My (New) Insights of the New Diplomacy

I would argue that my opinions about the role of diplomacy in world politics have changed mainly due to one reason. I have during these month come to understand what diplomacy in fact is. In the first lecture we had to write our thoughts and understandings of firstly the definition of diplomacy, secondly the traits of “New” diplomacy, and conclusively what we hope to gain from this module. Looking back, I can now see that my initial understanding of diplomacy was rather conventional. I perceived the definition of diplomacy as: the rules and norms of conduct that establishes good relations with foreign states in order to prevent conflict. Being quite a bit too state centric when it came to the definition of diplomacy, I understood the concept of new diplomacy fairly better (I must admit), where new diplomacy was for me: less elitist e.g. making deals behind closed doors and instead more open and “inclusive” (rather abstract, I know). Conclusively I wished: to gain a better understanding of the changes of the diplomatic nature, and also an insight of what diplomacy is in our contemporary time.

So, have I reached what I aspired? I would argue yes. During these months I have come to learn that diplomacy is many-sided, there are many subcategories within the diplomatic practice which all fulfil different requirements. I have come to understand how diplomacy traditionally was conducted. I have also come to learn how diplomacy has adapted to our worlds changing nature, and how this practice has maintained even though many have claimed a decline of its importance. My knowledge of this subject has developed beyond the traditional (Berridge inspired) rather narrow definition of what diplomacy proper is. Instead, I (and I guess am not alone) have come to realise that diplomacy nowadays has evolved into a practice which is compounded out of various actors, and not as I (rather mistakenly) implied in the beginning of this module, solely state officials.