Modern ancestors

“Expressions such as ‘Old Diplomacy’ and ‘New Diplomacy’ bear no relation to reality”

This quote from French diplomat Jules Cambon (1845-1935) is the inspiring opening sentence of “Old and new diplomacy: a debate rivisited”, an article printed by the Review of International Studies in 1988 (click here for the online version - http://0-journals.cambridge.org.emu.londonmet.ac.uk/action/displayFulltext?type=1&pdftype=1&fid=6280880&jid=RIS&volumeId=14&issueId=&aid=6280872).

To make it short and simple, the article suggests that

1. it is inappropriate to talk about ‘old’ and ‘new’, as diplomacy has not lived long enough to be split in eras yet;
2. the functions of diplomacy have not changed relevantly in the past few centuries, and its older forms have actually resisted evolution in spite of the costantly developing nature of international relations: even if we can find significant developments in diplomacy today (such as the “appearance of multi-lateral diplomacy and the institution of summitry”) they are nothing but additional elements to the traditional ‘parent cell’.

Diplomatic correspondent Aubrey Leo Kennedy (1885-1965) supports this view:

"To the public eye the difference between the old diplomacy and the new seems to consist in doing business at conferences instead of in the chanceries and anterooms of professional diplomatists... Any change, to be real and lasting, must be in the spirit rather than in the method"

(371, ‘Old Diplomacy and New: from Salisbury to Lloyd’s George’, 1922).

Arguably, it all depends on what is considered to be a real change: there could be unanimity on the fact that nowadays it is not usual that weddings are organised between the heirs of two kingdoms in order to stop a conflict, ‘War of the roses’ style.

Nor is it the case anymore that a government leader diplomatically switches religion to turn civil upheavals into peace, like Henry IV of France did.

Nonetheless, the Roman Empire took slaves and animals for its popular Games from its recently acquired colonies, in exchange for peace and tranquillity: how far is that from the U.K. selling arms to Africa (for an approximate total of £1 billion, http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2005/jun/12/uk.hearafrica05) in years as recent as 2005?

Whether you call this diplomacy or not, it is evident that empires, kingdoms and states have always behaved similarly, century after century, to obtain what they wanted from each other while sparing the least possible blood. Nowadays the rich and powerful might be politer than in the past when presenting their requests – I’ll admit that; but I would not consider it to be a change big enough to state that ‘traditional’ diplomacy has nothing to do with the present day.