Diplomacy....Same Old Game Just Different New Players?

Is there anything called 'New' Diplomacy? or is it still 'Old' Diplomacy moulded by new players to suit the modern world? When looking at Diplomacy it is crucial to examine the reason for the establishment of Diplomacy. My view is it is still the same system but now different tactics have to be applied especially in this modern world were there is a lot going own such as nuclear proliferation,globalisation, conflict and the need to be seen as 'Democratic'.

The 'olden' type was more secretive everything was done behind closed doors no information was to be let out for the public to know. Unlike the 'new' type everything is open to public scrutiny and control but there is a crucial flaw to this system of openess which takes place after agreements are made. Looking at the above statement one can argue that whats the difference between the 'old' and 'new', still information is only let out after an agreement has been made rendering both types technically still secretive.

'Old' Diplomacy involved sending diplomats to do negotiations, we still find this in the modern World but the only difference is the establishment of permanent locations in other states. There are now Embassies in most states, by so doing it has made diplomacy more professional. This set up has brought priviledges to these diplomats in terms of treatment by the host country. One priviledge which has always been questionable is immunity, I personally feel if a diplomat or their family does something wrong they should be prosecuted accordingly. These immunities are often a subject to abuse.

However it is crucial to note that with this 'new' diplomacy there have been new players involved such as International Organisations. The birth of the International Organisation started with the formation of the League of Nations, even though it failed to stop another World War happening, however the United Nation has sought of seen some success. The formation of these organisation has been to try and bring some stability, order and peace. They have succeded in places were they have changed focus of Governments from just physical security but to social and economic well being of their citizen.

But this 'New' Diplomacy it has got its own disadvantages were so many actors are involved we have witnessed information being leaked before a decision is made, secrecy is hard. Also when looking at the influence of Intergovernmental Organisation there is a tendency of decisions being biased especially were Foreign Policy is concerned. What i mean is the influence by other state in terms of their self interest. Then should i conclude and say the 'New' Diplomacy especially were InterGovernmental is concerned should be replaced by 'New Bullying Diplomacy' Just like what Gordon Brown is accused. Same big actors,same influence.