Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T04:44:07.613Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Old and new diplomacy: a debate revisited

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 October 2009

Sasson Sofer
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

There are two popular claims about diplomacy in the modern history of international relations. According to the first, World War One constituted a decisive turning point in the modern era, marking the emergence of a new diplomacy, distinct in both essence and style from that which had existed previously. The second maintains that diplomacy is in a state of continuous decline. This study proposes that the distinction between old and new diplomacy is simplistic and inaccurate, and that the argument regarding the decline of diplomacy is not a valid one, Raymond Aron's observation that ‘diplomacy, in the traditional sense of the term, functions up to a certain degree between allies, but hardly any longer among enemies, or even between the blocs and the neutral nations’ is only partially correct, and reflects its time of writing at the height of the cold war.

Type
Discussions
Information
Review of International Studies , Volume 14 , Issue 3 , July 1988 , pp. 195 - 211
Copyright
Copyright © British International Studies Association 1988

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Aron, R., Peace and War (London, 1966), p. 58Google Scholar. See also, Burton, J. W., Systems, States, Diplomacy and Rules (Cambridge, 1968), pp. 203–204.Google Scholar

2. Mattingly, G., Renaissance Diplomacy (Boston, 1955), pp. 71–82Google Scholar; Craig, A. G., George, A. L., Force and Statecraft (Oxford, 1983), pp. 11–16.Google Scholar

3. Bull, H., The Anarchical Society (London, 1977), pp. 162–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar; for other definitions see, James, A., ‘Diplomacy and International Society’, International Relations, 6 (1980), p. 936CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Watson, A., Diplomacy: The Dialogue Between States (New York, 1983), p. 11Google Scholar; Nicolson, H., Diplomacy (London, 1969), pp. 7, 12–16Google Scholar; Mookerjee, G. K., Diplomacy (New Delhi, 1973), p. 100Google Scholar; Plischke, E., Microstates in World Affairs (Washington, 1977), p. 41Google Scholar; Miller, J. D. B., The World of States (London, 1981), p. 33Google Scholar; James, A., ‘International Society’, British Journal of International Studies, 4 (1978), p. 97CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Satow's Guide to Diplomatic Practice, Lord Gore-Booth, D. Pakenham (eds.) (London, 1979), p. 3.

4. E. Satow, op. cit., p. 3. Nicolson, H., Diplomacy (London, 1969), pp. 12, 82Google Scholar; Cable, J., ‘Diplomacy: A Case for Resuscitation’, International Relations, 7 (1983), p. 2261CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Northedge, F. S., ‘The Nature of Foreign Policy’, in Northedge, F. S. (ed.), The Foreign Policies of the Powers (London, 1968), pp. 1–3.Google Scholar

5. Derian, J. Der, On Diplomacy (Oxford, 1987), pp. 1–3.Google Scholar

6. Craig, G. A., ‘The Historian and the Study of International Relations’, The American Historical Review, 88 (1983)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Butterfield, H., ‘The New Diplomacy and Historical Diplomacy’, in Butterfield, H., Wight, M., Diplomatic Investigations (London, 1966), p. 183.Google Scholar

7. Modelski, G., Principles of WorldPolitics (London, 1972), pp. 180–206Google Scholar; Galtung, J., The True Worlds (New York, 1980), pp. 382, 421Google Scholar; See also, Lauren, P. G., ‘Diplomacy: History, Theory, and Policy’, in Lauren, P. G. (ed.), Diplomacy (New York, 1979), pp. 3–18.Google Scholar

8. Mayer, A. J., Political Origins of the New Diplomacy, 1917–1918 (New Haven, 1959), pp. 14–22Google Scholar; H. Butterfield, op. cit., pp. 181–2. Only after the nature of the inter-war period had been revealed did the image of the past undergo a metamorphosis. Thus, despite the relentless criticism of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, these periods were subsequently portrayed as the Golden Age of European diplomacy.

