Contemporary Relevance of Traditional Diplomacy (?)

It is not uncommon that current discourses on diplomacy often compare the modern ways of conducting diplomacy from a former more conservative connotation of the word. Crystallizing what is “old” and what is “new” this comparison have contributed to a polarized distinction between the “Traditional” from the “Contemporary” diplomacy, where the new diplomacy is seen as thoroughly different, greatly transformed and nevertheless improved.
Diplomacy and diplomatic activities have adjusted and adapted to the current time of internationalization and globalization of interests, technology and media, and diplomacy in contemporary time is more popular oriented and transparent then previously. This does however not indicate that new and old diplomacy is of completely different nature.
Traditional diplomacy which is often associated with bilateral agreements, secret negotiations, high politics and solely state actors might in a contemporary dominant liberal-democratic sense seem outdated and inaccurate. Instead are multilateral agreements, transparency and including actors as INGO’s and NGO’s into the diplomatic sphere what has come to be the preferable, and accurate way of conducting diplomacy. It can be determined that the attitude towards what diplomacy is and ought to be, has changed. But does this entail a total transformation of the diplomatic sphere and activity? And in that case, is what we know as Old diplomacy just a good reminder of how backwards and surreptitious the former style of diplomacy was?

Even though transformations have been made I would not argue that these have brought about a polarized distinction between old and new diplomacy. There have been changes within the field of diplomacy, but not enough changes so a clear-cut distinction could be made. Therefore is arguing for the contemporary value of old diplomacy rather ambiguous, when old diplomacy is still vital in its newer form.
Modifications have been made, and needed to be made in my opinion. It is however not guaranteed that these modifications, known as new diplomacy, are intrinsic successful. For instance, the multilateral agreements and meetings which have come to signify new diplomacy are in theory ideal and equitable ways of negotiating and compromising policies. In practise however these agreements are often difficult to reach.
The United Nation’s Copenhagen climate change conference serves as a good example of how great amount of effort, attention and aspirations can result in nothing.
Instead of stressing a distinction of what is old and what is new diplomacy I believe attention should be given to how diplomacy has improved and enhanced. As the COP-15 conference demonstrates, new does not always imply improved.