Old Vs New Diplomacy: What's Changed?

Diplomacy is the communication between representatives of states, governments, and non-governmental institutions to influence international events and relations. The history of diplomacy dates back to ancient civilisations in India, China, Egypt, and Mesopotamia, with the first diplomatic language being Akkadian. Modern diplomatic practices largely originated from 17th-century Europe, and the term 'diplomacy' itself comes from the French 'diplomate'. Old diplomacy refers to the system of alliances formed by France, England, and Russia before 1914 to counter the threat posed by Germany. This old diplomacy failed to prevent World War I. New diplomacy emerged after World War I, aiming to replace bilateral alliances with a universal association of states committed to international law and abandoning the use of force to settle conflicts. New diplomacy, observed since the 1990s, also involves greater participation of citizens in global policymaking, addressing issues like human rights, humanitarian assistance, and environmental concerns.

Explore related products

The Practice of Diplomacy: Its Evolution, Theory and Administration

$51.18 $68.99

Strategic Public Diplomacy and American Foreign Policy: The Evolution of Influence

$84.37 $124

Understanding Security Role Evolution of US, China, and India (International Politics in the Age of Disruption)

$160 $170

The Practice of Diplomacy: Its Evolution, Theory and Administration

$45 $59.95

History of Diplomacy and Technology: From Smoke Signals to Artificial Intelligence

$15 $15

The Evolution of Arms Control: From Antiquity to the Nuclear Age (Praeger Security International)

$61

Old diplomacy: secret, undemocratic, bilateral, and pragmatic

Old diplomacy, as a concept, has been used to refer to the system of alliances set up by France, England, and Russia to ward off German danger in the decade before 1914. It is characterised as secret, undemocratic, bilateral, and pragmatic.

The secrecy of old diplomacy is a key feature, with negotiations and decision-making processes occurring behind closed doors, hidden from public scrutiny. This contrasts with the new diplomacy, which emphasises openness and transparency, allowing for greater public control and input.

Old diplomacy is also criticised for its undemocratic nature, with global policymaking being the strict purview of governments and a few large states. The public had little to no say in the matter, and the process of democratisation was not universally adopted by all states. This is in stark contrast to new diplomacy, which advocates for greater citizen participation and the inclusion of more states in the decision-making process.

Bilateralism is another hallmark of old diplomacy, with agreements and alliances formed between two nations. This approach often led to counter-alliances formations, such as the Triple Alliance of Germany, Austria, and Italy, which the old diplomacy struggled to counter effectively. New diplomacy, on the other hand, promotes multilateralism, seeking to establish universal or semi-universal associations of states that are committed to a set of general principles enshrined in international law.

Lastly, old diplomacy is often described as pragmatic, focusing on power politics and the use of force to settle conflicts between nations. It was concerned with maintaining the status quo and managing relations between states through alliances and power balances. However, this pragmatic approach failed to prevent the outbreak of the First World War, highlighting the need for a new diplomatic approach that prioritised peace and the resolution of international disputes through non-violent means.

New diplomacy: open, democratic, multilateral, and principled

The term "new diplomacy" has been used since the French Revolution, both in political and analytical contexts. It is often contrasted with the "old diplomacy" of pre-1914 Europe, which was marked by a system of alliances between major powers and the use of force to settle conflicts. The new diplomacy, as envisioned by Woodrow Wilson, President of the United States, and others, emerged in the wake of the First World War and was shaped by the increasing influence of liberal thought and the desire to prevent future wars.

New diplomacy is characterised by its open, democratic, multilateral, and principled nature. It is more open to public scrutiny and control, with citizens playing a greater role in international relations and policymaking. This shift towards greater public involvement is a continuation of long-term liberal thought that has been evolving throughout the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. The rise of new technologies, such as the internet, has also facilitated streamlined communication among activists, contributing to the emergence of new diplomacy.

The open nature of new diplomacy stands in contrast to the secrecy of old diplomacy, which was often carried out by a few large states behind closed doors. New diplomacy is democratic in that it seeks to represent people, not just governments, and it aims to uphold principles of universal equality and self-determination. While old diplomacy relied on bilateral alliances between major powers, new diplomacy is multilateral, involving many small states working together.

The principle-based approach of new diplomacy is reflected in its commitment to peaceful conflict resolution and the abandonment of "power politics". It seeks to establish international organisations, such as the League of Nations and the International Criminal Court, to facilitate the peaceful resolution of disputes and deter aggressive wars. New diplomacy also addresses a range of issues such as human rights, humanitarian assistance, labour rights, environmental concerns, and fair trade.

While new diplomacy has brought about positive changes, it has also faced challenges and criticisms. Some argue that it has not fully delivered on its promises and may have undermined the practice of statecraft. Additionally, the transition to new diplomacy was not a sudden break from the past but a gradual evolution, and it faced resistance from the ideas and practices it sought to replace.

Old diplomacy: counter-alliance to the Triple Alliance

The "old diplomacy" refers to the system of alliances that was established before 1914, specifically the counter-alliance formed by France, England, and Russia to counter the threat posed by Germany. This "old diplomacy" failed in 1914 because the counter-alliance was not strong enough to deter the Central Empires, which included the Triple Alliance of Germany, Austria, and Italy.

