-and-new [2020, February 22].
in any block. The various styles of diplomacy that emerge are basically efforts to campaign
for a new style of diplomacy that is more peaceful, cooperative and attracts the attention of
the international community.
From Old to New Diplomacy
The transition from the period of diplomacy to new diplomacy was marked by the end
of World War I. With the characteristic compromise, the Vienna Congress in 1815 could be
called one of the greatest achievements in the old diplomacy period. Whereas in new
diplomacy, there are three main elements. First, there must be no secret agreement, second,
negotiations must be carried out openly, third, if an agreement has been reached, no attempt
should be made to change the provisions in secret5. A very significant transition was felt from
the shifting trend of diplomacy towards new diplomacy that was more open, where heads of
state often met in direct conferences which became known as summit conferences, and this
conference could then be published.
The transition to diplomacy is inseparable from the failure of old diplomacy itself.
Geraud argues that the old diplomacy failed because the foundations of the counter alliance
that had been set up to hold in check the Triple Alliance of Italy, Austria and Germany were
not solid and failed to dissuade the Central Empire from their sinister activities6. The failure
of alliance and the First World War ended old diplomacy and it was to be replaced with new
diplomacy.
Conclusion
The modern era of diplomacy and communication between states are characterized by
a move away from old-style-traditional diplomacy to communication that embraces new
issues in international relations. The Author also consider that public opinion was becoming
important in the democratic systems, therefore it had to be considered in the diplomatic
practices. It was argued that if public opinion was given an extensive consideration in
diplomacy, peace would result. The changing nature of diplomacy can not be separated from
the increase of communication. Communication means a lot in diplomacy concept.
References
Géraud, A. 2015. “Diplomacy, Old and New,” [Online]. Available at
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/1945-01-01/diplomacy-old-and-new [2020, February
23].

Moomaw, W.R. 2007. “New Diplomacy,” [Online]. Available at

http://fletcher.tufts.edu/ierp/pdfs/NewDiplomacy.2.pdf [2020, February 23].
Nicolson, H., 1963. Diplomacy. Oxford University Press: Glasgow

Roberts, I. ed., 2009. Satow's diplomatic practice. Oxford University Press: Glasgow
SL Roy. (1991). Diplomasi. PT.Raja Grafindo.

5
SL Roy. (1991). Diplomasi. PT.Raja Grafindo.
6 Géraud, A. 2015. “Diplomacy, Old and New,” [Online]. Available at
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/1945-01-01/diplomacy-old-and-new [2020, February 22].