Essay

The Summit Meeting: The Role and Agenda of at its Highest Level

by Peter R. Weilemann

n July this year the heads of states and 1955 to describe one of the failed governments of , France, Germany, conferences of the four powers (the United IGreat Britain, Italy, Japan, the , 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 26t h w o r l d 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 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 . 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 THE FIRST KEY up in the early 1990s. 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 LEVEL. topic. US-Soviet summits were 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 , 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 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 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 ITH THE MAIN ACTORS political negotiation, W 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 DIFFERENCES. summit meeting with the gathering that allows an chance to redress imbalances intense exchange of views at in favor of the weaker side the highest level without 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, UNDER DEVELOPMENT the broadest political 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. .

McCollister, Robert, J. (1993). Summit Diplomacy: The Consequences of Cold War Summits (Volumes I and II). Dissertation, UMI, Ann Arbor, Mich.

3 Messner (1996), 169

Spring 2000 20