The degree of diplomacy’s openness in 21st century

The most significant change in diplomacy of 21st century could be recognized as public (open) diplomacy. It will be discussed bellow from different point of view and based on particular examples.

The Diplomacy from itself represents values and the code of behavior of international and domestic governments/ authorities. As a fact, globalization of world politics made an inescapable influence to ‘old (past) diplomacy’ and caused natural consequences of evolutionary progress at international and domestic stage. Many changes have been taken in diplomacy, because of expansion of international society, what stimulates increasing number of international/domestic actors in face with own interests delivered by diplomats in particular fields (new technologies, economics, trade market, science, pharmacy etc.). As it can be seen, this process helps to decrease the gap between government and citizens. One of the examples pursuing public diplomacy is Hillary Rodham Clinton when invited all citizens of U.S., especially innovators from the technologically savvy Bay Area with the purpose to bring new ideas on how to improve America’s diplomacy:
” International relations, she said, are not just the province of men wearing three-piece suits shuttling in and out of meetings.”
” Diplomacy and outreach can’t just be left to our government.”
(http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/10/16/MNLO1FTHRP.DTL&type=politics)
Hillary Rodham Clinton Speaks Diplomacy in S.F. [VIDEO]: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/object/article?f=/c/a/2010/10/16/MNLO1FTHRP.DTL&o=1&type=politics

As Hillary Clinton declared, diplomacy can’t just be left to government. Unfortunately, there will always exist a state of diplomacy, which combines highest level of international affairs and such an institutions as national security department. Logically, it cannot be open for public, because of security and confidential reasons. To sum it up, open diplomacy can be effectual and valid in particular level between allies, but is not playing its part among enemies, moreover between ‘blocks’ and disengaged states. The relationship between the enemies is competitive, where diplomacy starts to cooperate with intelligence services. Intelligence's overseas liaisons interact with diplomacy and foreign policy. The connection between diplomacy and intelligence can be recognized by some particular features of its activities: intelligence as a separate state takes a part of twenty-first century government; it uses different access and technologies to collect covered information about certain targets, in this case, intelligence provides information by special methods, diplomacy uses it. For example, embassies can be recognized as intelligence units and are suspicious for local intelligence. At this level of diplomacy the target stays consistently, only technologies are improved, what could be emphasized as the change in new diplomacy.
(http://www.twq.com/10july/docs/10jul_Maller.pdf)

To conclude, the concept of diplomacy can be figuratively compared with the chess-board, which consists of different figures controlled by particular strategy. And the degree of the openness depends on the role and substantiality of particular figure, because the strategy within its targets is tended to be uncovered for the purpose of success.