9. Gilbert, F., To the FarewellAddress (New York, 1965), pp. 60–75Google Scholar; Gilbert, F., ‘The “New Diplomacy” of the Eighteenth Century’, World Politics, 4 (1951), pp. 1–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Masters, R. D., ‘The Lockean Tradition in American Foreign Policy’, International Affairs, 21 (1967), pp. 253–277Google Scholar; Cronon, E. D. (ed.), The Political Thought of Woodrow Wilson (Indianapolis, 1965), p. 447.Google Scholar

10. See, Howard, M., War and the Liberal Conscience (New Brunswick, 1978), p. 33Google Scholar, and pp. 25, 75, 93, 132; see also, Morgenthau, H. J., Politics Among Nations (New York, 1973), p. 639.Google Scholar

11. Gilbert, F., To the Farewell Address, p. 66Google Scholar; Morse, E. L., Modernization and the Transformation of International Relations (London, 1976), pp. 50–58.Google Scholar

12. See, Hartz, L., The Liberal Tradition (New York, 1955), pp. 3–11, 284–309.Google Scholar

13. A. J. Mayer, op. cit., pp. 329–67; G. A. Craig, A. L. George, op. cit., pp. 52–4; Bailey, T. A., Woodrow Wilson and the Lost Peace (Chicago, 1963), pp. 82–84Google Scholar; also, Thorne, C., Ideology and Power (London, 1965), p. 175Google Scholar; Weisband, E., The Ideology of American Foreign Policy: A Paradigm of Lockean Liberalism (Beverly Hills, 1973), p. 19.Google Scholar

14. T. A. Bailey, op. cit., pp. 22–7; A. J. Mayer, op. cit., pp. 275–7, 371–3.

15. For the text of the president's address see, E. D. Cronon, op. cit., pp. 438–45; see also A. J. Mayer, op. cit., p. 339 and George, A. L., George, J. L., Woodrow Wilson and Colonel House (New York, 1956), pp. 199–201.Google Scholar

16. Brands, H. W., ‘Unpremeditated Lansing: His “Scraps’”, Diplomatic History, 9 (1985), pp. 30–32Google Scholar; Lazo, D. D., ‘A Question of Loyalty: Robert Lansing and the Treaty of Versailles’, Ibid., pp. 35–53.Google Scholar

17. A. L. George, J. L. George, op. cit., pp. 219–39.

18. Acheson, D., ‘The Eclipse of the State Department’, Foreign Affairs, 49 (1971), pp. 597–599.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

19. Nicolson, H., Peacemaking 1919 (London, 1969), pp. 185–211Google Scholar; Nicolson, H., The Evolution of Diplomatic Method (London, 1953), pp. 87–89Google Scholar; see also, Morgenthau, H. J., ‘The Main Springs of American Foreign Policy’, in R. A. Goldwin, Readings in American Foreign Policy (New York, 1959), pp. 633–639.Google Scholar

20. R. Aron, op. cit., p. 100; see also, Eban, A., The New Diplomacy (New York, 1983), p. 341Google Scholar; H. Bull, The Anarchical Society; p. 183; H. Nicolson, Diplomacy, p. 245; Crabb, C. V., Nations in Multipolar World (New York, 1968), pp. 78–79Google Scholar; Haas, E. B., Whiting, A. S., Dynamics of International Relations (New York, 1956), p. 153Google Scholar; Craig, G. A., ‘On the Nature of Diplomatic History: The Relevance of Some Old Books’, in Lauren, P. G. (ed.) Diplomacy, p. 33.Google Scholar

21. Friedrich, C. J., Brzezinski, Z. K., Totalitarian Dictatorship and Autocracy (New York, 1956), p. 354Google Scholar; Holsti, K. J., International Politics (Englewood Cliffs, 1972), pp. 203–205Google Scholar; A. Watson, op. cit., p. 71.

22. Steiner, Z., The Times Survey of Foreign Ministries of the World (London, 1982), pp. 21–22Google Scholar; Steiner, Z., ‘Foreign Ministries Old and New’, International Journal, 17 (1981-1982), p. 359Google Scholar; see also, Craig, G. A., ‘The Professional Diplomat and His Problems 1919–1939’, World Politics, 4 (1952), pp. 145–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

23. On totalitarian diplomacy see also, Handel, M. I., The Diplomacy of Surprise: Hitler, Nixon, Sadat (Cambridge, Mass., 1981), pp. 9–10Google Scholar; H. Nicolson, Diplomacy, pp. 144, 147.

