Essay

The Summit Meeting:

by Peter R. Weilemann

I
n July this year the heads of states and 1955 to describe one of the failed cold war
governments of Canada, France, Germany, conferences of the four powers (the United
Great Britain, Italy, Japan, the United States, States, Great Britain, France, and the Soviet
and Russia and the president of the European Union) in Geneva. And it is only in more
Union will come to Japan for the 26 th world recent times that such meetings are no longer
economic summit, also known as the G7/G8 extraordinary events. They have instead
meeting. They will be accompanied by become a common pattern in international
hundreds of bureaucrats and other politics, in which non-participation by a leader
government officials. Thousands of journalists makes more headlines than participation does.
will cover the event, and the entire world will But what is a summit? Some might recall the
watch the proceedings and debate the results. meeting at Potsdam where Josef Stalin, Harry
However, there is an ever-growing number of S. Truman, and Winston Churchill came
critics who ask what such an event is good for. together to agree on a new European order
Summit meetings have become an ordinary after WW2. Others will cite the superpower
fact of life in modern international politics. summits between US presidents and Soviet
They are not a new invention but as old as leaders during the cold war. By a treaty ratified
human history. Most history textbooks tell of in 1963, France and Germany established
events where emperors, kings, or chiefs came bilateral meetings of the heads of government
together, in bilateral meetings or within the on a regular basis twice a year, an idea that
framework of multilateral conferences or was the precursor of many similar institutional
conventions, to settle disputes or make peace. arrangements among other European
Summits were also sadly noted in the past for countries. Since the mid-1970s, heads of states
missed opportunities to reach agreements. and governments of the European Union (or
The expression “summit” to characterize what was then called the European
such meetings, however, was first used only in Community), have come together two or three

Spring 2000 16
times a year, an arrangement that has become meetings lack formal decision-making
institutionalized in the Maastricht Treaty. competencies in the sense of legal or
Other regional summits come to mind, such as constitutional bases attributed to them.
the African summits, the APEC summits and Moreover, most do not command permanent
the meetings of the Heads of Commonwealth administrative support or a secretarial
states. Global or world summits, including the structure independent of national adminis-
Earth Summit in Rio and trations.
the World Social Summit in To better understand the role
Copenhagen, also began to crop of summits, it makes sense to
up in the early 1990s.
THE FIRST KEY differentiate types of summits
But what appears to be a ELEMENT OF SUMMITRY according to formal criteria, such
summit may not always be so. as whether they are bilateral or
Like the emperors and kings of IS EXECUTIVE multilateral, regional or
the past, today’s presidents and worldwide. Much more helpful,
PARTICIPATION,
heads of states or government however, is to make a distinction
might meet at the occasion of a DIPLOMACY AT THE by goals. This it not an easy task,
funeral when one of their equals since there seem to be no limits
has passed away. Or they might HIGHEST POSSIBLE in choosing a summit’s specific
come together during the topic. US-Soviet summits were
LEVEL.
United Nations General often dominated by arms control
Assembly sessions or see each issues. The NATO Summit in
other during state visits. So-called private April 1990 on the occasion of the 50 t h
meetings of leading politicians are today as anniversary of the Atlantic alliance originally
common as they were when ruling dynasties planned to conclude a new “strategic concept”
were linked through marriage and other but in the end the whole event was dominated
familial bonds. Although journalists tend to be by the Kosovo conflict. The so-called
rather free in labeling such meetings “Conclusions of the President” published after
“summits”, political scientists fear that such each meeting of the European Council usually
indiscriminate use could blur the concept of amount to more than a dozen typewritten
summit. To gain more clarity, they establish pages (not including appendices) covering
two essential criteria. almost every issue the EU is concerned with:
The first key element of summitry is institutional reforms, enlargement,
executive participation, diplomacy at the employment policies, environmental issues,
highest possible level. 1 Participation here and many other areas.
might mean not only state leaders, but also As Peter Hajnal and John Kirton explain in
leaders of international organizations such as this issue of NIRA Review, the evolution of the
NATO or the European Union. The second is G8 agenda is also remarkable. Originally the
that summit meetings are distinguished by the heads of state met to debate international
form of personal contact, meaning that monetary and exchange rate issues. With the
participants communicate face-to-face. This passing of time, however, these meetings have
makes a difference, because it is more difficult become more and more political. Already by
and usually involves a ceremonial dimension 1981 or 1982, discussion of East-West relations
that represents a greater commitment of time, featured prominently on the agenda. The main
energy, and political risk than is present in, issue at the 1988 Tokyo Summit was terrorism.
say, a telephone call. 2 Additional character- In the early 1990s the World Economic
istics of proper summits are that most Summit, which took place in Houston,

