Is Old Diplomacy Still Relevant?

It would be unreasonable to think that ‘old’ diplomacy has no contemporary relevance. However, this depends on the interpretation of ‘old’ and ‘new’ diplomacy and whether the differences are indeed profound as many argue. Nevertheless, the question must be asked, whether ‘new’ diplomacy can function and exist without ‘old’ diplomacy.
The basic principle of diplomacy is negotiations among nation states. Despite the modification in routines, procedures and settings, this basic principle is still in tact and key to diplomacy.
Technology has been a major factor in new diplomacy; furthermore, heads of states increasingly take on the role of diplomats by engaging themselves directly in negotiations with other states. Non-state actors are also relevant and play a part in ‘new’ diplomacy. Nevertheless, and despite new methods of conducting negotiations with other nation states, old diplomacy is still very much relevant and important when dealing, contacting and communicating with other states. The fact that resident embassies still exist and remain shows that old diplomacy is still very much relevant.
During this past decade when the world has seen an increase in the threat of terrorism and an increase in the awareness of climate change, old diplomacy has become ever more important because personal interaction can be much more tactile. When there are important common issues or factors to be dealt with the importance of personal visits by diplomats and their heads of state increases as much as the visits themselves. Personal interaction emphasises the importance of issues to be negotiated and shows respect to the other diplomats which is reciprocated when needed.
In this time of a global financial crisis and other threats to global stability, it is important that states conduct close relations with other states, as is the case of the USA and China. Obama’s visit to China was deemed very important and emphasised the importance of these two powerful states remaining allies.

China is not viewed as a trouble spot for the United States. But [Obama’s] administration, like its predecessor, has had difficulty grappling with a rising power that seems eager to avoid direct clashes with the United States but affects its interests in many areas, including currency policy, nuclear proliferation, climate change and military spending.
“Strategic reassurance rests on a core, if tacit, bargain,” Mr. Steinberg said. “Just as we and our allies must make clear that we are prepared to welcome China’s ‘arrival,’ ” he argued, the Chinese “must reassure the rest of the world that its development and growing global role will not come at the expense of security and well-being of others.”
The New York Times
‘China’s role as lender alters Obama’s visit.’
By HELENE COOPER, MICHAEL WINES and DAVID E. SANGER, Published: November 14, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/15/world/asia/15china.html