Snubbing summits can be good diplomacy
Global summitry has taken off in recent years. Just in the next few months a host of regional and international fora will vie for the attention of heads of state and ministers (and no doubt drive the folks actually preparing the meetings to near madness). The NATO summit hits Chicago soon, and soon thereafter the ...
Global summitry has taken off in recent years. Just in the next few months a host of regional and international fora will vie for the attention of heads of state and ministers (and no doubt drive the folks actually preparing the meetings to near madness). The NATO summit hits Chicago soon, and soon thereafter the G8 leaders meet at Camp David. In June, world leaders will descend on Rio for the the Rio+20 Earth Summit. The G20 meets around the same time in Mexico. August offers a bit of a respite, but the summitry picks up again in September with the APEC meeting in Vladivostok.
Global summitry has taken off in recent years. Just in the next few months a host of regional and international fora will vie for the attention of heads of state and ministers (and no doubt drive the folks actually preparing the meetings to near madness). The NATO summit hits Chicago soon, and soon thereafter the G8 leaders meet at Camp David. In June, world leaders will descend on Rio for the the Rio+20 Earth Summit. The G20 meets around the same time in Mexico. August offers a bit of a respite, but the summitry picks up again in September with the APEC meeting in Vladivostok.
The value of all this high-level gabbing is debatable. Since its good run during the 2008-2009 financial crisis, the G20 has had relatively little to show for itself. The upcoming NATO summit has been scripted in advance and likely won’t produce much new. The Rio+20 summit is giving off signs of being an expensive waste of time (and CO2 emissions!). So are these affairs worth the considerable diplomatic time and energy that goes into them? The simplest and easiest answer is that regularly placing important world leaders in close proximity is itself valuable, whether or not they deliver anything concrete. Summits allow leaders to get to know each other and facilitate all manner of potentially useful sideline meetings.
Events in the past few days have suggested another potential value: offering world leaders an easy and relatively cost-free way of expressing their displeasure with each other. Although Russian officials are of course denying it, there’s reason to believe that Vladimir Putin was expressing pique by not attending the G8 summit. And while American officials will probably insist there was no tit for tat, news that Obama wouldn’t attend the September APEC summit leaked out soon after. World leaders need ways of zinging each other, and if they didn’t have summit meetings to cancel they’d have to find something else–and that something else might well be more consequential.
David Bosco is a professor at Indiana University’s Hamilton Lugar School of Global and International Studies. He is the author of The Poseidon Project: The Struggle to Govern the World’s Oceans. Twitter: @multilateralist
More from Foreign Policy

Saudi-Iranian Détente Is a Wake-Up Call for America
The peace plan is a big deal—and it’s no accident that China brokered it.

The U.S.-Israel Relationship No Longer Makes Sense
If Israel and its supporters want the country to continue receiving U.S. largesse, they will need to come up with a new narrative.

Putin Is Trapped in the Sunk-Cost Fallacy of War
Moscow is grasping for meaning in a meaningless invasion.

How China’s Saudi-Iran Deal Can Serve U.S. Interests
And why there’s less to Beijing’s diplomatic breakthrough than meets the eye.