'Old diplomacy', outdated?

My point of view on the matter tends to radically separate the 'old' and the 'new' diplomacy. It would be much easier to pretend that the 'new' diplomacy is just a logical follower to the 'old diplomacy' but in my opinion the two cannot be compared.
Even though states are the main actors for both , the international system they interact in has fundamentally changed. Most would probably agree that diplomacy adapts to the changes occurring in the international system so it would not become outdated and hence ineffective.

'Old diplomacy' is defined as a bilateral form of diplomacy as established in what is now called Italy in the middle of the 15th century by the creation of resident embassys.
There is no doubt the main goal for both old and new diplomacy is to collaborate and promote mutual interests.
However, how could a bilateral form of diplomacy be effective in a globalised world where information takes only about a few seconds to go from one end of the planet to the other and where every state is interdependent? The tragic example of the inefectiveness of the old form of diplomacy can be seen in the outburst of the First World War.
It was globally realised that decisions could no longer be taken secretly by two parties even if they involved a larger amount of states.

Even though secrecy is still a part of the new diplomacy, the creation of non-governmental organisations (mainly United-Nations but others as well) are keened to bring diplomacy to the public level which tends to diminuish the risk for military conflict.

Another and perhaps the most important point is to recognize the interdependent nature of world politics today which cannot be associated with the bilateral old diplomacy. The probability of one country going to war with another is very unlikely nowadays because every single state seems to be part of some sort of organisation or alliance. Therefore, as S. Huntingdon argued in the Clash of Civilizations if a state goes to war with another it will bring along other states that are part of the same civilization, alliance, group (or simply sharing the same interests). The most obvious example for the latter argument are the wars between the United-States and Iraq and the armed conflict between Israel and Palestine (Israel being supported by the United-States and Palestine by several arabic countries).
In a bilateral diplomatic system states would not step up to negociate peace terms between two other countries as one can observe in the following example.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/8172034.stm

This article describes the actions taken by the United States of America to establish a peace treaty between Israel and Palestine. "The US administration is seeking even more from Arabs to unblock the Israeli position. With neither side wanting to budge first, the strategy is focused on a simultaneous move by both Israelis and Arabs. "

Because old diplomacy could not deal with the modern international system issues I do not believe that there are any similarities between old and new diplomacy worthwile mentioning.
The current new world system needs a new form of diplomacy adapted to a globalised world system where every state is dependent on the other.