Summitry can be defined as the use of the topmost level attainable conference for international

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

diplomacy can be of utility if properly capitalized upon(Dunn, 1996).

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

usage, and it became popular as a result(Melissen, 2003; Weilemann, 2000).

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

it is necessary to treat summitry separately(Caramerli & Angela, 2012; Goldstein, 1996).

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

Neville chamberlain, and Hitler(Nixon, 1985).

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,

particulary if summitry is schakled by scandals(Dunn, 1996; Weilemann, 2000).

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

miscommunication or misunderstanding, which is considered prevalent among leaders from

different cultural backgrounds involved in a summit and interpretors have to be employed to

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

a diplomatic value if it is used judiciously(Goldstein, 1996). True to the above statement

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

example of a successful serial summit(Melissen, 2003).

The summits could last for hours, or even days but it very useful for promoting friendly relations

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

failure at the summit level(Melissen, 2003).

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

summit, Camp David Summit, and the Sino American summit.

Summitry also attracts attention of both domestic and international interests and such attention is

useful in promoting propaganda on a particular subject. Governments uses it to portray

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

on greenhouse gas emissions(Nixon, 1985; Weilemann, 2000).

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

level in the government, it yields efficients results by comparison.

Furthermore, summitery presents a platform to set agenda; it offers an opportunity for global

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).

In conclusion, summitry as a form of diplomacy has become permament and acceptable by

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

indispensable conducting diplomacy without holding summits(Weilemann, 2000).

REFERENCES

Berridge, G. R. (1993). Diplomacy After Death: The Rise of the Working Funeral. Diplomacy &

Statecraft, 4(2), 217–234. https://doi.org/10.1080/09592299308405883

Caramerli, & Angela. (2012). Summitry Diplomacy: Positive and Negative Aspects. Acta

Universitatis Danubius. Relationes Internationales, 5(1). http://journals.univ-

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

Macmillan UK. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-24915-2_1

Goldstein, E. (1996). The Origins of Summit Diplomacy. In Diplomacy at the Highest Level (pp.

23–37). Palgrave Macmillan UK. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-24915-2_2

Melissen, J. (2003). Summit Diplomacy Coming of Age. Discussion Papers in Diplomacy, 21.

http://www.clingendael.nl/publications/2003/20030500_cli_paper_dip_issue86.pdf

Nixon, R. (1985). Superpower Summitry. Foreign Affairs, 64(1), 1.

https://doi.org/10.2307/20042463

Weilemann, P. R. (2000). The Summit Meeting: The Role and Agenda of Diplomacy at its

Highest Level. NIRA Review, 16–20.