ASSIGNMENT:

[SUMMITS]

Diplomacy: Theory & Practice

Submitted to:
Dr: Irum Khalid

Submitted by:
Sufyan Ali
Class:
DSS (semester 1)

Roll No:
28
OUTLINE
What is summit?
Its origin
Kinds of summit
Benefits of serial summit
Secret of success
Summary

Summit is defined as an international meeting among heads of

states and governments, heads of international organizations and leaders of factions in
civil wars is known as a summit or summitry. The word “summit” actually coined by
Winston Churchill prime minister of United Kingdom in 1950s, was taken up in the press,
during a speech in Edinburgh.Similer summits were being held in the past between Bronze
ages and the late middle ages, when they reached their pre-modern high point. therefore,
at least in Europe, they fizzled out not because of indigenous missions had by this time
become widely established but because rulers had usually been;
-Poor diplomats
-Attractive for embarrassment
-Captured for ransom or murder
-And the notion that it’s their prerogative
WELL-KNOWN SUMMITS IN HISTORY:
 -Summit amongst Lloyd George, Georges Clemenceau and Woodrow Wilson during WW1 (Paris
peace conference 1919)

-Summit between Hitler and Neville chamberlain in 1938

-Summits amongst big three, Winston Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin in 1940s (wartime

conferences)

CASE AGAINST SUMMITRY MEETINGS:

Because it is amongst leaders of states and governments certain assumptions about
heads are ascribed:
a. They often are poor negotiators because they are vain, ignorant of details, pressed for
time, addicted to publicity, over-tired or suffering from serious ill-health, prone to cultural
misunderstandings and too readily swayed by their personal likes and dislikes.
b. In the event of deadlock in negotiation they cannot turn towards parent office because
they the ultimate authority. In these circumstances, they are likely to make one or the
other mistake, either they break off the negotiation prematurely if faced with the
prospect of failure or they make unwise concessions in order to achieve success.
Diplomacy conducted at the summit is not only likely to lead mistakes but also to mistakes
that are irrevocable. The scope for worsening relations between states by summitry is
greater because key points in any agreement reached by means might have been vaguely
formulated in the absence of adjutants and even without written record. In case,
agreements and understandings achieved by summitry tend to be weakened by the fall
of any of the leader concerned. In short, summitry obscures the concept of relations
between governments as a continuing process. As David watt put it, “Heads of
governments, with their massive egos, their ignorance of the essential details and their
ingrained belief in the value of back-slapping ambiguity, simply mess everything up”.
c. Financial cost of summitries is also now enormous. Summits were always expensive, but
their cost has risen over the recent years as they have become a perfect target for anti-
globalization protesters and opposition cliques as well as terrorists.
d. A leader who proposes to visit only one of the two states locked in a traditional rivalry
always stokes up troubles of different sorts.
e. Heads of states and governments who over-indulge themselves the summit habit, or just
find themselves doomed to it, might also find themselves giving insufficient time to
domestic affairs and might, in consequence, lose their job. [While the cat is away, the
mice will play].

KINDS OF SUMMITS

1) SERIAL SUMMIT:
 Of all the summits, this is probably the best suited to
serious negotiations, although the extent to which this is true turns on its length and frequency.
Longer meetings allow subjects to be treated in greater depth and allow time for a return to the
table following a deadlock. Commonwealth meeting which lasts for 5 to 7 days is best in this
regard. Frequent summits at predetermined intervals are also conducive to serious negotiation,
because arouse fewer public expectations and to have clear and comprehensive rules of
procedures. Frequent summits tend to be brief and less frequent long ones.

Why serial summits are useful and how they contribute to successful negotiations:

Serial summits are useful for gathering information about other countries, their leaders, clarifying
intentions, creating awareness, sharing experiences and exposures, generating understanding
and cooperation amongst members of the summit.

a. They educate leaders about international realities, they are compelled to do their homework in
order to avoid looking foolish among their peers and they cannot avoid learning from the mouths
of fellow leaders about influences working on them.
b. They make package deals easier, sitting astride/ultimate authority, heads of governments are
well placed to make trades involving bureaucratically separate issue areas.
c. They set deadlines for the completion of an existing negotiation between parties, serial summits
sustain diplomatic momentum.
d. If the negotiations have been brought to this stage, the summits might serve to break any
existential deadlock by virtue of the authority and their greater breadth of vision. The “final court
of appeal “is function of the summit.
-As for other functions, serial summits are well suited to information gathering about
personalities because of the frank expression of views of participants present in the summit.
-These are also probably good for clarifying intentions, for these rarely appear more clearly than
in give-and-take of genuine negotiations.
2) AD HOC SUMMIT

