Does the "Old" Diplomacy have Contemporary Relevance?

I most certainly agree that old diplomacy has contemporary relevance. Diplomacy – like every other facet of International Relations – has undergone an evolution. While the principles of the old diplomacy have been overshadowed by the principles of the new diplomacy, this does not mean that it is any less relevant or present in contemporary International Relations. A key feature of new diplomacy is transparency. Under new diplomacy, diplomatic relations are supposed to be conducted openly so that among other things, certain failings of the League of Nations will not be repeated. An example would be the Abyssinia Crisis of the 1930’s. Despite the fact that Ethiopia was also a part of the League of Nations, this state was forsaken and was not granted the protection that was its right under the agreement of the League of Nations. This occurred partly because of secret agreements between the Great Powers.

Haile Selassie - Last Emperor of Ethiopia

The transparency highlighted by new diplomacy appears to only apply to the various international summits and conferences which are constantly taking place. A more recent example of the secrecy of old diplomacy in practise would be the fact that some European states still rely on the gathering of intelligence in order to conduct their diplomatic relations with other European Union states. While former British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook in the documentary “How to be Foreign Secretary”, chose not to speak on the matter, another former Foreign Secretary quite openly admitted that intelligence was gathered on Britain’s closest neighbours. While some would argue that new diplomacy has replaced old diplomacy, (and in some respects, such as the move away from elitism, it has been) it is becoming more apparent to me that old diplomacy is still alive and well, simply wearing new garments.