How is contemporary or new diplomacy different from traditional or old diplomacy? What are the factors that have shaped the practice of diplomacy from the nineteenth century to the present?

Introduction "New diplomacy" entails a new strategy for carrying out diplomacy that is targeted both at people and states. This approach is also mainly attributed to the enlargement of what is deemed "diplomacy." Simply put, Even so, "new diplomacy" examines a wide range of theoretical terrain, with more reliance on the objectives of different multilateral interests. Since the nineteenth century, the rise of technology and various changes in state interests have brought several institutions and actors into international relations. This change in foreign relations brought complex advancements in the practice of diplomacy, transforming it from old diplomacy to new diplomacy. A transition through multilateralism Relevant issues of international politics include diplomatic ties, diplomatic efforts, the design of foreign policy, and the fulfillment of those guidelines. At a rate not seen before, modern diplomacy is enduring basic transformations that alter the core premise of diplomacy as we recognise it. Components of domestic and global politics that traditionally did not affect much of the focus of diplomacy are also altered by these developments. The general populace is more cognizant of foreign policy issues and makes attempts to influence diplomacy through various digital platforms. The way interaction between countries as well as the interchange between authorities and other national stakeholders shows, recent advancements are impacting diplomacy's capacity to perform validly and capably. Eventually, diplomats themselves do not always act in a rightful or appropriate way. As a component of public administration, diplomacy needs to take these tendencies into account as they mirror broader societal dynamics. Although modern diplomacy participates in a diverse range of activities, it now faces unprecedented constraints and obstacles. Its widening presence may be seen in conventional multilateral diplomacy's creation of the structure and concerns as one instance. On the other hand, policymakers are drifting away from multilateralism in several domains of global relations, and it's not simply the old U.S. President Donald Trump, who considers that bilateral negotiations are the most effective method of resolving foreign relations. The people then expect diplomacy further explicitly, generally by way of media platforms, whether it is to decrease carbon release, or stop the influx of refugees, or address some other concern in the main narrative. Ever since the closure of the Cold War, this form of transition has either become more visible or has only recently been reported. The innovative limitations and extension of diplomacy merit intellectual exploration, if only for their implications on contemporary countries1. Modern diplomacy is beginning to transform, and this alteration is expected to occur at a tempo that is nearly similar to the rate of change in contemporary developed economies. Yet, partly since they deviate beyond what is conventionally regarded as generally diplomatic, diplomats' approaches to current concerns frequently go unrecognized by authorities and the wider public. Many new players partake in diplomatic activities from their own motivation or are consciously committed to tackling new diplomatic missions. Additional public organizations, such as other departments with mandates for foreign affairs, intergovernmental groups, UN affiliates, or other multilateral agencies, are among these entities. They might include non-governmental agencies and global corporations. Technological advancement has made diplomats more accessible to the general public, but they have also become more shrouded by other foreign policy operators as a corollary. The efforts of typically non-diplomatic actors have the potential to dominate official diplomacy as a field, at least to some extent. A shift from the old diplomacy The assumption that successful dialogue has to be ongoing and discrete was a fundamental pillar of the "traditional" diplomatic approach. Confidentiality was viewed as being of the greatest significance. As there was minimal risk of popular expectations getting generated during an ambassador's private meeting, it was thought that they would stay reasonable. As a consequence, ambassadors were more inclined to concentrate on the intricacies of the discussions rather than attempting to woo over the people. Another reason was that an ambassador proposing a treaty was not under time pressure from the public, allowing for careful thought and formulation of the agreements. Partly, because the British public was bound under the covert Anglo-French Naval Convention of 1912 to assist France in the event of a German invasion without their explicit approval2. With the "Fourteen Points" speech he addressed to Congress on January 8, 1918 serving as the foundation for the novel diplomatic approach, it is generally believed that Woodrow Wilson, the President of the United States, was the principal developer of the different attitude in diplomacy. The First World War functioned as the impetus that enhanced popular and political