The evolution of diplomacy: an adaptation to globalisation?

What I consider to be the most significant change in the nature of diplomacy is not directly related to its nature. Indeed, for me, the most significant change in the nature of diplomacy has to do with its need to adapt to the new world structure that is caused and at the same time enhanced by the process of globalisation.

This means that it is not only the openness of the meetings and the transparency of their agenda, the inclusive aspect of negotiation about any kind of political matter (‘low politics’) that brings a change to the subject of diplomacy. I think these three changes altogether have the same importance and they cannot be taken separately. That is why I talk about the process of globalisation, which implies on one hand modernisation, and on the other hand more connection between states.

- Modernity but also technical and scientific innovations and progress provided a significant development in communication. Every single time we do have more new and better communication tools, actors and networks, which enable individuals, states and those who I call ‘new communication actors’ (non-state actors) to actually communicate better, faster, in many different ways, from/to anywhere, with so many different tools.

I think this increases the interdependence among these actors, which brings me to my second point:

- More connection between states has been possible because of the development of communication, but I also think that the latter provides the former. No matter what path we think is the right here, we still have the same result: a rise in communication and more interdependent states.

However, Hans J. Morgenthau talks about ‘the decline of diplomacy’ caused mainly by the development of communication. I think this period of decline – he sets it in the period right after the Second World War - was a ‘necessary evil’ in the fact that this permitted new actors (non state-actors) to become significant in the world structure. At some point they became so paramount that they were allowed and added to many negotiation processes and meetings. This is even more relevant now that states interconnectedness has brought, in a certain extent, some order and peace to the international system. Therefore, state actors do not need to focus only with issues related to security in terms of peace and war, but can also deal with other subjects (the so-called ‘low politics’ = environment, financial matters, human rights, refugees, etc. ). Because now there are new topics that do not concern exclusively sovereign states, non-state actors can join the negotiation-table that has been increasingly intrusive, transparent and opened.

All this, in my point of view, is the result of the process of globalisation: the nature of diplomacy had to adapt with the new on-going process in the international system: globalisation. So, to conclude: what I consider to be the most significant change in the nature of diplomacy was its need to adapt itself to the new phenomenon of globalisation, which made a change in diplomacy nature itself (features of ‘new diplomacy’: open, inclusive and low politics).