East, South East and South Asia spans what could be called ‘cultural Asia’ (while other parts of Asia have different identities of their own). The mix gets richer with an appendage, the greatly dispersed Pacific Ocean island states – plus Australia and New Zealand, which represent the ‘West’, but also seek an Asia identity. Their ‘Asian-ness’ is amplified by inward migration from Asia.

Asia's ancient civilisations have had many centuries of mutual engagement. Their identities blend borrowed and indigenous ethno-cultural-linguistic elements. This is the varied face of ‘Asian diplomacy’.

Old Asia, not just China, India and Japan, but also the small states, have sought to modernise since their very first encounters with the West. Globalisation has accentuated that process. Unlike the other continents, the rubric of ‘unity’ is missing in Asia. No recent effort has been made in this direction. Their joint identities are framed narrowly, and yet, a sense of Asia persists.

This chapter focuses on diplomatic practices. It includes the foreign ministries’ priorities in policy delivery, training, human resource management, and on a wider canvas, the balance between political, economic, and public diplomacy tasks. It stresses that the region's practices – some unique, others shared – are understudied. It also argues that in some cases diplomatic systems are weak at emulation and mutual learning.

The chapter identifies some common diplomatic traits, partly due to post-colonial experiences, and also due to Asian ways of doing things. In doing so, it poses a question: What might we expect in the future? And, in terms of forecasting future scenarios, it draws a tentative conclusion: the gap is widening between the practitioners of ‘smart’ diplomacy and those that use more old school methods in diplomacy, i.e. formal styles like communication with foreign embassies via ‘third person’ notes, and insistence that other ministries communicate with foreign states through the ministry of foreign affairs.

This problem is not unique to Asia; it is common to the Global South. But in Asia there are sharper differences in diplomacy practices than elsewhere. This merits more research.