acceptance of liberal diplomatic techniques that had been steadily progressing3. With the beginning of the First War, credibility in covert diplomacy was undermined, with prominent liberals pinning the catastrophe on a sequence of private agreements, accords, and coalitions. The major powers had sworn to an alliance system there under old diplomacy. The primary philosophy of the structure is the balance of power, which argues that no single force or collection of states should be allowed to establish independent rulings. As armed power became more essential for keeping peace across Europe than collaboration among the powers, diplomats established partnerships to fend off probable adversaries and assure military dominance in the conflict situation. Some claim that America's expanding presence in the global arena was a manifestation of the heightened internationalism that occurred after World War One and the devotion to a multilateral system of countries. This is plausible, but it has its restrictions. Quite prominently, the American Congress declined to approve the Treaty of Versailles, which led to the United States' exclusion from the League of Nations. The assumption that the major powers were superior to the minor powers was another feature of the old diplomacy. Such a perspective was reinforced by the notion that the major powers had a wider diversity of commitments as well as, most significantly, more capabilities like weaponry and money. The concept of meddling was strongly backed because it was also considered that the major powers were in a position to keep stability. The Big Powers rewarded themselves at the expense of the territory and inhabitants of colonial states, with the objective of achieving European peace rather than a global one. In contrast, the smaller powers were considered to be puppets. The structure, nevertheless, collapsed as increasing expansionist conflicts persisted to foment conflicts among the Big Powers as they attempted to exert greater influence on the worldwide stage. Moreover, it was believed that imperial powers promoted a culture of violence and ruthlessness among the powers, which was represented in the Great War. Originally, this began to shift with Wilson's approach, but more so because of the colonial fights that altered the story. The new diplomacy is integral to the transformation of imperial culture and the entry of new nations from the global south. The evolution of new diplomacy The Congress of Vienna was a remarkably unusual occasion in many instances, not the least of which was the reality that, at the very least, it was an unauthorized assemblage. Nevertheless, the underlying presumptions on which it was predicated were considerably more peculiar. The First World War brought several issues of secret diplomacy to the front because of the dangerous unpredictability of secret pacts and alliances. The post-world war efforts of Woodrow Wilson brought numerous possibilities of diplomacy onto the table, and the league of nations was one of them. Even though the league failed in preventing the outbreak of another war, The end of the Second World War could see tremendous progress. State communication with its people , which had traditionally been reserved for periods of strife, persisted, but diplomacy was resumed. There are various explanations for why this transpired. The two most common explanations are that the fighting accelerated the technological boom, which already completely governs the entire world, and that the world was completely divided between satellites of the West and the Soviet Union, both attempting to expand their authority.Cultural diplomacy became a part of diplomatic endeavors in the post-second world war period, when countries attempted to influence citizens of other countries by strengthening the government-to-people relationship.The Cold War period witnessed a mix of different kinds of diplomacy where technological influence became a prime factor in shaping it. While the Soviet Union heightened its military capability and ideological war, the West utilized the possibilities of soft diplomacy involving the digital landscape to its aid4. Ambassadors and their roles The scope and function of ambassadors were severely influenced by the transition of diplomacy from the old to the new. Under the old system, ambassadors had a great deal of discretion to handle world relations as they saw fit. They were both the only intermediaries who could clarify the goals and objectives of one government to another and the principal source of data concerning the political context and viewpoints of the countries in which they represented. Well after the war, there was a significant amount of mistrust of ambassadors, who were criticized for the rising tension and subsequent outbreak of war due to their maneuvering and lack of accountability. In turn, leaders of state were more involved in foreign affairs, as was highlighted in the post-war peace agreement. Modern diplomacy, where state leaders and their ideological variations inflict tremendous influence upon the world stage, is a continuation of this change that occurred in new diplomacy. The dilemma of which advances in contemporary diplomacy will have relatively long-lasting repercussions, in addition to whether and