1
Dunn, D. (1986), p17
2
Ibid, p19

17 NIRA Review
London, and Tokyo, was preoccupied mainly meetings with Mao Tse-tung, or the Camp
with the transformation of Russia and the David agreement between Israel and Egypt
former Soviet-bloc countries of Eastern Europe. reached under US tutelage. But most summits
The most recent summit in Köln in 1999 was belong to the category of orientation meetings;
overshadowed by the Kosovo crisis, but it also by definition, they produce no concrete results.
might be remembered for its proposals of debt The general public and professional
relief for “Third World” commentators therefore often consider summit
countries. meetings to be little more than expensive
Because the specific BECAUSE THE media spectacles with few tangible
subjects of summits can outcomes.
vary greatly, the setting SPECIFIC SUBJECTS OF There are certainly many
of the agenda is a highly drawbacks to summit meetings. The
political process. It SUMMITS CAN VARY assumption that personal
shapes the outcome of GREATLY, THE SETTING acquaintances between the leaders
such a meeting and of states will prevent future
determines its specific OF THE AGENDA IS A conflicts between them has often
outlook or character. There been disproved by history.
are summits, such as peace HIGHLY POLITICAL Summits that peacefully negotiated
conferences, whose single PROCESS. conflict resolutions seldom produced
purpose is to end conflict. Other outcomes with long-term consequences.
summits are convened to establish a new During the cold war there was constant
order or develop an existing one. Some debate about their value. Some of the
conferences at the highest level serve as arguments exchanged then still provide
instruments to give new orientations or to ammunition for critics today. How can the
reassure the participants of their common head of a democratic country deal successfully
political goals or values. And some summit with the leader of a totalitarian system or
meetings take place to improve coordination dictatorship? With the main actors rooted in
among nations. Any judgment of the benefits different cultures it is suggested that such
and drawbacks of international summitry must encounters can only lead to superficial
be made against the background of the specific understandings that in the long term could
purpose of such meetings and the tasks they actually aggravate differences. Heads of states
are meant to accomplish. are not experts in highly complex matters such
Among the numerous summit meetings that as arms control, trade, or other issues on
are held today only a few are convened as summit agendas. They lack the diplomatic
peace conferences to end military conflict. Nor skills of professional diplomats and are often
are there many recent examples of summits ill-prepared for these debates. Under the
where heads of states come together to create pressures of time and the enormous
or establish a new order. Certainly the CSCE expectations from the public at home,
(Conference on Security and Cooperation in politicians are often tempted to compromise
Europe) summits of the 1970s and early 1990s with false solutions. Since most of the time
were useful in their time in helping to establish summit agreements are not legally binding,
new rules of order for the transatlantic area statesmen do not even feel politically obliged
between Vancouver and Vladivostok. The to deliver the results agreed on or they fail to
European Council, besides being a do so because of domestic constraints. Critics
coordinating body, always contained strong also complain that calling summit meetings
impulses toward shaping a new European forces politicians and bureaucrats to set the
order. A few bilateral summits in the recent wrong priorities with respect to time, political
past also produced big changes or new resources, and energy. Nevertheless, most of
structures in international politics, such as US these arguments can be dealt with. They have
President Nixon’s visit to China and his nothing to do with summits as such, but rather