The Triple Alliance, formed in 1882 through the efforts of German Chancellor Otto von Bismarck, was a defensive military pact. Each member promised mutual support if attacked by another great power. For example, Germany and Austria-Hungary pledged to aid Italy if it was attacked by France without provocation, and Italy, in turn, promised to support Germany in the same scenario. Italy also agreed to remain neutral in the event of a war between Austria-Hungary and Russia.

The formation of the Triple Alliance was a response to the growing tensions and power struggles in Europe at the time. Italy, which had recently lost North African ambitions to France, sought support against potential French aggression. Germany and Austria-Hungary, meanwhile, were concerned about French attempts to regain Alsace-Lorraine and wanted to preserve the status quo in Europe. Bismarck's primary goal was to maintain stability and prevent France from forming alliances that could threaten German interests.

The Triple Alliance was periodically renewed until it expired in 1915 during World War I. However, Italy did not actively participate in the war on the side of the Central Powers and eventually joined the Allied Powers, declaring war on Austria in 1915. This breakdown of the alliance contributed to the victory of England and France in 1918.

The failure of the old diplomacy to prevent the outbreak of World War I led to a shift towards "new diplomacy," which aimed to replace bilateral alliances with a universal association of states committed to international law and the peaceful resolution of conflicts.

Explore related products

The Evolution Of Saudi Diplomacy Since 1945

$68.88

The Transformation of the Liberal International Order: Evolutions and Limitations (SpringerBriefs in International Relations)

$37.99

Transforming Multilateral Diplomacy: The Inside Story of the Sustainable Development Goals

$35.62 $52.99

Russia's Public Diplomacy: Evolution and Practice (Studies in Diplomacy and International Relations)

$143.43 $159

America in the World: A History of U.S. Diplomacy and Foreign Policy

$16.96 $35

Diplomacy at the Highest Level: The Evolution of International Summitry (Studies in Diplomacy)

$131.91 $169.99

New diplomacy: dissolution of the Anglo-French alliance

The terms "old" and "new" diplomacy refer to the evolution of diplomatic practices and international relations throughout the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Old diplomacy, which culminated before 1914, was marked by a system of alliances, such as the Anglo-French Alliance, formed to counterbalance the threat posed by Germany.

The Anglo-French Alliance, lasting from 1716 to 1731, was a pivotal example of old diplomacy. Britain and France, seeking to curb the expansion of Spanish and Russian influence, forged a partnership despite their divergent interests and objectives. The birth of the Dauphin Louis in 1729 marked a shift in French priorities, and the emergence of Austrophiles in Britain advocating for an alliance with Austria further strained the relationship. The failure of France to support Britain during the Anglo-Spanish War (1727-1729) underscored their dwindling reliability as an ally, and by 1731, the alliance was effectively terminated.

In the aftermath of the First World War, the transition to new diplomacy gained momentum. The failures of old diplomacy, which had been unable to prevent the war, spurred a reevaluation of international relations. New diplomacy, as envisioned by Woodrow Wilson, the President of the United States, advocated for a universal or semi-universal association of states committed to adhering to international law and abandoning "power politics," or the use of force to resolve conflicts.

However, new diplomacy faced significant challenges, particularly in the case of the Anglo-French relationship. Negotiations for an Anglo-French alliance in 1921-1922, as detailed by sources, were fraught with mutual suspicion and conflicting interests. Britain sought to restore the German economy and re-establish trading ties, while France viewed a robust and populous Germany as a security threat. Despite efforts to reconcile their differences, the negotiations ultimately failed to produce a lasting alliance.

The dissolution of the Anglo-French alliance under new diplomacy highlights the complexities and challenges of transitioning from a system of traditional alliances to one based on universal principles and international law. This period marked a shift towards greater public scrutiny and control in diplomacy, as well as the emergence of international organisations to facilitate peaceful conflict resolution. While new diplomacy aspired to prevent future wars, it struggled to overcome the entrenched power dynamics and divergent interests that characterised international relations.

New diplomacy: addressing human rights, humanitarian assistance, and environmental issues

The term "new diplomacy" has been used both politically and analytically since the French Revolution. It is associated with the idea of a more open and democratic form of international relations, where citizens play a greater role in global policymaking, which was traditionally the purview of governments. New diplomacy emerged in the 1990s, amidst the easing of Cold War tensions and the rise of streamlined communication among activists in the burgeoning Internet age.

New diplomacy addresses a range of issues, including human rights, humanitarian assistance, labour rights, environmental concerns, and fair trade. For instance, campaigns such as the one to end South African apartheid and the Save Darfur initiative exemplify the focus on human rights. The establishment of an International Criminal Court and the creation of the Ottawa Convention on land mines reflect the emphasis on humanitarian assistance and international law.

The shift from "old" to "new" diplomacy is not seen as a radical change but rather a continuation of long-term liberal thought. The distinction lies in the level of public scrutiny and control, with new diplomacy being more open and democratic. While old diplomacy was carried out by a few large states and was often secret and bilateral, new diplomacy is accomplished by many small states and is characterised by multilateralism and principled idealism.

The evolution of diplomacy is influenced by the increasing prominence of the United States on the world stage, particularly in the post-war era, with President Woodrow Wilson being a key architect of new diplomacy. However, it is important to note that the key tenets of new diplomacy are rooted in standard features of liberal internationalist thought rather than solely American concepts.

Frequently asked questions