Nature of Modern "Strong" Leaders and Summit Diplomacy
"Strong" leaders, like Trump and Modi, concentrate power and dominate policy.
They frequently use summit diplomacy, despite its potential for both positive and negative outcomes.
Summit diplomacy is often used for war and peace issues.
There is a danger of "pseudo" summit diplomacy, where the focus is on image rather than substance.
There is a higher rate of failure than success in summit diplomacy.
Examples and Perils of Summit Diplomacy
Historical examples include :
Congress of Vienna (1814-15), which sought to reshape the map of Europe after the Napoleonic Wars
Camp David Accords, signed in 1978, which led to a tentative peace between Egypt and Israel
The Reagan-Gorbachev interactions which helped to significantly reduce Cold War tensions
The Trump-Zelenskyy exchanges are presented as a negative example, highlighting the risks of public, confrontational summitry.
The European response to the Trump-Zelenskyy situation revealed disarray and a lack of clear strategy.
The west mistinterpreting the reality of Iraq under Saddam Hussein is an example of the perils of summit diplomacy.
The Modi-Trump Meeting and its Implications
The Modi-Trump meeting was portrayed as less confrontational than the Trump-Zelenskyy exchanges.
Despite tariff disagreements, the meeting was described as civil, with neither leader being a clear "winner."
The offer of F-35 fighter jets was a significant "bait" from the U.S.
The Joint Statement was described as "a masterpiece in obfuscation," focusing on potential collaboration and security concerns.
Modi had carefully prepared for the meeting.
The Future of Summit Diplomacy
Trump's approach to summit diplomacy differs from traditional models focused on conflict resolution and trust-building.
Many leaders engage in summit diplomacy without adequate preparation, leading to public relations exercises.
Summit diplomacy will likely remain crucial in international relations, especially in addressing complex global challenges.
COMMENTS