Spring 2000 18
with the way these meetings are prepared and reality of the growing interdependence of
handled as an instrument of modern nations and the impact of globalization has
diplomacy. made closer international cooperation and the
The advantages of multilateral summitry development of appropriate institutions a
cannot be easily measured in short-term necessity. Summit meetings have gained new
tangible results. In the long run, however, they roles and special functions with these
certainly can produce more developments. Within this
than just an improved context, I want to argue that
atmosphere for international summits are an important
political negotiation,
WITH THE MAIN ACTORS element of international
although this is a value in ROOTED IN DIFFERENT political negotiation that
itself if handled properly and bring the following benefits.
used with the right political CULTURES IT IS SUGGESTED Personal contact between
instincts. the heads of states and
THAT SUCH ENCOUNTERS
In this respect it is quite governments brings new
interesting to recall another CAN ONLY LEAD TO elements into the equation of
line of argument used power. Certainly military
against summits. The debate SUPERFICIAL and economic might still
on the evolution and future count, but the personality of
UNDERSTANDINGS THAT IN
of the G8 meeting is a good a leader, the way he argues
example. Many consider the THE LONG TERM COULD in debate, and the power of
original idea of that meeting his intellect will be factored
to have been betrayed. ACTUALLY AGGRAVATE into the discussions at a
Instead of an informal summit meeting with the
DIFFERENCES.
gathering that allows an chance to redress imbalances
intense exchange of views at in favor of the weaker side
the highest level without protocol or and to produce results shared and accepted as
bureaucratic constraints and free from any legitimate by all. After all, summitry is a
pressure to make decisions, today’s world democratic invention and not one much liked
economic summits are highly formalized by dictators.
conventions. Very little room remains for free Summit meetings have very practical effects.
discussion and more and more increasingly To prepare for a summit and in the interests of
complicated issues must be addressed. And to avoiding its failure, bureaucrats are forced to
top it all, the final communiqué that create goals and time-frames for solutions that
supposedly summarizes the results of the otherwise might have been put off or never
debate is normally produced and agreed on far reached. The G8 meetings benefit from very
in advance. All this is true. But whether it is careful preparation. As Hajnal and Kirton have
the wrong or right evolution depends very pointed out, the so-called Sherpas, who are in
much on what is intended. charge of the preparation of the summit and
Summit meetings evolve with changes in the who are the closest aides to the heads of states,
international order. Beyond atmospherics and meet several times a year as do the foreign
such positive psychological benefits as the ministers or finance ministers, in preparatory
opportunity for personal contact between meetings. So a process of anticipation and
heads of states and government, summits coordination takes root within each national
today have potential as stabilizing elements in administration while the summit is in
the international order. Since the end of the preparation. These meetings also quite often
cold war, the scaling down of East-West give fresh impulses or directions for
confrontation and the vanishing North-South international organizations.
conflicts, summits have been freed of Summits have a legitimizing function,
ideological dead weight. Furthermore, the nationally as well as internationally.

19 NIRA Review
Commitments undertaken by a political leader should be streamlined and more focused—a
during a summit meeting can open up new case of less is more.
avenues in domestic political debate and Another issue has to do with NGOs. It has
provide fresh opportunities to overcome become quite fashionable to demand greater
deadlocked situations. On the other hand an participation by NGOs in the summit process
agreement or even a mere understanding on as if the actions of heads of states were out of
the interpretations of facts or specific situations tune with the public and not open to domestic
reached by several heads of states also democratic control. The rights and duties
has norm-setting qualities for the of such organizations should be
international community. Such TO PRESERVE ITS carefully defined. Certainly it
guidelines not only bind the might be helpful if state and non-
USEFUL ROLE,
participating nations together state actors work more closely
in implementing their policies, HOWEVER, THE SUMMIT together in the future than they
but they also set standards for have in the past. Finally, it
others. MUST BE CONSTANTLY sometimes makes sense to have
To preserve its useful role, the broadest political
UNDER DEVELOPMENT
however, the summit must be participation by all states. But
constantly under development AND REFORM. opening up each summit can also
and reform. One such reform would have its price by impairing the
consider the problem of how to stop or capacity of states to act or by leading to
reverse the current trend toward ever larger outcomes that are meaningless because they
and more elaborate summits. The meetings can reflect only the least common denominator.
and should be reduced in size and the Legitimacy is not only a question of numbers.
numbers of aides and fellow participants If these reflections are heeded, summits have
reduced with greater efforts made to dampen a bright future. In today’s world, “summitry
down the media spectacle surrounding the belongs to the dramaturgy of globalism which
event itself. What also must be looked at more in turn belongs to the future of world
carefully is the agenda, especially, but not politics.”3
only, for the G7/G8 meetings. A summit
meeting must not be made to become the Peter R. Weilemann is head of the International
problem solver for technical issues the Department of the Konrad Adenauer Foundation,
bureaucrats have failed to agree on. Agendas based in St. Augustin, Germany.

References
Dunn, David H. (ed.) (1996). Diplomacy at the Highest Level: Messner, Dirk and Nuscheler, Franz, (eds.) (1996).
The Evolution of International Summitry. New York: Weltkonferenzen und Weltberichte. Ein Wegweiser Durch die
Macmillan Press. Internationale Diskussion. Bonn.

McCollister, Robert, J. (1993). Summit Diplomacy: The

3
Messner (1996), 169

Spring 2000 20