Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Diplomacy Assignment - TWO - Edits
Diplomacy Assignment - TWO - Edits
negotiation. Summitry can be said to be a process whereby a professional diplomat cedes, his or
her role to a political leader to undertake diplomacy duties. Plishcke posits that summit
The term “summits” became popular in the 1950s when it was used during a speech in
Edinburgh by the British Prime Minister Winston Churchill. The press took up the term after its
It is worthy to note that, there already exists a considerable amount of multilateral diplomacy at
the pinnacle of political governance, where the state and international instuitions converge to
deliberate on issues of critical, not neglecting the pioneers of events of civil wars. However, the
bilateral diplomacy that characterizes what takes place at summits are of a special kind and thus
In the nineteenth (19th) century, the concept of Europe saw summit diplomacy burgeon
occasionally into existence, but it did not became a significant technique until the first half of
the twentieth (20th) century. The return of diplomacy after the world was 1 was proclaimed by
the parish peach conference in 1919, where, George Clemenceau, and Wildrow Wilson held
center stage. Its return was cemented by the meetings in 1938 between British Prime Minister
Summitry began to really take off about a decade after the World War II, due to huge support at
great power levels especially by Churchill. It was also simulated by the same poweful political
leaders, and propped by technological trends that promote multilateral diplomacy. Summity was
also used to prevent the already prevalent cold war from escalating into “hot war” between the
great super powers that be at the time(Melissen, 2003; Nixon, 1985). The precarious nature of
the “nuclear-age” has urge many not to leave diplomacy at the mercy of diplomatists. Despite the
aforementioned utility of diplomacy, it has been heavily criticized by diplomats who assets that
summitry interferes with their duty and has damaging effect on other aspects of their of work,
Critisism of summitry is hinged on assumptions about the head of governments and states. These
personnels are assumed to have lack of attention to details, pure negotiators, super busy, always
tired possibly from insomnia, highly predisposed to cultural misunderstandings, and lastly easily
moved by personal dislikes and likes towards other leaders in the summit(Berridge, 1993).
Political leaders in most cases are not able to secure a postponement in the event of a deadlock in
negotiation, because they cannot claim they need to confer with somone at home. This is because
in they are themselves the final authority in most instances. This makes them to commit more
mistakes. Either, they concede hastily or abrogate the negotiation prematurely(Berridge, 1993).
Another school of thaught posits that, politicians are not trained diplomats and therefore do not
have the requisite technical know how, patients, skills to execute the function of a diplomacy
effectively, thus producing unfruitful results. Politcians could also lack knowledge about a
specific subject which might limit their delivery to very large extent(Caramerli & Angela, 2012;
Goldstein, 1996).
There could also be a lack of appreciation for the other party’s point of view, resulting in
bridge the gap. And this asserted by Leguey-Fellifeux who conquers that cultural misconception
and miss communication would complicate the negotiation(Nixon, 1985). This consequently
makes it very deficult to negotiate with each other. Also agreement made in such circumtances
becomes difficult to disregard since they are signed and sealed by heads of states or
governments(Berridge, 1993).
Fortunately, while summitry may not be useful and even highly damaging sometimes to
diplomacy and often serve principally foreign and domestic propaganda purpose it can also have
summitry over the years has proven to be an important aspect of the international and political
relations.
The serial nature of summits is good for “serious” negotiations. When there is deadlock,
summitry allows the subjects of the meeting to revisited and delt in great detail as well. To name
but a few, US-AU summits, ASEAN summits, Franco-German summits, G7/8 summits (which
are a contributory factors in international discourse) are examples of serial summits that used in
our day today. The Western Economic summits, annually held since 1977 at Rambouillet is an
and negotiation between the parties involved. It serves as platform that educates head of states
and governments that have not had prior international experience. Since every head of states
aspires to be a good representative at the summit, it is presumed that they put in considerable
amount of time to acquaint themselves with the matters to be discussed at the summit to avoid
There are also ad-hoc summits, which are usually one-off meeting which are held to discuss a
particular issue, for example to address a climiate change crises, albeit it could the first of several
meetings to address the same challenge. A typical example of an ad hoc summit is “working
funeral” where a very dignified personalities from all over the world attend the funeral of a major
political figure(Dunn, 1996; Goldstein, 1996). Other examples of ad hoc summits are the cocaine
Summitry also attracts attention of both domestic and international interests and such attention is
themselves as very busy addressing certain pertinent issues that is of concern to many. For
instance, the United Nations summit on Climiate Change in Copenhagen Denmark, December
2009, and on 22 September 2009 is an example of propaganda summit that created a momentum
Governments and heads of states during summits is used to discuss and gather information from
each other such that there is less suspicion and mistrust amongst them. This builds friendly and
trustworth relationship amongs them. Also since the issues discussed are among parties at a high
problems with considerable strategic and political importance to be raised, discussed and
addressed accordingly. Dunn assets that it has utlitity for “elevating issues to the top of the
international agenda for dealing with problems of speed and authority”(Dunn, 1996; Goldstein,
1996).
many. Even though, summitry poses some risk, it has added considerably to the numerous
critical foreign matters at stake(Weilemann, 2000). It has provided the platform for suitable deals
across many different policy areas, because of its multifaecated agenda and has become almost
REFERENCES
Berridge, G. R. (1993). Diplomacy After Death: The Rise of the Working Funeral. Diplomacy &
Caramerli, & Angela. (2012). Summitry Diplomacy: Positive and Negative Aspects. Acta
danubius.ro/index.php/internationalis/article/view/1684
Dunn, D. H. (1996). What is Summitry? In Diplomacy at the Highest Level (pp. 3–22). Palgrave
Goldstein, E. (1996). The Origins of Summit Diplomacy. In Diplomacy at the Highest Level (pp.
http://www.clingendael.nl/publications/2003/20030500_cli_paper_dip_issue86.pdf
https://doi.org/10.2307/20042463
Weilemann, P. R. (2000). The Summit Meeting: The Role and Agenda of Diplomacy at its