how states should respond to those variations, is raised by such modifications in the emphasis of diplomacy. The demeanor of the individual diplomat, crucial shifts brought on by technological advances, specifically due to digitization, the emergence of diplomatically active actors, and the new considerations of the general public towards international policies are a few elements of diplomacy that appear to be of paramount importance. The diplomat's attitude and profession are impacted by the plurality of society today just as much as any other person. An instance may be what happens when social media is being used. Even a diplomat's usage of social media generates a response from their country to the wider world that goes far beyond what a state intends to openly say5. When choosing, recruiting, and employing diplomats, it is important to consider how this impacts the external appearance and, consequently, the purpose of diplomacy. The increasing influence of the general populace Also , new and usually very sensitive public sentiments constantly develop, and these also use social media to converse with each other. The question of the political legitimacy of the public at large and their claims comes right away when they set the terms of authority and when administrations want to cooperate with those expectations. As transnational trade and internal governmental action become more interconnected, as well as when, perhaps even as crucial citizens' dispositions fluctuate, all of these aspects are having an immense effect. These components incorporate and encourage the downward trajectory in the influence of conventional diplomacy. This pattern must be taken into consideration by diplomacy as an element of state authority because it mirrors social trends as a whole. Advances in diplomacy may be capable of influencing the conduct of successive governments and the cultures that surround them if they are effectively targeted6. A theoretical view Cultural diplomacy involves the idea of constructivism in international relations, connecting the complex actors like agents, instrumentality, ideas, and beliefs. According to constructivists, our ideas and actions practically shape international relations. But when applied hypothetically, this seemingly straightforward notion has a serious influence on our ability to comprehend the world. Constructivism is important to the field of international relations because it addresses issues and perspectives that are ignored by popular theories, particularly realism. This essay aims to pinpoint these fresh elements that are altering diplomacy and international relations, thus taking it beyond state-centered diplomacy. Digital diplomacy The technological environment in which digital diplomacy has evolved over the last ten years is intimately connected. To comprehend the development of digital diplomacy and the obstacles it still faces as a consequence of the shifting technical backdrop, many characteristics of the digitization process stand out. One is quickness, which characterizes how rapidly new digital technologies are released onto the market and how easily people, businesses, and agencies adapt to them. The disturbing rise of "post-truth" politics in recent days is an indication that the online platform has a dynamic technological impact on social actors' choices. This is because the digital medium greatly impacts how human relationships are conducted online. As a result of the advantages the digital revolution has provided for networking with thousands of individuals at once and at a low price, foreign ministries, embassies, and diplomats have devised a variety of fresh techniques and tools to enhance their operations. Interestingly, the functionalities that have empowered this in diplomacy have also engendered a number of difficulties for its exercise. These vary from the utilization of committed portals for interacting with external audiences and immigrant communities and from information exchange with citizens during times of global problems. Due to the huge drop in accessibility costs brought about by the rise of digital channels, MFAs must now battle for the interest of the general public with a broad range of both state and non-state entities, some of which are favorable. Online tools make it simpler to interact, but if they are adopted and used without a clear strategic direction, they face the danger of separating digital public relations from foreign policy7. A more comprehensive analysis of the online effects of digital methods is also facilitated by digital services, although this may be deceitful in terms of recognising the larger implications and degrees of effectiveness of foreign relations. The variety of stakeholders who can participate in and contour diplomatic interaction is significantly widened by digitalization. They also organize the systemic standards that govern online diplomatic collaboration. Eventually, they will make it possible to use online technologies to obstruct the center ground through propaganda. Factors influencing new-age diplomacy Until recently, development aimed to alleviate poverty while diplomacy supported strategic interests. Diplomacy and development have joined forces recently, for instance in the areas of human values, peace, and