Summitry Analysis and Diplomacy

treetopry Analysis and fragilityThis essay represents the perfect and imperfect macrocosm of steerry and it in same(p) manner discusses on how primery fag be integrated as a constructive fashion of daintiness. Summitry has so changed the landscape of political interactions between pleads and political attractorship across the terra firma everyplace the past years. In respect to this, Churchill questi hotshotd the crowd during star of the fire side of meat of Commons meeting in 1953, if there is non at the hit of the nations the wish to win the greatest prize of peace, where place men get wind for hope? (Churchill cited in Eban, 1983, p. 360). The idea behind Churchills articulatement is that, it explains on how pinnaclery can be an instrument in getting disk operating systems actors to gather at sensation place to discuss on planetary political issues among them (Dunn, 1996, p. 4). Ideally, round tops non simply have been used as a alsol to break inge st intense barriers between nation states leadership, but it has too helped state leaders to be much focused in addressing issues of their concerns in the best assertable way. Although, in the real world of summitry, this is non always the case. As Plischke argues in Modern DiplomacyIt should not be regarded as an instant philosophers stone for the assuagement of crisesto dissimulate relief from the realities of inter-governmental ailment (1979, p. 186).To begin with, this essay result discuss both on nigh of the possible strengths and flaws of the unlike types summits. It besides argues on how summitry can be infused as a tool of a constructive means of fragility and it will also unearth some factors that could help determine the achiever of summits. The first part of this essay discusses on how summitry could be a tool in the exercise of public diplomacy and followed by with an insight on how timing is crucial in initiating a summit. Meanwhile, the second part of this essay details on how summitry could provide an hazard for state leaders to administrate and show their capabilities in winning a summit.The perfect and imperfect world of SummitrySummits are designed in such(prenominal) a way where each and e rattling one of them has various themes and contrary objectives to be fulfilled. One must be able to segregate the different types of summits and its goals in order to further the understanding on the roles of summits. For instance, bilateral, multilateral, regional and globose summits. Now, this boils down to one question, how strong are these summitries in resolving the targeted issues? The get along to this is rather subjective. Since each summit has its different purpose, the measure of success would interchange as well and therefore it is difficult to lay divulge the positive and negative aspects of summitry in general (Melissen, 2003, p. 4). For instance, the Yalta summit in 1945 and the genus Paris Conference of Parties 21 (COP 2 1) in 2015 are s all the samety years apart and may have petty significant in common. Hence, generalising summits into one big picture would be very difficult.Looking at the different types of summits, the Rio soil Summit or also known as United Nations Conference on Environment and festering (UNCED) was one of the largest intergovernmental global mode conference ever organised. It was represented by over one hundred and eighty countries and participated by over one hundred states and government leaders across the globes. It was indeed a media attracter event that catches the attention of the news and broadcasters from all over the world (Dunn, 1996, p. 220). This calls for an engagement in public diplomacy for state and government leaders. The purpose of the summit was to synthesise the global economic landscape or development towards a to a greater extent forward looking context which takes into account on the economy of the surround (The Editors of Encyclopdia Britannica, 1 998). Dunn also mentioned in Diplomacy at the Highest LevelIt was hoped that this coif as a blueprint for how the nations of the world could preserve the environment and acquire sustainable development in the twenty-first century (1996, p. 222).In analogy to this, the Rio Earth Summit were seen to be a quite emblematical motley of summitry (Dunn, 1996, p. 249). This is due to the nature of the summit in which it possesses a propaganda value to it that could be either used for good purpose or just for the pastime of winning the hearts of the domestic and general audiences with their participation. Not whole it was the largest and the most costly climate change summit that was ever held, but it was also attended by hundreds of state leaders from all over the world. Hence, the opportunity to engage in public diplomacy was pretty enormous (Palmer, 1992). To rate it briefly, attending such an eventful summit was worth every moment of being noticed by the public considering the number of media coverage during that time was enormous. complianceing to Dunn, attending the summit was very much an attestation to these state leaders in showing their relentless commitments towards the preservation of the environment regardless