Diplomacy as we regard it today was largely recognised in Renaissance Italy at a time in which the present nation was divided into constituent city-states and principalities. It was amongst these states that notable diplomats first laid the ground for what we recognise today as being traditional or bilateral diplomacy . However, since this time diplomacy has evolved significantly to reflect the ever-changing world. As the question suggests there is concern amongst analysts that the role of traditional diplomacy, and its relations with the foreign ministry of the home nation, may be incapable of maintaining its prior importance in the hi-tech and globalised world that has provided the staging grounds of the new multilateral organisations. To fully understand the meaning of this question one must first analyse its component parts, diplomacy, both old and new and their respective impacts.
It is stated that 'Diplomacy is the peaceful conduct of relations amongst political entities, their principles and accredited agents' , however if this statement is to remain true I believe that the world in which traditional diplomacy operates needs to recognise the need for change and a shift in focus from the views it presently holds.
As I have already mentioned, the traditional diplomacy of old, with its close relationship and dependence upon bilateral relations between resident ambassadors the foreign ministry of the home nation and their hosts is in competition with the multilateral forms of diplomacy brought in by the League of nations and more effectively put into practice by the United Nations.
Traditional diplomacy largely concerns itself with the representation of nations at a bilateral level with both nations having resident embassies and representatives in their opposite partner. It is through these channels that traditional diplomacy has taken place and by the means of negotiation and compromise that...