ABSTRACT
The patterns of diplomatic engagement among European powers during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries were described by Harold Nicolson as the ‘old diplomacy’ (Æ glossary) on the basis of five characteristics. In the first place, Europe was regarded as the most important of all continents. Indeed, it was generally understood that no war could become a major war if none of the five major European powers was involved. Second, the Great Powers were greater than the Small Powers, since they ‘possessed a more extended range of interests, wider responsibilities, and, above all, more money and more guns’ (Nicolson 1988 [1954]: 74). This global hierarchy did, however, imply a third principle, namely that the Great Powers had a common responsibility for the conduct of the smaller powers and the maintenance of peace. A joint intervention by the Great Powers in a small-state conflict was generally accepted to prevent the conflict from developing in a Great-Power crisis (for more details on the European balance-of-power system, see Chapter 8). Fourth, the preservation of peace in the Westphalian international order required a professional diplomatic service of high standards of education and experience. The composition of diplomatic corps during this period was predominantly of aristocratic origin, a fact that allowed diplomats to develop a corporate identity independent of their national identity. Fifth, ‘continuous and confidential’ negotiation was essential for successfully managing relations between the main powers. This was made possible by the fact that the parties generally remained rational and courteous, since public expectations and time pressure had little influence on negotiations. In turn, this resulted in agreements that were ‘no hasty improvisations or empty formulas, but documents considered and drafted with care’ (Nicolson 1988 [1954]: 77). The methods of the ‘old diplomacy’ were gradually exported by European powers all over the world. Throughout the nineteenth century, the network of international
diplomatic relations continued to expand to the extent that by 1914 there were fortyone British missions abroad, nineteen of which were outside of Europe (Hamilton and Langhorne 1995: 110). However, the expansion of diplomatic relations was often complicated by local or regional political situations. In Asia, and to some extent in Africa, local rulers were often reluctant to open their countries to alien influences and political structures were sometimes irreconcilable with the Westphalian principle of territorial sovereignty. In the Far East, on the other hand, European powers needed, at times, to employ their superior military capabilities to secure permanent representation. The World War I (WWI) significantly altered modern diplomacy. Against the backdrop of its alleged role in precipitating the immense devastation brought about by the war, the ‘old diplomacy’ suffered a huge reputational blow. Critics claimed the root of the problem lay with ‘the commercial and imperial rivalries of the recent past, the concomitant arms races, the pursuit of balance-of-power policies, [and especially] the secret treaties and conventions which has underpinned and buttressed the pre-war alliances and ententes’ (Hamilton and Langhorne 1995: 136). In short, the entire diplomatic profession was blamed for being unable to halt the drift towards war and strong calls to action were heard for a fundamental revision of diplomatic practices and institutions. The transition from the old to ‘new diplomacy’ (Æ glossary) was prepared by three other factors. First, there was a widespread desire for colonial expansion among the Great Powers, especially Germany, which significantly affected foreign policy. However, the balance of power limited this desire – there was a general recognition that acquiring too much would be imprudent and harmful for the diplomatic relations between the Great Powers. Territorial expansion and colonial wars put significant strains on diplomatic relations from two different angles: it both intensified rivalry among the Great Powers for colonial acquisitions and boosted claims to selfdetermination among the colonies. Second, the rapid increase in the speed of communication exerted a considerable influence on the old methods of diplomatic interaction and negotiation. Before the development of new communication technologies (e.g., the telegraph, telephone), it took many months for messages to be sent, received and answered and it was common for ambassadors to receive detailed instructions for their missions. Often, this meant that diplomats ‘missed opportunity after opportunity’ because they ‘spent their time writing brilliant reports on situations that had entirely altered by the time their dispatches arrived’ (Nicolson 1988: 82). The number, urgency and complexity of issues to be discussed between governments thus demanded more frequent and direct contact between foreign secretaries, hence the growing importance of bilateral or multilateral conferences as a new form of conduct of diplomatic relations. Third, the rising influence of the United State in global affairs also meant that the rules of diplomatic conduct had to adjust accordingly, especially since Americans were deeply distrustful of the European diplomatic methods. The concept of ‘new diplomacy’ actually gained historical importance once introduced by the US President Woodrow Wilson towards the end of WWI. In essence, the American diplomatic creed rested on ‘the belief that it was possible to apply to the conduct of external affairs, the ideas and practices which, in the conduct of internal affairs, had for generations been regarded as the essentials of liberal democracy’ (Nicolson 1988: 84).