if they did not agree upon the discussed agendas during the meeting. They want to be perceived as a leader who cares ab unwrap just everything and they wish to give an painting to the general public that they are trying to make some changes (1996, p. 249). This come on is often used as a form of public diplomacy and indeed, it can be considered as a constructive mode of diplomacy. For example, provide used the opportunity to be seen as a good leader by attending the summit despite of the series of situations that was going on in the US during that time. His hands were tight with different kinds of issues including his upcoming re-election. Hence, to be seen under the lime set ab out were one of the many ways for him to attain more cre dits from the domestic audiences (Dunn, 1996, p. 233). As stated by Hamilton and Langhorne in The apply of Diplomacy, air travel and television cameras have made world statesmen of the humblest troupe hacks (1995, p. 221). Having said that, summit has not only been beneficial for state leaders but also for the politicians in hope to enhance their status in the public from meeting all these world leaders. In respect to this, symbolic summits are not just limited to this kind of agenda, but it could also exemplify the relations between nations through summits. To support this statement, as enter by Dunn in Diplomacy at the Highest LevelThe handshake on the White House lawn between Yasser Arafat and Yitzhak Rabin in 1993 was equally important as an attempt to symbolize the new era of relations between Israel and the Palestinian people (1996, p. 248).On the other side of this coin, train of preparation deal in terms of timing also matters in ensuring the success of a summit. Regar dless of its positive strand in the engagement of public diplomacy, Rio Earth Summit was barely a mere success. For instance, Rio Earth Summit was not a perfect timing for countries like the US. Considering that US was perceived to be the paramount actor in this conference, but in the actual fact, the US delegations were really keeping their heads down throughout the meetings (Dunn, 1996, p. 233). How does timing has got anything to do with this? In the case of the US, the countrys economy was going through a recession and as mentioned earlier, President Bush was also due for his nearing re-election. One of his main concerns were also the risk of committing into any agreement on the sustainable developmental programmes that was discussed during the summit. The probable results from agreeing to any agreements from the summit were rather ambiguous as it could jeopardise the USs appointment level even further and also, his fear for losing the trust and his wealthy conservative suppor ters from both the political parties the US (Dunn, 1996, p. 233). Hence, this explains for the quiet actions from the US delegation at Rio Earth Summit. Therefore, the summit could have been more favourable if the US did not have to hold back due to their situations back home. In appurtenance to this, US was not the only one who were torn in atomic number 82 the conference, the EC (European Community) could have also done a greater agate line at it but of all the EC state members, only Germany was mystify on making an equitably significant amount of commitment towards the agreement. The oddment of the other EC state members like Italy and France were on the same ride as the US due to their respective issues in their home countries (Dunn 1996, p. 233). As articulated by Weihmiller, Doder and Newsom in U.S.- Soviet Summits, that, timing of a summit has been seen as one of the critical factors in ensuring the success of a summit (1986, p. 98). In retrospect, the issue on timing w ere noticeably reflected during the Kennedy Khrushchev summit in 1961 at Vienna which severely affected the resolution to the root of the problem. It was too soon to be holding another summit as the Paris summit of the year before that were not settled yet and to eliminate it all, the issues with Berlin previously has lead this summit to a total flop (Weihmiller et al., 1986, p. 99). In this context, when summit is initiated at a wrong time, it could lead to a drive out of resources and also, affecting diplomatic relations between state leaders as the subject discussed during the conference remains unresolved. Therefore, it remains debateable to as whether or not if summitry can be an elixir or regarded as an effective mode of diplomacy.On a brighter side, summits could also provide room for state actors or non-state actors to show their capabilities in leading a summit especially on internationalistic level that could not be consummated on a lower level (Dunn, 1996, p. 251). Th is has been seen on some climate change conferences such as the recent Paris Agreement (COP 21), Kyoto Protocol (COP 3) or even Copenhagen Agreement (COP 15) in 2009. The European Union (EU) in particular. The EU has hugely manifested the world with their pro-climate change leadership. What they are doing is an incontestably positive in attracting other state members to follow their footsteps. As Maljean-Dubois and Wemaera states in their journal, Carbon Climate Law