Ad hoc summit is usually a one-off meeting convened to

address a specific issue e.g. to address a crisis, although it might end up being the first of a series
of other meetings and they usually generate more publicity than the serial summits. Special cases
of ad hoc summits are ‘working funerals’ which is a” funeral of major political figure that is
attended by high powered delegates from all over the world “. Ad hoc meetings are very useful
for imposing deadlines on a negotiation process. These meetings are more suitable for symbolic
purposes and they also provide a for a for the promotion of cordial relations and fostering
cooperation, leaders become familiarized with one another. Furthermore, funeral summits have
contributed immensely to diplomatic affairs by carrying out function of diplomatic signaling.

-These meetings are discreet opportunities for leaders to come together to meet on
pressing issues at stake and also a disguise for candid exchange of views between
contenders on how to resolve conflicts. Funeral summits are of diplomatic significance
particularly if it is the funeral of current head of state because it serves as an important
opportunity for political lobbying.
3) HIGH LEVEL EXCHANGE OF VIEWS
Finally, there is the exchange of views meeting. This is a situation whereby
heads of states visit series of countries on a foreign tour. It is usually relevant when a
newly elected leader has come into power to educate and familiarize them on
international scene. This summit also promotes more cordial relations between countries
and others. The exchange of views summit can be very useful for promotion of trade and
taking up serious cases of maltreatment of nationals.
ADVANTAGES OF SUMMITS

In relation, summitry is a useful tool for promoting foreign and domestic propaganda;
attracting the attention of domestic, foreign and global audience to some issues. It gives
the idea that the government is busy doing something about an issue – domestic or global,
especially in democracies. Furthermore, summitry serves an agenda setting function; this
is an opportunity for global issues of overarching political or strategic importance to be
brought up to the forefront and addressed effectively. Dunn states that it is useful for:
“elevating issues to the top of the international agenda and for dealing with problems of
with speed and authority”.

DISADVANTAGES OF SUMMITS

In as much as summitry has lots of advantages, and has contributed positively to

the practice of diplomacy it has also faced oppositions from different angles. Over
the years, the usefulness of summitry has been in question; it is surrounded by so
many controversies and most of the major opposition arise from diplomats who
claim that it meddles in their affairs and which has a ‘demoralizing effect on them
and other elements of the diplomatic service’.

Another argument is that politicians are not professionally trained for diplomatic
jobs; therefore, they lack the know-how, the skills, and the patience to carry out
that function effectively which consequently produces unfruitful results. Some of
them might be misinformed, or may not know enough about a particular subject
and this may actually limit the capacity of which they can discuss specific issues in
detail.

Furthermore, there is the challenge of lack of knowledge of the other party’s point
of view or miscommunication; this is especially common when leaders from
different cultural backgrounds are involved in a summit and interpreters have to
be used. “Clashes of personality may complicate summit interaction, but cultural
misconceptions are a more likely occurrence, as chief executives have less
experience in cross cultural communication”. Negotiations in circumstances like
this might prove very difficult. In addition, there is also the risk that agreements
that were reached during such meetings are difficult to disapprove because they
were sealed by the heads of governments themselves.

Furthermore, summitry has been seen as a waste of time, effort and resources. It
takes a lot of time to prepare, and attend a summit and it also takes a lot of
resources to make sure that a summit is successful. Resources that could be used
for other important things will be used to pay for security, meals, and luxury
accommodation for these politicians. An associated disadvantage is the risk of
travel, accidents could occur, and lives could be lost, also, illness could develop due
to causes such as the weather and all sorts.

SUMMARY

Over the year’s summitry as a method of conducting foreign relations has come to stay a
part of the diplomatic process for better or worse. Even though it is risky, it has indeed
contributed immensely to so many foreign issues at stake. Due to its multifaceted agenda,
it has provided opportunities for package deals across different policy areas that it is now
almost impossible to imagine conducting diplomacy without holding summits

In as much as it has contributed positively to diplomacy, it can also be fatal if

wrongly carried out as I have enumerated earlier. According to Dunn: “it may create
misunderstanding, cause unintended offence and sow the seeds of mistrust.
Hence, it should be carefully strategized instead of eliminating it totally as a
method of conducting foreign relations.

Summit talks have to deal with specific issues ‘rather than general atmospherics’.
“for talks to be meaningful they have to be well prepared; decisions to be taken at
the summit have to be formulated in detail already in previous negotiations at
subordinate levels”. If prepared and conducted properly and with caution,
summitry promises high satisfaction. Despite all criticisms, summitry has become
the preferred means of international dialogue.