24. Hughes, H. S., ‘The Early Diplomacy of Italian Fascism: 1922–1932’, in Craig, G. A., Gilbert, F. (eds.), The Diplomats 1919–1939 (New York, 1968), vol. 2, pp. 512–536Google Scholar; Craig, G. A., War, Politics and Diplomacy (New York, 1966), pp. 220–226.Google Scholar

25. Z. Steiner, The Times Survey of Foreign Ministries, p. 12; G. A. Craig, War, Politics and Diplomacy, pp. 226–31; see also, Jackel, E., Hitler's World View (Cambridge, Mass., 1931), pp. 27–46Google Scholar; G. A. Craig, ‘Th e German Foreign Office from Neurath to Ribbentrop’, in G. A. Craig, F. Gilbert, op. cit., vol. 2, pp. 406–36.

26. Senn, A. E., Readings in Russian Political and Diplomatic History (Honewood, 1956), vol. 2, pp. 32–33Google Scholar; Uldricks, T. J., Diplomacy and Ideology (London, 1979), pp. 151–152.Google Scholar

27. See Nicolson, H., Diplomacy, pp. 58–59.Google Scholar

28. See, V. Kubálková, Cruickshank, A. A., Marxism-Leninism and the Theory of International Relations (London, 1980), pp. 12–62Google Scholar, 298–325; T. J. Uldricks, op. cit., pp. 143–7.

29. von Laue, T. H., ‘Soviet Diplomacy: G. V. Chicherin, Peoples Commissar for Foreign Affairs, 1918–1930’, in Craig, G. A., Gilbert, F., op. cit., pp. 234–281Google Scholar; Fainsod, M., How Russia is Ruled (Cambridge, Mass., 1965), p. 282.Google Scholar

30. Bozeman, A. B., Politics and Culture in International History (Princeton, 1960), pp. 324–344Google Scholar, 498; see also, Aspaturian, V. V., ‘Dialectics and Duplicity in Soviet Diplomacy’, International Affairs, 17 (1963), p. 48Google Scholar. Marx and Engels did not have a complimentary view of Russian diplomatic tradition.

31. Toon, M., ‘In Defense of the Foreign Service’, New York Times Magazine (12 12 1982)Google Scholar; on Soviet diplomacy see also, Whealan, J. G., Soviet Diplomacy and Negotiations Behavior (Boulder, 1983)Google Scholar; A. Eban, op. cit., pp. 89–133; G. A. Craig, War, Politics and Diplomacy, pp. 231–47; McNeal, R. H., International Relations Among Communists (Englewood Cliffs, 1967), pp. 1–40.Google Scholar

32. See also, A. Bozeman, ‘The International Order in a Multicultural World’; and Dore, R., ‘Unity and Diversity in Contemporary World Culture’, in Bull, H., Watson, A. (eds.), The Expansion of International Society (Oxford, 1985), pp. 387–424Google Scholar; Bull, H., The Anarchical Society, pp. 243–248.Google Scholar

33. Keens-Soper, M., ‘The Liberal Disposition of Diplomacy’, International Relations, 5 (1975), pp. 913–914CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Craig, G. A., War, Politics and Diplomacy, p. 204Google Scholar; Gyorgy, A., Blackwood, G. A., Ideologies in World Affairs (Waltham, 1967), p. 235.Google Scholar

34. See also, H. Bull, ‘The Revolt Against the West’, in H. Bull, A. Watson, op. cit., pp. 217–28; the Sixth Special Session of the United Nations General Assembly convened in May 1974 adopted the declaration on NIEO.

35. See also, A. Watson, op. cit., pp. 169–70; H. Bull, ‘The Emergence of a Universal International Society’, in H. Bull, A. Watson, op. cit., p. 124; Mcdermott, G., The New Diplomacy (London, 1973), p. 16Google Scholar; Levi, W., Law and Politics in the International Society (Beverly Hills, 1976), p. 137.Google Scholar

36. Navari, C., ‘Diplomatic Structure and Idiom’, in Mayall, J. (ed.), The Community of States (London, 1982), p. 29.Google Scholar

