It is important to know what other countries around the world are doing and why. It is often said that the way to stop war is to understand each other’s positions on an issue, to understand the culture, the decision making process. The leader’s viewpoints play a big part in the strategy that a state employs and so need to be known just like any other component. Transparency is needed in decision making and all the major actors need to get to know each other so that they have a good idea how the other will react in certain situations that they may get in to. This kind of interaction is every bit as important as other factors that help keep the peace; trade, shared values, democracy, military force.

It may not be the most obvious reason to hold summits at great cost over several days often involving many parties but forming a bond with other leaders around the world is important. This is why visits to other countries are helpful and it equally applies to summits. The decision maker in the country needs to know who he is dealing with if he is to be able to make the right decisions. And the best way for him/her to get to know their opposite numbers is to meet them in person. There is an element of friendship involved. No matter the interests of the state a leader with his finger on the button is much more likely to think twice if they know and like their opposite number. They are more likely to be willing to work on diplomatic solutions to problems with someone they know they can get along with.

As the summit of power in their nation Heads of State and Government can made decisions on the spot without referring to others. This means they can arrive and break deadlocks in a way their diplomats cannot. Often countries diplomats are set red lines that they cannot cross, the only ones who can are the leaders who when working with the leader of the other involved country or countries can work out a way of all sides giving in on some things in order to get the results that all sides want.

This can be a nightmare as well as a boon, particularly for the more junior officials who are trying to make sure that their political masters are sticking to government policy and what is possible. Meetings in which there are just the heads of state/government can mean that officials find out afterwards that their leader has made some commitments that the state has to go back on. The decisions can be too made too fast without due consideration and may turn out to be bad decision making. This is particularly bad for any leader who is either not entirely confident in their brief or is not an expert in the subject when confronted by other leaders with a much better grasp of the subject who is then able to back them into a corner. At the same time unless decisions are minutely negotiated there are likely to be problems with interpretation, and if it was initially a verbal agreement between leaders there may even be no written record to dispute making it even more difficult for officials to put things straight.

The most ‘productive’ summits already have everything already decided so are they really needed? All the hard negotiation is done between teams of diplomats who meet to decide on the final statement even before the summit has started. They make sure that both sides get language that they want and will trot out whatever initiative is ready for the meeting touting it as something new and big and good for the world even when it is none of these things. It is simply needed to give the impression that the summit is productive. The most that will need to be discussed at the summit will be the final wording and any last minute concessions if there is a holdout to be satisfied. If an issue can be decided by lower level officials such as ambassadors who are already in each other’s capitals and so don’t need to travel then it should be.

There are so many summits and they seem to be little but talking shops. Nothing gets done at them except the leaders get together in a big conference, have some discussions, have a very nice lunch and/or dinner, issue a statement and go. This seems to be very unproductive compared to the amount of effort that goes in to the summit. Most summits only come out with a nonbinding statement and few concrete results that nearly always have to be ratified later anyway. The exception is when the summit is really a signing ceremony for something that has been agreed. While the results are modest the costs are large. First there is the obvious cost of the venue, staff, food etc with large policing bills added on top. Then there is the irritation of the citizens of the place the summit is at due to the city being shut down for all these leaders to rush to and fro going to and from the summit. Finally the biggest cost is time. Even if the face time between the leaders is well spent there are going to be many more hours of travelling time for each leader and delegation. Hours that could often be better spent either engaging with legislation or with the people rather than hob knobbing with other bigwigs.

The big question is whether summits are still needed? Businesses keep being told that technology can replace face to face meetings in many circumstances, is this not the same for government business. Why should leaders waste taxpayer’s money to travel half way around the world when the same thing could be done as well by videoconference or across the internet. This does not eliminate the need for summits entirely as big get togethers would still be held but it would mean that any smaller ones without a genuine productive purpose could be better done by other means.