The Ideological Mission- National Interest

Traditional diplomacy as well as its new variations carries on an ideological mission- to promote the national interest. Even if the issues were driven from ‘high’ to ‘low’ the latter will remain to serve and a mean to reach the national interest- the central and primary aspiration of political negotiations.

Every step is achieved on small agreements, it is argued, serves for bigger means.

(An example of Russia and Ukraine meeting on economical issues with a tension and hope to take more steps for a mutual understanding)

http://rt.com/Top_News/2008-1002/putin_and_timoshenko_step_on_gas_in_moscow.html

Hence, bilateral diplomacy has not lost its position, as often, in distinction to multilateral and open diplomacy, which takes more time to reach the agreement, certain agreements might productively be achieved among two interested parties in secret negotiations.

For instance, bilateral relationship between United Kingdom and United states are lasting for years and more or less, it can be asserted that it goes along (or at least there is an impact). In 2009 Prime Minister Gordo Brown stated:

"I have met the President again today to talk about a number of big issues. We have talked about Iran, we have talked about Afghanistan for the third time this week and we have talked about the global economic crisis." [The Independent, September 25, 2009]

The difficulties, however, that puts bilateral diplomacy under pressure, touch upon:

· Global issues, (e.g. environmental problems) where global solutions and multilateral diplomacy is required.

· The impact of the power of mass media and need to appeal to public opinion

· The attractiveness of foreign affairs to political leaders and the rise of summitry, etc

The main tasks with which foreign policy must cope successfully in order to be able to promote the national interest and preserve peace, according to Morgenthau and other realists, is to be capable deal with techniques of persuasion, negotiation, and pressure, which are the traditional instruments of diplomacy. In a modern society those instruments remain the same, differs just the way of usage and adaptation to every system, both modern and traditional.