Diplomacy is no stranger to contentious debate. That it is in decline -- whether as an institution of the international system or in terms of the profession to which that institution has given birth -- is a well rehearsed proposition. But your readers might be forgiven for succumbing to some confusion having read the two articles in the last issue (autumn 1997) under the banner 'The end of diplomacy?' For, in different ways, the contributions from Joe Clark and Paul Sharp are celebrations of diplomacy- or, at least, their own versions of it. Clark's argument (albeit cast specifically in a Canadian context) is a reaffirmation of a not unfamiliar argument; namely, that too great a preoccupation with economics and trade has diverted attention from the essential concerns of diplomacy. Sharp's article, on the other hand, lays the threat to diplomacy at the feet of its practitioners who have forgotten who they are and what they should be doing. This lapse of collective consciousness is reinforced by the pernicious attentions of those academics who do not subscribe to the particular brand of state-centrism with which the discussion is infused.As is usually the case, then, the debate about the decline of diplomacy turns on contending images of how the world works -- or should work -- and what images most accurately convey its character. Do we live in a world of sovereign states; is the state under threat from the twin processes of internal and external erosion, the product of the dialectic between localization on the one hand and globalization on the other? Diplomacy becomes subsumed within this broader debate. For those adhering to a world society image in which the significance of the nation-state as an actor is diminishing, diplomats may be regarded as the epitome of a dangerous and doomed order. For the state-centrists, on the other hand, diplomats are comforting figures inasmuch as they affirm continuity. There is nothing inherently interesting in examining what modern diplomats do because there is nothing of significance in what is new. In fact, there is nothing new. De Callieres will tell you all you need to know. After all, embassies still exist despite the oft-repeated mantra that diplomacy is finished.(f.1) This alone suffices as evidence that all is well with the world that nothing has changed. Attempts to slot the diplomat into an alternative world view is at best indicative of a failure of understanding and at worst akin to heresy. That the nature of diplomacy as an activity might be changing is either mistaken (for it denies the essence of the diplomat's role), or of no real interest, froth on the surface of the deep waters of the diplomatic oceans.It is against this background that the references in Sharp's article to a paper I wrote two years ago have to be seen.(f.2) In that paper I sought to move beyond what appear to me to be sterile debates about 'new' diplomacy and the 'decline' of diplomacy, which, as I have indicated above, are essentially rooted in international relations paradigm debates. In suggesting that it is possible to portray a pattern of world politics marked by complex relationships, my assumption -- far from envisioning the demise of the state -- is that the state continues to perform key functions within the context of a globalizing economy, that those functions are evolving and, if anything -- as in the case of the growing demands of regulation -- are likely to become more significant.(f.3) This scenario, however, is not predicated on the zero-sum relationship between state and non-state actors with which we are familiar but on far more subtle patterns in which roles and relationships are less clear-cut.Diplomacy is responding, as it has in the past, to change in the character of both state and society. Of course, representation is significant. Despite accusations levelled against diplomats who 'go native' that they have come to represent the interests of the governments or organizations to which they are accredited (just as some view foreign ministries as 'ministries for foreigners'), most of them, presumably, know who pays their salary 'and try to act accordingly. …