global trade. A number of new concerns have just been brought to the world stage, particularly ecological responsibility, global warming, healthcare, and the fight against poverty. Furthermore, a plurality of these concerns are being identified as global problems. What remains is an accurate representation of states that set themselves apart from one another based on how far down the development curve their government, economy, and society are, and thus how much they are affected and responsible for addressing grave international concerns. This demonstrates that the more conventional sectors of diplomacy, safety and security, human rights, and commerce have also been strengthened in the context of international relations. Therefore, it has become increasingly difficult to tackle numerous difficulties in a consistent fashion. The complexities of international relations are yet another area where diplomacy is expanding. Over recent decades, the balance of the world's power has shifted. The rapid economic expansion of the global south has expanded the number of key international partners. A wide variety of novel non-state entities, including international and regional enterprises, civil society groups, and other global networks, have evolved in relation to an increase in the variety of intergovernmental and state stakeholders that are important to diplomacy. Moreover, expertise that is essential to policymaking is no longer restricted to a limited number of locations but instead created and disseminated throughout international networks of policy-making agencies. The public in general has also proven to be a deciding factor as a result of the extensive media coverage that foreign affairs receives today throughout both traditional and social networks. The availability of a broad spectrum of extra channels and techniques to control shifts in international relations and coordination is yet another factor spurring diplomatic inventiveness. The appropriate utilization of diplomatic, military, monetary, and economic institutions is a requirement for global interactions. Public-private alliances, native, sectoral, and international cooperation and civil society systems, as well as national and foreign expertise centers and their internationalization, may all be used as new channels of involvement in relation to multilateral institutions, which still have a significant impact. The big challenge for impactful diplomacy is to cultivate teamwork, coexistence, and solidity among the multiple players and enterprises essential to forging a bargain that can last, in spite of sector departments, companies, and committed organizations from civil society engagement in global cooperation, along with the drafting of treaty obligations, in an ever-increasingly advanced way. In order to attain optimum worldwide, sectoral, or government-to-government influence, new diplomacy tactically utilizes the broad gamut of methods available for international relations and cooperation, which include diplomacy, defensive line, commerce, and financial services. It also aims to create coalitions with acceptable international bodies and unofficial partnerships between corporate companies and civil society organizations. It usually requires a meticulous workflow strategy, along with ways to facilitate alliances, policy making with multilateral organizations, enhancement of private industry, democratic institutions, and citizen participation, and efficient data use and eloquence with global informal connectivity approaches. Conclusion "New diplomacy" puts a greater emphasis on the purposes of various international agendas while also exploring a broad variety of theoretical territory. A number of organizations and actors have entered international relations since the 19th century as a result of the development of technology and significant changes in government interests spanning across boundaries. The transformation of diplomacy from old diplomacy to new diplomacy was facilitated by this change in international relations, and this change entails factors like environmental distress, immigration, human rights, poverty alleviation, health care, and technological revolution. These factors did not entirely change diplomatic conduct but made it more complex and beyond individual state interests. References Berridge, R, G, Diplomacy: Theory and Practice (Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2015), Ch. 7 “Telecommunications” Black, Jeremy, A History of Diplomacy (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2010), Chapter 6 (1900–1970) Fletcher, Tom, “The Naked Diplomat” The World Today Vol. 68, No. 7 (December 2012 & January 2013) Roberts, R, Walter, The evolution of diplomacy,Mediterranean Quarterly, Volume 17, Number 3, Summer 2006 R, Villanueva, Cesar, Theorizing cultural diplomacy all the way down: a cosmopolitan constructivist discourse from an Ibero-American perspective,international journal of cultural policy, vol 24, No 5 (2018) Safor,Sasson, Old and New Diplomacy: A Debate Revisited, Vol. 14, No. 3 (Jul., 1988) Stanzel, Volker (ed.), New Realities in Foreign Affairs: Diplomacy in the 21st Century(SWP Research Paper,2018) Mccourt, M, David, The New Constructivism in International Relations Theory, (Bristol University Press, 2022)