The "Regards croisés" section puts current affairs into perspective through in-depth interviews with personalities who have an up-to-date view of the political phenomena shaping the institutional environment of Belgium within its borders, with Europe, and with the rest of the world.
Honorary Ambassador Raoul Delcorde agreed to host Belgium Matters at his home in Brussels. Drawing on the expertise he has built up over his 35-year career at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Ambassador welcomed us in a relaxed and hospitable atmosphere for an in-depth discussion on summit diplomacy.
A former Ambassador of the Kingdom of Belgium to Sweden, Poland, and Canada; visiting professor at UCLouvain and the University of Montreal; Member of the Académie Royale de Belgique and the Académie des sciences d'outre-Mer, Ambassador Delcorde is the author of numerous articles and books on diplomacy and international relations, the latest of which, "Manuel de la négociation diplomatique internationale" (2023), is available from Éditions Larcier.
Our first question concerns summits. What is the definition of a summit? What role does it play in the foreign or multilateral policies of states? What factors contribute to its success? What conditions are required for a summit to be effective?
The essence of summit diplomacy dates back to the Congress of Vienna. In reality, it only really took shape during the 20th century. Churchill is credited with coining the term in reference to the Potsdam summit at the end of the Second World War. The basic idea is to bring people together. There are two ingredients for any summit: the presence of high-level political leaders, i.e., heads of State or government. Secondly, the summit is based entirely on interpersonal relations. Whether we are talking about summits such as Yalta, where the interpersonal relationship with Stalin was not obvious, or more recent summits, this alchemy is essential. Last year, at the G20 summit in Indonesia, Biden and Xi Jinping met for the first time, and the importance of that meeting remains. There is a real choreography to the summits, meticulous preparation, involving what are known as "sherpas", representatives of the heads of state and government working to prepare the G7 or the G20. There are even 'sous-sherpas', the deputies of the sherpas. What appears to be an impromptu fireside meeting is, in fact, very well managed. In fact, the summit's final communiqué is usually prepared before the summit even begins. So much for the basic foundation. I would like to add two theoretical elements. I'm not going to develop a complete theory, but Bertrand Badie, an eminent French political scientist, has theorized two important points. He says that summits create a diplomacy of connivance, which can be seen in the G7 in particular. However, this is not always a constant. For example, in the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), there was a deadlock between Saudi Arabia and Qatar. This situation almost excluded Qatar from the Council, and in this case, connivance was lacking. However, on the whole, collusion is positive because it allows difficulties to be resolved or obstacles to be overcome that ministers or diplomats would find difficult to tackle. That said, collusion also creates a club mentality. The G20, for example, brings together 20 states, whereas the international community is made up of 194 states. In other words, around 170 states are excluded. The European Union is represented in the G20, so it can be included in this logic, but it is a club nonetheless. The BRICS are also a club to which other states aspire. Finally, a last theoretical point concerns the concept of "minilateralism", which refers to multilateralism involving five, six, or ten countries but differs from what we generally understand by multilateralism at the UN.
You recently mentioned the distinction between extraordinary summits and ordinary summits. How do the performance conditions differ between these two types of summits?
Yes, following the Russian aggression in Ukraine in February 2022, NATO quickly organized an extraordinary summit. This kind of meeting is intended to mark the occasion. I myself had a similar experience as a diplomat in Brussels in September 2001, during the events at the Twin Towers, for example. At the time, Belgium held the presidency of the European Union, with Guy Verhofstadt as Prime Minister. In a gesture of immediate solidarity, an extraordinary summit of the European Union was convened. This signal was very well received by the United States, which understood that the Europeans were in complete solidarity with their cause. Recently, in February of this year, an extraordinary European summit was held in Brussels in reaction to the new, fairly protectionist American legislation known as the Inflation Reduction Act1. Once again, this summit is sending a message, but this time in a firmer way to the Americans. I won't comment further, but this demonstrates the importance of summits in sending out strong messages.
The purpose of extraordinary summits is to consolidate an intergovernmental community or federation. In this context, could we consider that the Congress of Vienna, set up following Napoleon's defeat, was an extraordinary or ordinary summit according to this theoretical reading?