37. Ibid., pp. 29–30; G. K. Mookerjee, op. cit., p. 109; A. Eban, op. cit., pp. 171–88; Handel, M., Weak States in the International System (London, 1981), pp. 265–276Google Scholar; H. Nicolson, The Evolution of Diplomatic Method, pp. 84–93; A. B. Baker, ‘Small State Diplomacy’, and Sir Pierson Dixon, ‘Diplomacy at the United Nations’, in Kertesz, D. S., Fitzsimons, A. M. (eds.), Diplomacy in a Changing World (Notre Dame, 1959), pp. 339–364, 373–85.Google Scholar

38. Boyce, J. P., Foreign Affairs for New States (New York, 1977), pp. 35–39Google Scholar; E. Plischke, Microstates in World Affairs, pp. 41–60; A. Watson, op. cit., pp. 158–75; Ball, G. W., Diplomacy for a Crowded World (Boston, 1976), pp. 278–298.Google Scholar

39. H. Nicolson, Diplomacy, p. 84; see also, H. Nicolson, The Evolution of Diplomatic Method, p. 78.

40. Mowat, B. R., Diplomacy andPeace (London, 1935), p. 68Google Scholar; H. Nicolson, The Evolution ofDiplomatic Method, p. 76; A. Eban, op. cit., p. 347.

41. Nicolson, H., The Old Diplomacy and the New (London, 1961), p. 8Google Scholar; H. Nicolson, The Evolution of Diplomatic Method, pp. 82, 90.

42. Lippman, W., Essays in the Public Philosophy (Boston, 1955), p. 20.Google Scholar

43. On public opinion and Diplomacy see, Morgenthau, H. J., Politics Among Nations, pp. 532–540Google Scholar; Plischke, E., Conduct of American Diplomacy (Princeton, 1961), pp. 31–38Google Scholar; Rendel, A. M., ‘Policy-Makers and Opinion’, International Journal, 30 (1974-1975), pp. 80–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar; A. G. Craig, A. L. George, op. cit., pp. 60–72; A. Eban, op. cit., pp. 345–58.

44. Such was the attitude toward Begin and Sadat in the Middle East -peace negotiations. Eban's claim that the media ‘changed the whole spirit and nature of diplomacy’, is exaggerated. A. Eban, op. cit., p. 345; Kissinger argues that the media can be beneficial in increasing the public's understanding of policy. Considering Kissinger's experience, it is debatable whether the diplomat or the journalist makes better use of the others’ services. Interview, American Heritage (August-September, 1983).

45. See also, Merchant, L., ‘New Techniques in Diplomacy’, in Johnson, E. A. J., The Dimensions of Diplomacy (Baltimore, 1964), 25–27Google Scholar; Fagen, R. R., ‘Some Assessments and Uses of Public Opinion in Diplomacy’, The Public Opinion Quarterly, 24 (1960), pp. 451–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

46. Busk, D., The Craft of Diplomacy (London, 1967), pp. 238–243Google Scholar; A. Watson, op. cit., pp. 139–47; D. Acheson, op. cit., p. 605; H. Nicolson, The Evolution of Diplomatic Method, pp. 81–2; L. Merchant, pp. 121–4.

47. H. Nicolson, The Evolution of Diplomatic Method, p. 82.

48. Plischke, E., Summit Diplomacy (College Park, 1958), pp. 3–4Google Scholar; A. Eban, op. cit., p. 344.

49. E. Plischke, Conduct of American Diplomacy, p. 49; J. D. B. Miller, op. cit., pp. 42–3; G. Ball, op. cit., pp. 29–45.

50. M. Toon, op. cit.; see also, Kissinger, H. A., White House Years (Boston, 1979), p. 1220Google Scholar; Kissinger, H. A., A World Restored (Boston, 1957), p. 2; G. W. Ball, op. cit., 30–1; C. V. Crabb, op. cit., pp. 86–92; G. A. Craig, A. L. George, op. cit., 66–7.Google Scholar

51. Thompson, K. W., American Diplomacy and Emergent Patterns (New York, 1962), pp. 243–256Google Scholar; Morgenthau, H. J., The Restoration of American Politics (Chicago, 1962), pp. 285–292Google Scholar; A. Eban, op. cit., pp. 358–64; H. Nicolson, Diplomacy, pp. 157–8; K. J. Holsti, op. cit., pp. 177–8; J. Cable, op. cit., pp. 2270–7. The abortive treaty of Bjorko, agreed upon by the Kaiser and the Czar in July 1905, is the most outstanding example of an understanding between heads of state cancelled by professional diplomats.

