different recipes but same ingredients

Despite all the changes that have occurred in diplomacy such as technology, globalisation, NGOs, the old diplomacy is still relevant in this contemporary world because the same agreed basis for diplomatic representation at the congress of Vienna in 1815 is still the same as the basis for today’s diplomacy.

Old diplomacy was first created to prevent war between states and define territories borders by the pursuit of national interest and the balance of power, this system is still being used by state as a mechanisms to get what they want and to get a country want what they want, an example of this is the use of hard power by the United State of America and the use of soft power by the European countries.

To help me answer this question, I would like to give you, per say, remind you of what both “old” and “new” diplomacy’s basic foundation. I refer here to William R. Moomaw, when he stressed that old diplomacy addresses 5 major topics which are:

• Avoiding war and maintaining peace
• Defining territorial borders and resolving border disputes
• Trade rules between and among nations such as GATT and WTO
• Treatment of foreign nationals by government such as the rights of foreign citizens
• Operational rules for communication and transport between nations such as postal service, land transportation.

He then addresses the main major topics of new diplomacy which are:

• Human rights (genocide in Darfur)
• Humanitarian assistance, in Kosovo for example or Sierra Leon
• Labour rights, workers conditions in developing countries
• National environmental issues
• Fair trade

The 1st topic is more or less transparent in a sense that modern state are aware that most powerful state are in possession of nuclear weapon which then prevent them of going to war and maintain peace by negotiating. Take the example of the United State and the Soviet avoiding going to war.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Foreign-Policy/2009/0115/p11s02-usfp.html

http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/59888/joseph-s-nye-jr/the-decline-of-americas-soft-power

The 2nd assumption is relevant today as if we take the case of Israel and Palestine conflict can be a good example of defining borders.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/country_profiles/803257.stm

The 3rd topic stressed by R. Moomaw about trade rule as one of the old diplomacy assumption is still relevant today. The GATT existed until 1994 and changed its name to WTO which is still functioning now.

http://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/whatis_e/wto_dg_stat_e.htm

His 4th assumption is still alive in the revised assumption of the new diplomacy which is humanitarian intervention assistance. Take the Kosovo and Congo case for example.

http://www.unc.edu/depts/diplomat/archives_roll/2001_07-09/hum_intervention/hum_04_weisburd.html

http://www.france24.com/en/20081030-solana-eu-humanitairan-intervention-congo-tutsi-leader-nkunda-rdc

His 5th assumption then can be said as similar to the new diplomacy fair trade as they were trying to implement a system that could cover postal services, communication between states and so on.

http://www.european-fair-trade-association.org/efta/

To come to my conclusion after demonstrating that old diplomacy is still alive today, by looking at and analysing the question properly, it can be found out that some of the roots of the old diplomacy which was all about secrecy is still present in the contemporary diplomacy.

As to come to a better end, modern diplomats discuss issues and initiate negotiation at lunch or dinner for example, most of the time, it takes place with two people trying to achieve each other interest, more than achieving it in public which makes old diplomacy relevant today because secrecy is still used. an example of this was confirmed by the chair deputy of the Swedish embassy, whom himself confirmed that it is true that diplomacy is more open today than before but it was still driven intimately by diplomats over lunch or dinner not in public and finally stressed that more European Union countries used secrecy than openness, not to mention that the policy formulation and decision making process are still the same in diplomacy with slightly some difference but the same ingredient if I can say.