You could say that it was extraordinary in that it was the first and there were no others. But it was a summit that lasted several months, so it was still a bit special. But it can be said that, in a way, it laid the foundations for the notion of a balance of power in the 19th century. So you could say he was a founder. The same could be said of the 1919 peace conference at the end of the First World War, which was the summit of the victors. Germany was not summoned, it had to accept the Treaty of Versailles without being able to join the peace conference. Yes, that's true, but I'm a little hesitant to equate this kind of diplomatic conference event with summits because, by definition, a summit is more restricted. A diplomatic conference for a peace treaty is a bit different.
Last year, a group of countries came together to form the European Political Community2 at the instigation of Emmanuel Macron, following the Russian invasion of Ukraine. The second meeting of this Community took place on 1 June in Chisinau, Moldova. What impact did this summit have on the mobilization capacity of this emerging political Community, whose contours are not yet clearly defined?
The European Political Community is intended to be non-institutional, to avoid excluding any European countries. All the countries of the European continent, with the exception of Russia, are invited, including Turkey. Although it is a summit at the level of heads of state and government, the decisions taken have no concrete impact. It would be risky to regard the EPC as a kind of antechamber to accession to the European Union. Moreover, the Balkan states that are not members of the European Union have legitimate aspirations to join. For example, at the Balkans summit in December 2022, Kosovo and Serbia were present, despite their past tensions. This shows that the European Union wants these countries to find a way to reconcile with a view to future membership, which sends out a strong signal. In this way, the European Political Community, which brought together more than 40 countries at this meeting, is more focused on this regional dynamic than on its role as an antechamber to the European Union. Holding the meeting of the European Political Community in Chisinau, Moldova, is an important and symbolic point. It raises the question of the importance of this community as a non-institutional entity. It is interesting to note that Belgium will be opening an embassy in Chisinau this summer, as well as in Yerevan. These actions testify to a significant presence in a region bordering Ukraine and potentially Russia. Some countries even maintain close links, such as Armenia and Russia, because of the war with Azerbaijan. This may also be part of the diplomatic agenda. There was the CPE summit in Chisinau, and President Macron's speech at the GLOBSEC3 2023 Forum in Bratislava, which called for the Balkans, Moldova, and Ukraine to be anchored in the European Union. This has a performative virtue in affirming their belonging and their importance. Yes, certainly, but in the medium term, isn't it? There is a debate within the European Union on how to orchestrate and plan enlargement. There can be no 'big bang' like the previous enlargement. Each state has its own problems, and this requires careful planning. Promises have been made to Ukraine, which is the largest country in the region. We must not anticipate, but in conclusion, this sends an encouraging signal to them. In a way, it means: "Your security is important to us too". If Russian aggression were to occur in Moldova, I imagine that the European Union and NATO would act quickly and jointly, just as they have supported Ukraine with the European Peace Facility4 and the training of demining units. It was within the framework of the EPF that the foreign ministers of the EU Member States proposed the creation of the Defense Fund for Ukraine. At €20 billion, or €5 billion a year for the next four years, this fund would aim to provide more sustainable and predictable funding for Ukraine's defense support.
What are the limits of diplomatic summits in the medium term? Their signals may not seem immediately rational, but they have wider repercussions over time. Diplomacy is a long-term business where absence can be noticed more than presence itself. This raises the question of whether these summits, such as the Paris climate conference and other thematic discussions, can really lead to concrete agreements.
There are a variety of summits, whether bilateral, regional, or multilateral, dealing with different political and thematic issues such as defense, security, or G7 or BRICS style meetings. However, I am rather skeptical about the catalytic effect of summits. Although they can help to resolve interpersonal problems or facilitate discussions between parties that don't normally talk to each other, such as the Kosovars and the Serbs, I don't think they are the key element in negotiations. For example, at COP215 in Paris, the discussions had already been largely prepared in advance. Summits are more about revitalizing existing negotiations or bringing them to a close. Once an agreement has been reached, it is not enough on its own to manage diplomatic issues. They are necessary, but not sufficient.
The main outcome of COP27 in Egypt was that the developed industrialized countries succeeded in keeping the countries of the South at the negotiating table. These countries are facing the consequences of historical emissions, mainly caused by the countries of the North, to put it simply. So these summits are seen as a way of revitalizing discussions and reinvigorating trade?
