Contemporary Diplomacy as a mixture of old & new diplomacies

Diplomacy has changed with time in the same way the world had changed. However this shift should be seen more in terms of gradual evolution than a rapid revolution; and the contemporary diplomacy seems to hold elements of both old and new diplomacy. Outwardly the modern day diplomacy is more transparent, the level of secrecy decreased and the outcomes of negotiations in most cases are open to the wider public

.

One of the most significant changes was the rise in importance of multilateral diplomacy. In old diplomacy the system of bilateral relations prevailed. This has changed in the twentieth century. The number of international actors increased and the complexity of issues confronting them multiplied thus the pace of bilateral diplomacy turned out to be ineffective and simply to slow. The twentieth century brought emergence of international organizations which demanded from their members continuous representation. Those organizations enabled states to develop more complex and multilateral relations with each other. The creation of League of Nations in the wake of WWI enabled the shift from bilateral diplomacy to more multilateral one. However the statement that the multilateral diplomacy simply replaced the bilateral diplomacy would be highly exaggerated. Multilateral diplomacy can prove itself to be very effective in solving certain problems (for example environmental issues), but in some cases must take a back seat in favour of bilateral diplomacy.

The role of embassies and ambassadors has also evolved. The progress in technology of travel and communications enabled the political leaders and other officials of different countries to establish a direct contacts with each other. Thus the role of ambassadors as mediators can be now bypassed. Opportunities for a direct contact increased with the growing number of international organizations. Moreover, the development of the modern mass media has deprived ambassadors of their role as primary information sources. Thus one may question the importance of maintaining embassies. Nevertheless they might be very useful in many cases as they have a deep knowledge of countries they work in. The case of summit in Camp David in 1978 can be used as an example here. US ambassadors to Egypt and Israel, Herman Eilts and Samuel Lewis respectively, were so respected for their knowledge of countries their were serving in that they joined in the US negotiating team at Camp David summit in 1978.

Bibliography

G. R. Berridge, Diplomacy: Theory and Practice, 3rd edition (Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave
Macmillan, 2005), chapter 7