52. Beyen, J. W., ‘Diplomacy by Conference’, in Braunias, K., Stourzh, G. (eds.), Contemporary Diplomacy (Vienna, 1959), pp. 59–67Google Scholar; H. Butterfield, op. cit., p. 188.

53. See also, Sir Pierson Dixon, op. cit.; E. Plischke, Conduct of American Diplomacy, pp. 27–31; H. J. Morgenthau, The Restoration of American Politics, p. 201; H. Bull, The Anarchical Society, pp. 165–6; A. Watson, op. cit., p. 20.

54. A. Eban, op. cit., p. 241; see also, H. J. Morgenthau, Politics Among Nations, pp. 525–31; A. Watson, op. cit., pp. 151–7; C. Navari, op. cit., p. 25; Hovet, T., ‘United Nations Diplomacy’, International Affairs, 17 (1963), pp. 29–41.Google Scholar

55. H. Nicolson, Diplomacy, p. 158; see also E. Satow, op. cit., pp. 229–35.

56. Quoted in Lauren, G. P., Diplomats and Bureaucrats (Stanford, 1976), p. 231Google Scholar; see also, Vansittart, Lord, ‘The Decline of Diplomacy’, Foreign Affairs, 28 (1950), pp. 177–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

57. Kennan, G. F., Memories (Boston, 1972), vol. 2, 319–320Google Scholar; D. Acheson, op. cit., pp. 593, 602; G. P. Lauren, Diplomats and Bureaucrats, p. 226; A. Eban, op. cit., p. 369; A. Watson, op. cit., p. 121; H. Nicolson, The Evolution of Diplomatic Method, pp. 74–5; H. Nicolson, The Old Diplomacy and the New, p. 3; Z. Steiner, The Times Survey of Foreign Ministries, pp. 20, 25–6.

58. Z. Steiner, Foreign Ministries Old and New, pp. 365–6; Z. Steiner, The Time Survey of Foreign Ministries, pp. 13–14,28–32; see also, Donelan, M., ‘The Trade of Diplomacy’, InternationalAffairs, 45 (1969), pp. 605–616Google Scholar; G. P. Lauren, Diplomats and Bureaucrats; the reforms were instituted mainly during the years 1890–1925. A second period of change came after World War II.

59. Cardozo, H. M., Diplomats in International Cooperation: Stepchildren of the Foreign Service (Ithaca, 1962), pp. 6–7.Google Scholar

60. See also, Ayers, J., Diplomacy and Its Discontents (Toronto, 1971), pp. 123–134.Google Scholar

61. H. A. Kissinger, American Heritage, p. 50.

62. Eban presents a considered and balanced view of this issue: ‘prime ministries and foreign ministries do much hard negotiating, and ambassadors often have a strong influence on policy.’ A. Eban, op. cit., p. 369; see also, J. Cable, op. cit., pp. 2262–3, 2268–9; G. A. Craig, War, Politics and Diplomacy, pp. 281–5; H. Nicolson, Diplomacy, pp. 38, 74, 122.

63. G. Mcdermott, op. cit., p. 47.

64. Bull, H., The Anarchical Society, pp. 179–181Google Scholar; K. J. Holsti, op. cit., pp. 182–5; A. Watson, op. cit., pp. 120–31; Morgenthau, H. J., Politics Among Nations, pp. 519–524Google Scholar; James, A., International Society, 98–99.Google Scholar

65. M. Wight, ‘Western Values in International Relations’, in H. Butterfield, M. Wight, op. cit., pp. 89–131; Bull, The Anarchical Society, pp. 167–79, 315–17; A. James, ‘Diplomacy and International Society’, pp. 940–1; A. Watson, op. cit., pp. 9–21; A. Watson, ‘European International Society and Its Expansion’, H. Bull, ‘The Emergence of Universal International Society’, in H. Bull, A. Watson, op. cit., pp. 13–32, 117–26.

66. Z. Steiner, Foreign Ministries Old and New, p. 362; Craig, G. A., ‘On the Nature of Diplomatic History: The Relevance of Some Old Books’, in Lauren, P. G. (ed.), Diplomacy, pp. 21–42.Google Scholar