NOTE 5: OLD AND NEW DIPLOMACY

5.0. INTRODUCTION

The history of Diplomacy is divided into two time periods. These time periods have given title to

the type of Diplomacy practised then. They are called Old and New Diplomacy. Scholars differ

on what timeline to give to this period. Such arouse because the idea to break Diplomacy into

two periods was born out of the establishment of the Westphalian System. For the most part old

diplomacy is placed within the period of the 18th, 19th and early 20th century (up to 1914). While

New Diplomacy covers from 1914 till date. Some scholars as well expand Old Diplomacy

coverage to as to include all practice of Diplomacy before New Diplomacy.

5.1. OLD DIPLOMACY

For Old Diplomacy it had to do with the traditional form and characteristic of Diplomacy until

1914 when diplomacy transition into New Diplomacy.

5.2. NATURE OF OLD DIPLOMACY

Firstly, Old Diplomacy had an Eurocentric Nature. Here, Diplomacy was mainly a European

affair. And so, this nature is made justiciable by the historical distribution of power in Europe.

Other continents like Asia, Africa, the Americas, Oceania and Antarctica was dominated,

controlled or ruled by the European system. Such European dominance made Diplomacy mostly

influence, shaped and determined by European events and tactics until the emergence of newly

independent states.

1
Also, Old Diplomacy was Aristocratic in Nature. Such meant that diplomats were made up of

a professional and elite class characterised by nobles and aristocrat. The monarchs or rulers

selected these upperclassmen due to the trust they had in them. They were appointed to represent

their monarchs in a formal and elitist manner, and by that, this nature reinforced Diplomacy as

the domain of the kings or rulers. Here, Diplomacy was formally conducted by its practitioners

who must exhibit virtues as representative of an elitist profession. Such virtue demands the

diplomatic corps to abide by rule and regulation of their craft, adhere strictly to protocol and

enshrine the dignity and prestige of their nation. This didn’t mean diplomats would not engage in

double-dealing, but demanded from them, the telling of honest lies, strict conformity with

protocols, total commitment to national interest and strict observation of secrecy.

Another nature of Old Diplomacy was the practice of Secret Diplomacy. It enshrined the

conduct of activities in confidence with little information about diplomatic activities made

public. Old Diplomacy saw secrecy in terms of negotiation, and their outcome carried out in

secret as an ideal way of relations for the preservation of peace and problem solving as treaties,

alliances and compromise can be reached with little publicity.

Likewise, the nature of Old Diplomacy entailed freedom of actions for a Diplomat. It aroused

from the distance between ambassadors and their superiors as well as the slow pace of

communication that necessitated Ambassador deriving greater latitude of action in negotiation

and other diplomatic activities to respond to situations as they develop.

5.3. NEW DIPLOMACY

By the end of the 20th century, the nature of Diplomacy characterised by Old Diplomacy had

changed. Such a change came about due to the development of a fast and comprehensive

2
medium or means of transportation and communication. Also, the rise of technology

advancement fuelled the shift from Old Diplomacy to New Diplomacy. For the nature of New

Diplomacy which aroused from the post-world war era to date we have;

5.4. NATURE OF NEW DIPLOMACY

Firstly, Diplomacy was now Global. It meant that Diplomacy was not just the domain of

Europeans. The newly independent nation joined the European system they transformed it to its

international dimension by abandoning Eurocentric nature for a global one.

Secondly, New Diplomacy transformed the nature of Diplomacy from Bilateral (between two

States) to Multilateral (between three or more States). It institutionalised the internationalisation

of diplomatic practice via multilateral negotiation, international conference, the institutionalised

Diplomacy at the United Nations (UN) and the rise of direct personal contacts amongst

statesmen and leaders.

Also, New Diplomacy has transformed Diplomacy nature to be Less Formal; it has made

Diplomacy not to be as rigid as before in respect to the rules and procedure as they exist in

informal and direct contacts amongst leaders and Diplomat from different countries.

Likewise, changes in the nature of Diplomacy due to the emergence of New Diplomacy is that

Diplomacy is more Open and Democratic. Opened Diplomacy entails the commitment to the

democratic rights of citizens to know and participate in foreign policy decision making. It occurs

by taking into consideration the wishes of the people via public opinion. Such occur through

citizens access to information on negotiations and their outcomes. Citizens ability to follow (Via

Social, Digital and Mass Media) their nations diplomatic activities, thereby leads to government

accountability. Hence, Open Diplomacy also allows for the democratisation of Diplomacy. It

3
does this as it opens up Diplomacy from the dominance of a small, aristocratic and elite class of

Diplomat to one that is influenced by public opinion, political parties, pressure group, world

opinion and the role of the civil service.