Who expects what from international summits?

Foreign policy is a field where international summits, multilateral contacts, and bilateral meetings are held very frequently. Presidents, prime ministers, and foreign ministers come together at bilateral and multilateral summits to address both bilateral relations and global issues. United Nations summits, NATO summits, European Union summits, G7 summits, G20 summits, BRICS summits, Shanghai Cooperation Organization summits, ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations) summits, African Union summits, RCEP (Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership) summits, Organization of Turkic States summits, Organization of Islamic Cooperation summits, and Arab League summits are just some of the summits that immediately come to mind. This list is, of course, much longer.

Furthermore, leaders also come together for various other reasons and exchange views, even if only for a short time. Olympics, world championships, and national matches are such events. Likewise, the swearing-in ceremonies and funerals of leaders also bring together the leaders of many countries.   

Meetings at summits are sometimes held one-on-one, with only interpreters present, and sometimes with delegations, as decided in advance. Their location, timing, participants, agenda, topics, and duration are determined as a result of months of detailed and comprehensive work by the relevant ministries and secretariats. When greetings, mutual courtesy questions, and translation time are taken into account at these summits, it is seen that the time spent discussing problems and proposed solutions is very limited. For example, in a 50-minute meeting, the time spent discussing the issues is roughly 25 minutes. In other words, the core issues are addressed in only half of the meeting time. Therefore, the expected results from these summits rarely materialize. It is rare to see them happen.

So, given this situation, what is the purpose of these summits, which are gathered at great expense and after hours of travel? It is this: They want to send a message to the public in their own countries, to the world public, and to the public of the country with which they are having problems. At summits followed by the world press, every leader tries to send a message to their country and the world about how their voice is valued in international relations, how their stance is curious, and how they are a leader whose every move is watched.

At these summits, leaders have the opportunity to directly meet and listen to their counterparts. This is undoubtedly important. It is valuable for leaders who argue or message each other through the media, convey their messages through foreign ministers and ambassadors, and receive information about each other from intelligence chiefs to meet and talk face-to-face. These contacts at international summits also pave the way for leader diplomacy, where leaders take direct, primary, and even sole initiative if problems impose it or the agenda forces it. There are many examples of this in history. Therefore, such side outcomes of international summits often yield more significant results than the summit itself.

Rather than the final communiqués announced at the end of international summits, it is the "family photos" taken together, and sometimes the polemics or gaffes that occur in front of the media army, that remain in memory for a while. Then they are forgotten. Therefore, it is not realistic to attach great meaning to these summits, to rely on them too much, or to expect lasting results; it contains exaggerated optimism. To give examples from just the last few years, the summits held neither to end the Ukraine-Russia war nor to stop Israel's massacres in Gaza and ensure a permanent ceasefire have yielded results.

In short, by its nature, it cannot be expected that the international relations environment, where chaos and instability prevail, will achieve peace, security, and stability through multilateral and high-participation summits. In this field, the voice of the powerful is loud. What is decisive is primarily power and the alliances formed to reach the goal. Alliances are not like a Catholic marriage. When needs change, alliances change, and every alliance gives birth to another alliance against it.