The Modified Diplomacy

As a fact, under the “old diplomacy”, global policymaking was more strictly the purview of governments. One of the strongest elements of “old diplomacy” is secrecy, which is opposite to “new diplomacy” pursuing clear openness for public. As a result, the gap between citizens and government is reduced. At this point of view, must be observed, that “old diplomacy” lost its relevance in nowadays. On the other hand, the “new diplomacy” cannot be recognized as a brand new innovation at the stage of international relations, because it is a result of evolution and progress which is inescapable related within its beginning called “old diplomacy”. To crystallize these remarks, the model of “modified diplomacy” must be emphasized, and similarities in front with differences between “old” and “new” diplomacies will be discussed.

The enthusiasts of "new diplomacy" are tended to state “old diplomacy” as already expired. UN will be analyzed with the priority status among international organizations, just to prove and demonstrate how succeed or not they are in terms of new (public) diplomacy, because its existence lays on the part of period when diplomacy developed. This example will detect the role of “old diplomacy” and its relevance/ influence to IR today. The confrontation of these two diplomacy theories will conclude to bipolar observation.

The measure of UN which supports the “new diplomacy"

‘At the UN, all the member states – large and small, rich and poor, with different political views and social systems – had a voice and a vote in this process.’(Baylis, Smith, Owens 2008:314) All member states had to accept the regulations declared in obligations of the UN Charter, an agreement which settled international order. According to the Charter, the United Nations emphasized four targets: to ensure international peace and security; to maintain and develop cooperative relations between nations; to collaborate in solving international issues and in pursuing attention for human rights; and to coordinate the actions of nations. Furthermore, the charter promoted the interests of people as well as those of states. (Baylis, Smith, Owens 2008:314) This part illustrates the process reducing the gap between citizens and government. It also provides equality to all states to say a word as well as to be hearing out by others; all procedures are open to all state members and this kind of openness promotes the “new diplomacy”.

A state of UN referrers to traditions of “old diplomacy”

Security Council is one of the principal organs of UN. After 1965 it includes of 15 states and 5 of them have veto power, recognized as USA, Britain, France, Russia (former Soviet Union), and China. The veto power has a power itself to reject all Security Council decisions. (Baylis, Smith, Owens 2008:315) Even if there is collaboration among state members, there is no sense of equality between them. The scheme of UN illustrates public hierarchical system, where each state has a voice, but only particular number of them has a right to make a decision. It must to be mentioned, that there have been widespread and frequent calls for the reform, but no attention to this request was founded.(Baylis, Smith, Owens 2008:314) The diplomacy inside the UN is opened, but inequality is still a part of it and continuous over 64 years.



The primary conclusion is that diplomacy at this moment is seen as improved and public, opened for states as well as for individuals, there are no decisions made behind the closed curtains. Despite all these changes, there are particular attributes of “ancient diplomacy”, which is well represented and described by Thucydides:

‘The standard of justice depends on the equality of power to compel and that in fact the strong (5 veto power states) do what they have the power to do and the weak (other member states) accept what they have to accept… this is the safe rule – to stand up to one’s equals, to behave with difference to once superiors, and to treat one’s inferiors with moderation. Think it over again, then, when we have withdrawn from the meeting, and let this be a point that constantly recurs to your minds – that you are discussing the fate of your country, that you have only one country, and that its future for good or ill depends on this one single decision which you are going to make.’

(Jackson, Sorensen 2007:63)


My final conclusion applies to view, that there are no “old” or “new diplomacy". There is only “modified diplomacy” within the roots comming from previous politics. Moreover, it is strongly based on values of realism: ‘Because it provides the most powerful explanation for the state of war which is regular condition of life in the international system’. (Baylis, Smith, Owens 2008:91) The past diplomacy still has relevance today and makes an influence to international relations.