Indeed, the summits have a cathartic impact, particularly when the countries of the South, represented by the President of Senegal, express their concerns about climate policy and ask for help in achieving their objectives. As a young diplomat, I attended the summit of the OSCE, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, in Budapest in December 1994, bringing together leaders such as Mitterrand, Clinton, and others for the organization's first summit. The OSCE, which comprises all the countries of Europe, including Russia, as well as the countries of Central Asia, Canada, and the United States, remains an important platform for bringing together international players. These summits are not just about what is said, but about the presence of these important players, creating a solemn and theatrical atmosphere. Moments of crisis and novelty provide a sounding board for understanding the choices made by states at successive summits, where the emotional dimension plays a significant role. Summits are also evolving to include the Secretaries-General of international organizations and the President of the European Council. However, there can be exclusions, such as Russia's exclusion from the G7, which has important symbolic significance. Sometimes other players are invited to summits, such as President Macron, who asked South Africa, the country holding the BRICS presidency, to invite him to the summit scheduled for the end of August in Johannesburg. These international meetings offer unique opportunities for crucial interactions and essential diplomatic decisions.
Does the intensification of multipolarization and geopolitical fragmentation make it more difficult to organize summits, or do they need to be held more frequently?
At the international level, two major factors are shaping geopolitical and diplomatic dynamics: the emerging powers and the concept of multilateralism. Emerging powers, whether recognized or developing, exert a significant influence on international relations. They play a leading role in global decisions and negotiations, helping to redefine geopolitical balances.
On the other hand, multilateralism, which advocates an equal voice for each State, is at the heart of diplomatic forums and international summits. Summits play a crucial role in facilitating exchanges and interactions between the various players, highlighting the importance of concerted action and global cooperation. However, given the complexity of today's geopolitical challenges, global diplomacy is becoming increasingly fragmented. Coalitions are emerging, such as the Global South6, to defend their specific interests and influence international decision-making. At the same time, authoritarian or autocratic states are challenging the traditional structures of global governance, creating parallel governments that call into question the role of the UN and its decision-making mechanisms.
This development worries supporters of multilateralism and the rule of law, as it risks weakening international cohesion and cooperation. The dream of balanced global governance seems to be slipping away, giving way to a realpolitik marked by power games and balances of power.
What path will Europe take when there is talk of a possible shift from a system based on rules to one based on power, to paraphrase Sabine Weyand?
The European Union is renowned for its respect for the law and the rule of law, although it sometimes finds it difficult to assert this in certain trade and other disputes. Recently, the idea of a "geopolitical European Union" mooted by the President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, has introduced a new discourse. This means that the EU is no longer content to preach the rule of law, but is taking geopolitical realities into account. However, challenges remain. The European political union is not yet fully constituted, and European Councils are influenced by intergovernmental considerations. The President of the European Council may have limited influence, while some Member States have divergent positions in international discussions. Despite these challenges, the European Union remains a major global player, capable of defending its values and interests. Although sometimes criticized by some for its lack of unity, it has multilateral diplomacy and powerful economic tools at its disposal. A commitment to the rule of law remains essential if the EU is to retain its leading role on the world stage.
This interview was made possible by contributions from Emilia Verbeke and Gabriel Papeians de Morchoven.
The Inflation Reduction Act is a US legislative package that combines large-scale green subsidies and other measures. This package contains protectionist elements that could harm Europe's competitiveness by encouraging relocation.
The European Political Community is a political coordination platform designed to facilitate political dialogue and cooperation between the Member States of the European Union and the countries of the European continent in order to address common issues. It seeks to strengthen the security, stability, and prosperity of the European continent. However, it does not intend to replace existing organizations, structures, or processes, nor to create new ones at its current stage.
GLOBSEC is a multi-city think-tank dedicated to improving security, prosperity, and sustainability worldwide. Its mission is to foster a better understanding of global trends and their implications for society, the economy, and security.
The European Peace Facility (EPF) is an extra-budgetary instrument created by the EU. It plays a crucial role in supporting Ukraine by providing emergency artillery munitions and reinforcing security in the region. On 13 March, its financial ceiling was increased to €7.979 billion until 2027 to meet additional financial needs.
The Paris Agreement, adopted at COP 21 in 2015, is an international treaty aimed at keeping the global temperature increase below 2°C above pre-industrial levels, with an effort to limit the increase to 1.5°C.
The notion of the Global South conventionally refers to the various states of the South that refuse to align themselves with the Western powers.