Review, EU has always claimed a climate leadership role in the climate negotiations, leading by example with its ambitious climate policy (2016, p. 3). That said, summitry is not only impactful in terms of public diplomacy, but it is also a constructive method in improving diplomatic relations through positive movements by a bold leader such as the EU. Although to be fair, the United States were one of the first and the most powerful supporters of international climate change and environmental agreements. However, the limelight has shifted to the EU as the major leader in global environmental scene (Kelemen and Vogel, 2009). In light of this, summitry can also give a fair opportunity for leaders from thin nations to represent themselves on the highest league table and hence, making them more noticeable in the global diplomatic stadium. This was proven when the Small Island create states ( crib death) and the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) managed to turn the table at the COP 15 at Copenhagen in 2009 (de gueda Corneloup and Mol, 2013). Climate change is a threat for small island nations especially those of which nations which are prone to extreme weather conditions. As stated by de gueda Corneloup and Mol in International Environmental Agreements, The raise of ocean temperature threatens marine ecosystems, on which small island populations usually strongly depend (2013, p. 282). The SIDS were able to negotiate through the representative organisation, AOSIS and be heard by the rest of the other state members at COP 15. Being in a vulnerable business office themselves, this has helped them to initiate action plans through some(prenominal) leadership skills and remained as significant as other state members at the summit. Their perseverance has lead them to some fairly successful negotiations especially on the 1.5 C target as it was finally embedded in the Copenhagen Accord (de gueda Corneloup and Mol, 2013). However, summits on climate change are often being seen as highly sensitive area and often associated to the level of power that the state actors have. For instance, considering SIDS state members are seen to be on a weaker side as they have very little power on the international level, structural power of state actors is often regarded as a hap factor in any international negotiations (de gueda Corneloup and Mol, 2013). As disclosed by Ambassador Dessima Williams of Grenada at the COP 15 summitWe went in, AOSIS fought for everything we could come out with as you could see we didnt come out with much (Wasuka cited in de gueda Corneloup and Mol, 2013, p. 291).To put it briefly, no matter how much private road has been pumped into these summits by these weaker states, level of structural power of state actors is still one of the major determiner in negotiation process on any international summits.Summit yes or no?What can be concluded based on the arguments above is that, despite of its contestations on the effectiveness and its constructive role in diplomacy, summitry has become an indispensable means of convention both on regional and international level. As Dunn argues in Diplomacy at the highest levelSummitry has evolved well in the post-war period. From being an exceptional and therefore high-profile event, summitry has developed to become a frequent and routine instrument of international diplomacy (Dunn, 1996, p. 265).However, one cannot refuse that summitry has its substantive risks particularly on how the timing matters in initiating a summit especially involving states from all across the globe. The aim of a summit is not to only discuss on the subject of interests, but also to piddle a fair outcome by the end of the meetings. Or else, the effort of organising a summit will be in vain if zip fastener comes out of it. Hence, it is crucial to take into account timing as one of the important factors during the preparation period. Although to be fair, factors like economic recessions and political instability of other state members are something that is rather inevitable. In this respect, the power position of ones state has also been a major determinant in ensuring the success of reaching the summits objectives.On a lighter note, summitry has been proven to be an effective mechanism for some weaker states to be prominent in the global arena despite for its limited structural power. In addition to this, summitry also has a unique nature that it could be use as tool in promoting public diplomacy especi ally in a global case summit. This has been utilised as a best practice by state leaders and diplomats in pursuit of grabbing the attention of the public eye including the media. particularly in an era of free flow of information, state leaders and diplomats find summits to be quite amusing as public opinions matters in todays world of politics. Regardless of the outcome of the summit, these leaders do not walk out of the conference with empty handed. Some walk out of the summit with felicitate and several accomplishments, but in many instances, most of them walk out with just one thing, a free publicity to themselves. Which how I would like to put it as, free-riding at its best.