The changing nature of diplomacy 3

now, is coloured especially by the impact of the Cold War, the intrusion

of ideological confict into diplomacy and its effect on explanation, and

the transformation from the small intemational Clite in old-style diplomacy to a new or 'democratic"
conception of intemational relations

requiring public explanation and open' diplomacy, despite its growing

complexity." A further striking change for Nicolson was in values,

especially in the loss of relations based on the crcation of confidence,

[and] the acquisition of credit. Writing shortly after Nicolson,

Livingston Merchant noted the decline in the decision-making power or

the ambassador but the widening of his area of competence through economic and commercial
diplomacy; the greater use of personal diplomacy

and the burden created by multilateral diplomacy, with its accompanying

growth in the use of specialists. In reviewing the period up to the late

1970s, Plishke, endorsed many of these points, but noted as far as the

diplomatic environment was concerned the proliferation of the international community, including
the trend towards fragmentation and

smallness, and the shift in the locus of decision-making power to national capitals. Writing at the
same time, Pranger additionally drew

attention to methods, commenting on the growing volume of visits and

increases in the number of treaties. Adam Watson in reviewing diplomacy and the nature of
diplomatic dialogue noted the wide range of

ministries involved in diplomacy; the corresponding decline in the influence of the foreign minister;
the increase in the direct involvement of

heads of goverment in the details of foreign policy and diplomacy, and

the growth in importance of the news media.

Diplomatic setting
The continued expansion of the intemational community after 194S has

been one of the major factors shaping a number of features of modern

diplomacy. The diplomatic community of some forty-odd states which

fashioned the new post-war international institutions (UN. International

Monetary Fund/IBRD and the Genera! Agreement on Tariffs and

Trade) had tripled less than a quarter of a century later. A third phase

of expansion occurred after 1989 with the break-up of the former

Soviet Union and Yugoslavia.' The expansion in membership has

affected diplomatic styles and altered the balance of voting power

within the UN General Assembly. The growth in the number of states,

and hence interests and perspectives, has continuously fashioned the

agenda of issues addressed by the Assembly, and led to the emergence of

UN conference management styles; lobbying and corridor diplomacy.

Other features such as the institutionalisation within the UN of the G-77,

have also had a significant influence on the development of the way in

which diplomacy is conducted within the UN.

Another important effect of expanded membership has been on the

entry into force of conventions. For example, the entry into force of

the 1982 law of the sea convention was triggered by smaller members of
4

Modern diplomacy

the UN, such as Honduras, St Vincent, and, eventually Guyana in

November 1993, without ratificalion or accession at that time by the

major power, Although the ponsibility of conventions entering into force

without the participation of major players remains, in some instances e.g.

The Montreal Protocol on Ozone Depleting Substances, thresholds or

specific barriers to entry into force have been created in some agreements.

A seccond structural feature of the post- 1945 diplomatic setting is the

development of the bloc groupings from 1947 to 1990. These included

the East--West diplomatic system; the establishment of an initially

charismatic-Ied non-aligned movement after the Bandung conference;

and the extension of Third World diplomatic agenda setting and interactions after 1964 with
UNCTAD, and NIEO at the 1973 Algiers

conference. In addition, other specialist developing country diplomatic

groupings have been set up, loosely linked to the G-77, for example,

within the IMF (G-24), reflecting the financial and economic pressure

which developing countries exerted in order to internationalise a range of

development-related objectives. These aims too were channelled unsuccessfully through the large-
scale periodic North-South conferences.

Apart from the above global structures, the continued development

of regional multilateral diplomacy further distinguishes diplomacy from

the 1960s onwards. Most regional groupings are economically based.

An exception in the security field was the establishment of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), As an
illustration of economically based

institutions, the Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN) is

an interesting example of a regional institution which has remained

essentially concerned in its diplomacy with economic issues rather than

expand into defence during the Cold War period. ASEAN's links with

its dialogue partners (e.g. Australia, New Zealand, United Kingdom,EU) too is an interesting
illustration of the phenomenon of functional

associative diplomacy. The end of the Cold War by 1990-91 created opportunities for the extension
of ASEAN's regional diplomacy vis-a-vis other South-East Asian states.

Economic regionalism has become a marked feature of the international system since 1990. Within
Europe, enlargement brought in

Ausria, Finland. Sweden and closer ties to Baltic, Eastern European

and Mediterranean states. The EU's relations with Eastern Europe and

the Russian Federation were important factors in the decision to extend political membership to the
Russian Federation to the G-7 and hence

transform the functioning of the Western G-7 economic summits, set up

originally in 1975, Other examples of the growth of economic regionalism post Cold War include the
North American Free Trade Agreement

(NAFTA) and Asia-Pacific Economic Council (APEC).

Players in diplomacy

In the first instance a marked feature of modern diplomacy is the

enhanced role of personal diplomacy by the head of state or goverment.